Ontario Review Board
Re: James C. Harding
ORB File No: 7890
Hearing held on: Wednesday, March 5, 2025
Place of hearing: Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences 700 Gordon Street, Whitby
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Goldenberg
Members: Dr. W. Johnston Dr. S. Wiseman Ms. C. Murray Mr. S. Duffy
Parties Appearing:
Accused: James C. Harding Counsel: Ms. M. Perez
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Szabo
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. N. MacDonald
REASONS FOR DECISION
(Dated March 18, 2025)
[1]. Mr. Harding was found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder on charges of assault with a weapon(x2) and aggravated assault. This finding was made on May 7,2021
[2]. The Board understands that Mr. Harding has been living in the community in a residence known as Powell House. During the hearing we learned that Mr. Harding has been living at that residence for approximately four years.
[3]. By letter dated January 24, 2025, the Clinical Forensic Coordinator of Ontario Shores wrote to the Review Board and advised that Mr. Harding was admitted into hospital on January 16, 2025.
[4]. As a result of that letter the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing at Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences on Wednesday, March 5, 2025 and conducted a Restriction of Liberty hearing only. All parties agreed that the only issue before the Board is a Restriction of Liberty hearing.
Position of the Parties
[5]. At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as to their recommendations to the Board.
[6]. Ms. Szabo appeared Ontario Shores. She advised of the hospital position that the return to hospital was warranted and that Mr. Harding’s ongoing stay in hospital represents the least onerous and least restrictive decision available to the hospital.
[7]. Ms. MacDonald appeared for the Attorney General. She agreed with the hospital’s position.
[8]. Ms. Perez appeared for Mr. Harding. We note that Mr. Harding was present throughout this hearing. Ms. Perez takes no issue with the original decision to bring Mr. Harding into hospital. She expressed some concern whether or not his continued stay in hospital is in fact the least onerous and least restrictive decision.
[9]. In response to a question from a Board member, we were told that Mr. Harding remains as an inpatient in the hospital.
Evidence at Hearing:
[10]. The Board admitted into evidence the Restriction of Liberty letter and as well a Restriction of Liberty Report.
[11]. In addition to the documentary evidence, the Board heard from Dr. Pallandi. Dr. Pallandi has been Mr. Harding’s outpatient psychiatrist. Dr. Pallandi explained that Mr. Harding was experiencing considerable difficulties with his sleep. We note the following from the Hospital Report:
“Unfortunately, by mid-January 2025 his sleep disruption became abruptly worse despite efforts to manage it as an outpatient with a number of medication strategies.
He began to report frightening nightmares. He evidenced pressured speech, he complained of memory difficulties and his judgment became somewhat impaired.”
[12]. We note some real concern that Mr. Harding was experiencing “more intense paranoid beliefs about being harmed and needing to protect himself”.
[13]. Dr. Pallandi explained that all of the above symptoms led the doctor to conclude that his patient should be returned to hospital.
[14]. Dr. Pallandi explained that the patient has still not fully stabilized. The inpatient team has undertaken a lot of investigations. There was a geriatric consultation, pharmacological consultation and other efforts in an attempt to deal with Mr. Harding’s sleep difficulties and his increased symptoms.
[15]. Dr. Pallandi met with Mr. Harding and suggested that Mr. Harding come back to hospital. Mr. Harding readily agreed to do so.
[16]. At first, Mr. Harding was placed on a General Forensic Unit. It appears, however, there was a very difficult and noisy co-resident who was having a negative impact on Mr. Harding’s sleep. It was suggested that Mr. Harding consider moving to the Assessment Unit with the expectation that there would be fewer co-patients who would be able to negatively affect Mr. Harding’s ability to sleep.
[17]. Dr. Pallandi noted that Mr. Harding advised that for a lengthy period of time he did not want to go back to Powell House. Just recently, however, Mr. Harding indicated that he would be prepared to go back to Powell House but expected that the hospital would search for another potential residence.
[18]. Dr. Pallandi noted that Mr. Harding continued to experience difficulty sleeping and continued to experience nightmares even while in hospital. The doctor noted, however, that Mr. Harding has substantially improved and noted further that a meeting is scheduled for next week between the inpatient and outpatient services of the hospital with a possible, if not likely, decision to be made to return Mr. Harding back to the community.
[19]. In response to a question from Ms. Perez, Dr. Pallandi stated that his patient was “totally agreeable to come into hospital”. Ms. Perez suggested that on February 26 Mr. Harding told Dr. De Freitas that he was prepared to go back to Powell House and preferred that the hospital continue to search for an alternative residence.
[20]. At some point Ms. Perez suggested that Mr. Harding has only received Level 1 passes while in hospital. Level 1passes allowed Mr. Harding to go on the hospital. and hospital grounds accompanied by a staff member and a member of a security team. Dr. Pallandi simply had no information on the issue of passes and whether Level 1 was the only pass available to patients residing in the Assessment Unit..
[21]. No other evidence was called by the hospital. The Crown did not call evidence.
[22]. Ms. Perez called Mr. Harding as a witness. Mr. Harding stated that he wants to go back to Powell House as soon as possible but also wants the hospital to look for an alternative residence. Mr. Harding talked about a number of places that he visits while living at Powell House. Mr. Harding did not know why he was not receiving anything more than Level 1 passes.
[23]. In response to a question from a panel member, Mr. Harding advised that he has been living at Powell House for approximately four years.
Final Submissions:
[24]. Ms. Szabo submitted that the return to hospital was warranted and further submitted that Mr. Harding’s continued stay in hospital is the least onerous and least restrictive decision available to the hospital. She urged the Board to accept Dr. Pallandi’s evidence in this regard.
[25]. Ms. MacDonald concurred with the hospital’s recommendation.,
[26]. Ms. Perez accepts that the decision for Mr. Harding to return to hospital was warranted. Ms. Perez stated her opinion that it was actually a voluntary admission. Ms. Perez is concerned about the fact that her client has only received Level 1 passes and felt that was an issue that the Board should consider.
Findings of the Board:
[27]. The Board accepts that Mr. Harding’s return to hospital was warranted. The panel agree that Mr. Harding willingly accepted the doctor’s advice to come back to hospital. We also accept Dr. Pallandi’s evidence that Mr. Harding’s ongoing stay in hospital does represent the least onerous and least restrictive decision available to the hospital. We accept the doctor’s evidence that to this point in time it is the least onerous and least restrictive decision to continue as an inpatient. We are mindful of the doctor’s evidence that there is a meeting scheduled for next Tuesday that might well result in a return to the community.
[28]. We note Ms. Perez’s concern that her client has only enjoyed Level 1 passes. It is not clear to the panel whether people being detained in the Assessment Unit have the ability to receive anything other than Level 1 passes. We note that the hospital did not send a ROL letter based on the passes Mr. Harding was using. Based on the evidence at this hearing we are not able to conclude that there was a restriction of Mr. Harding’s liberties referable to passes.
[29]. Accordingly, we do find the return to hospital was warranted and we do find Mr. Harding’s ongoing stay in hospital does represent the least onerous and least restrictive decision available to the hospital.
DATED this 18th 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