Ontario Review Board
Re: Shamar Bailey
ORB File No: 8598
Hearing held on: Tuesday, January 28, 2025
Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health 1001 Queen St. West, Toronto
Pursuant to: Section 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Goldenberg Members: Dr. G.A. Chaimowitz Dr. K. Hand Ms. C. Finley Mr. S. Duffy
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Shamar Bailey Counsel: Ms. S. Feldman
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. L. Senko
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. M. Feindel
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated March 20, 2025)
On April 15, 2024, Mr. Shamar Bailey was found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder on two counts of attempt to commit murder. The trial judge signed an order on April 15, 2024, remanding Mr. Bailey to the Ontario Review Board and directing the Ontario Review Board to conduct the initial Disposition hearing. Subsequently, the Ontario Review Board conducted two Pre-Hearing Conferences and also directed that Mr. Bailey attend at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (“CAMH”) for the purposes of a psychiatrist at CAMH to provide a risk assessment.
On Tuesday, January 28, 2025, the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing at CAMH and conducted the initial Disposition hearing for Mr. Bailey. We note that Mr. Bailey’s sister, Channelle Bailey was present at the hearing.
Position of the Parties
At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as to their recommendations to the Board.
Ms. Senko appeared for CAMH. She advised of the hospital position that Mr. Bailey remains a significant threat to public safety and if the Board so finds, the necessary and appropriate Disposition is for Mr. Bailey to be discharged, subject to a number of conditions.
The Hospital Report lists 11 conditions being recommended as part of the Conditional Discharge. Ms. Senko advised that the hospital was no longer recommending proposed condition 3, namely, notifying the ORB and CAMH of any change of address or telephone number. The first proposed condition is one that would require Mr. Bailey continue to reside at his current residence.
In response to a question from the Alternate Chair, Ms. Senko advised that Mr. Bailey continues to live at 5 Slessor Lane in Brampton, Ontario.
Mr. Feindel appeared for the Attorney General. He supported a finding that Mr. Bailey remains a significant threat to public safety and he supported the Board directing that Mr. Bailey be discharged subject to a number of conditions. Mr. Feindel agreed to the removal of proposed condition 3. Mr. Feindel suggested that proposed condition 9 be altered so as to read “not to attend within 500 meters of the residence, place of work or place of worship of Bovell and Maxine Williams.
Ms. Feldman appeared for Mr. Bailey. She accepts that at the present time her client remains a significant threat to public safety and accepts that a Conditional Discharge is necessary and appropriate. Ms. Feldman supports the removal of condition 3. Ms. Feldman objects to proposed condition 6, namely a requirement to provide samples. Ms. Feldman noted proposed condition 10, the consent to treatment clause. Ms. Feldman advised that her client would consent to take treatment, however, in Ms. Feldman’s view, a treatment clause is neither necessary nor appropriate.
Index Offence
- “On Saturday, March 13, 2021, at 7:00 pm, the accused, Shamar Bailey, attended the victims’ residence located at 15 Dale Meadows Road, in the City of Brampton.
The victim, Bovell Williams works with the accused and has been mentoring him. The accused came over due to some ongoing personal issues and wished to confide in him. During the course of the evening the victim, his common-law wife, Maxine Woolery, and the accused were playing a board game. Unprovoked the accused became upset and slapped Bovell in the face, he was yelling “I am going to kill everybody.” The accused grabbed a meat cleaver from the kitchen and advanced toward Maxine, with the weapon raised, however, was struck by Bovell with a chair.
The accused attacked Bovell with the meat cleaver causing injury to the left side of Bovell’s forehead. The accused lost grip on the meat cleaver and grabbed a rum bottle. He struck Maxine in the back of her head with the bottle and struck Bovell multiple times in the head with the bottle. The parties fought and moved to the door of the basement, where Bovell pushed the accused down the steps and locked the door. Both victims ran from the residence and alerted a neighbour to contact police.
At 11:42 pm the accused was located by police, crossing the intersection of Sandalwood Parkway and Veterans Drive, in the City of Brampton. At this time, the accused was arrested for Assault With a Weapon, contrary to Section 267 of the Criminal Code and Aggravated Assault, contrary to Section 268 of the Criminal Code. The accused was read his rights to counsel and caution all of which he indicated he understood.
The accused was transported to 21 Division. On Sunday, March 14, 2021, at 1:27 am, the accused provided a video statement and was advised he was being charged with two counts of Attempt Murder, contrary to Section 239(1) of the Criminal Code. He was re-read his rights to counsel and caution all of which he indicated he understood. The accused will be held at 21 Division pending a bail hearing.
Bovell received medical attention for a laceration to the front left of his forehead and soreness to his right shoulder.
Maxine received medical attention for soft tissue to the back of her head, and an injury to her right knee.
CFRO & FIP checks were conducted.”
Evidence at Hearing
The Board admitted into evidence a number of documents, most of which had been filed in the court proceedings. The court documents included a lengthy report of Dr. Bloom which supported a finding that Mr. Bailey is not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder with respect to the charges before the court.
As well, the Board admitted into evidence the risk assessment report of Dr. Choptiany.
In addition to those documents, the Board heard from Dr. Choptiany who advised that he and a CAMH social worker interviewed Mr. Bailey. Dr. Choptiany did put his mind to the necessary and appropriate Disposition and in particular whether a Detention Order would be required in this case. Ultimately, Dr. Choptiany was satisfied that Mr. Bailey’s threat to public safety could be safely managed with a Conditional Discharge.
Dr. Choptiany noted that Mr. Bailey has been living at the family home with his father, stepmother and a number of his siblings. They are a protective factor and in fact, arranged for Mr. Bailey to attend in hospital in February and part of March 2023 when he was having some difficulties.
The doctor also noted that Mr. Bailey’s symptoms currently are in remissions. The doctor also noted that there has been no aggressive conduct once Mr. Bailey was stabilized. The doctor also put his mind to the issue of significant threat or not. The doctor is satisfied that at the present time Mr. Baily remains a significant threat to public safety. The doctor noted the severity of the index offence and concluded that any consideration of an Absolute Discharge at this time would be premature.
The doctor was asked why the hospital had included a consent to treatment clause and Dr. Choptiany simply stated it would be a risk mitigating factor.
In response to questions from Mr. Feindel, Dr. Choptiany noted that substances played no role in the index offence.
Dr. Choptiany agreed that Mr. Bailey has been seeing a community psychiatrist. The Hospital Report indicated he was seeing Dr. Mohammed. Ms. Feldman was kind enough to clarify that in fact that the doctors correct name is Dr. Hussein.
Dr. Choptiany acknowledged that Mr. Bailey is being treated with long-acting medication getting an injection once every three months.
There has been an outstanding issue that to date Mr. Bailey’s family has been paying for the medication. This matter became clarified subsequently at this hearing.
Dr. Choptiany repeated that Mr. Bailey’s family has a good understanding of his needs.
Ms. Feldman asked the doctor whether an Absolute Discharge had been considered. Dr. Choptiany repeated that it would be premature to explore this issue at this time. The doctor is satisfied that Mr. Bailey meets the threshold for significant threat. Mr. Bailey suffered from a major mental illness and there was a rapid onset of his symptoms. It was an extremely serious index offence, likely resulting in an episode of mania.
The doctor, again in response to a question from Ms. Feldman, stated his understanding that there is no conflict between Mr. Bailey and his stepmother. The doctor repeated that the family members are all protective factors. The doctor acknowledged the possibility of the Forensic Outpatient Team being able to work collaboratively with Dr. Hussein.
In response to questions from a panel member, Dr. Choptiany agreed that even if the Disposition did not include a submit samples clause, it would be open to a member of the outpatient team to request samples which of course Mr. Bailey could refuse. That, however could raise the possibility of the clinical team drawing a negative inference and perhaps moving to amend the Disposition to include this obligation.
In response to questions from another panel member, Ms. Feldman advised that she was only retained in this matter in October of 2024. She could not assist the Board as to the delay between the date of the index offence and the date of the court hearing finding Mr. Bailey to be not criminally responsible.
Ms. Feldman also clarified that the expenses for Mr. Bailey’s injectable medication are being covered but the family is responsible and has been paying for all of Mr. Bailey’s oral medications.
Findings of the Board
The Board accepts the evidence of Dr. Choptiany and the evidence in the risk assessment report. We accept that at the present time Mr. Bailey remains a significant threat to public safety. We further accept that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is for Mr. Bailey to be discharged subject to a number of conditions. As noted previously, the hospital was originally asking for 11 conditions. Our Disposition shall include a residential requirement and in particular that Mr. Bailey continue to live at 5 Slessor Lane in Brampton, Ontario
We agree that there is no need for the change of address clause set out at #3 in the risk assessment.
The panel considered at length the issue of a requirement that Mr. Bailey provide urine samples. We accept the submission that it is neither necessary nor appropriate for our Disposition to include such a sample.
We will modify the refrain condition (#8). We do not think it necessary that it should be 500 meters as submitted by Mr. Feindel. Our Disposition shall provide that Mr. Bailey not attend within 250 meters of the place where Bovell and Maxine Williams live, work, or worship.
The Board also considered at length whether our Disposition include a consent to treatment clause. Once again, we accept Ms. Feldman's submissions that this clause is neither necessary nor appropriate. Mr. Bailey did take medication following his arrest. He did so on his own and without any requirements of the court. There was a period where he accepted his then psychiatrist’s advice to go off medication for a period of time. We are satisfied that Mr. Bailey has and will continue to take medication as recommended by his psychiatrist. We take comfort that Mr. Bailey will be followed not only by his community psychiatrist, but also by the Forensic Outpatient Team of CAMH.
In reaching our Disposition, the Board has taken into consideration public safety, Mr. Bailey’s mental condition and his other needs, and Mr. Bailey’s reintegration into society.
DATED this 20th day of March, 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. J. Goldenberg Alternate Chairperson
__________________ Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board