Tyler Bedard (Re), 2025 CanLII 26073

Ontario Review Board

Re: Tyler Bedard

ORB File No: 5503

Hearing held on: Wednesday, February 12, 2025

Place of hearing: Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences 700 Gordon Street, Whitby

Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code

Before: Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Weinstein Members: Dr. P.L. Darby Dr. T. Stirpe Mr. M. Segal Mr. J. Cyr

Parties Appearing: Accused: Tyler Bedard Counsel: Mr. S.F. Gehl The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Mr. K. Dow Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. N. MacDonald

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated March 27, 2025)

Introduction:

1On December 1, 2009, Mr. Tyler Bedard was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, on charges of assault (x2), attempt to choke or strangle to aid in commission of an offence (x2), assault causing bodily harm, uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm, and disobeying court order, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”).

2Mr. Bedard is subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”), dated December 19, 2023, which orders that he be detained at the Forensic Program of the Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (“Ontario Shores”).

3On February 12, 2025, the Board convened a hearing at Ontario Shores to conduct the annual review of the current Disposition.

4Mr. Bedard was present and was represented by his counsel, Mr. S. Gehl.

5A Hospital Report, dated December 13, 2024 (the "Hospital Report"), was entered as Exhibit 1.

6The issue at this hearing is whether Mr. Bedard is a significant threat to public safety, as defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code. If so, the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances must be determined, bearing in mind the factors enunciated in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

7For the reasons set out below and based on the expert evidence and opinions before it, the Board concluded that Mr. Bedard continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board ordered that the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances is the continuation of the existing Detention Order, with one additional privilege: travel passes for up to 14 days, within the Province of Ontario, indirectly supervised, upon first obtaining the approval of his itinerary by the person in charge.

Current Psychiatric Diagnoses:

[8] Bipolar 1 Disorder Antisocial Personality Disorder

Index Offences:

9The circumstances giving rise to the Index Offences are extracted from last year’s Board Reasons, as follows:

“Mr. Bedard had been involved in a 10-month long relationship with the victim of the index offences.

On September 8, 2009, Wendy Gordon (the victim) and Mr. Bedard were in her apartment when they engaged in a heated discussion about her children possibly residing with her. Wendy stated Mr. Bedard was getting angry over the conversation when she excused herself to use the bathroom. Wendy stated she was seated on the toilet when Mr. Bedard charged into the washroom placed both of his hands around her neck and began choking her. She reported being unable to breathe as Mr. Bedard lifted her by the neck off the toilet. Mr. Bedard released his grip on Wendy causing her to drop down on to the toilet where she started coughing and gasping for air. Mr. Bedard reportedly pushed her head down toward her feet causing her to fall and strike the left side of her face off the edge of the bathtub after he had hunched over trying to catch her breath. Wendy stated she was lying on her back on the bathroom floor when Mr. Bedard stood on her stomach and began jumping up and down. When Mr. Bedard stopped he laid down on top of Wendy hugging her and asking her to do the same in return to him.

Wendy advised she laid on the floor underneath Mr. Bedard in order for him to calm down. Once Mr. Bedard had calmed down, she stated that she was going down to the laundry room to do laundry. Wendy left the apartment and immediately went down to the Violence Against Women’s office and spoke to a staff member who provided her with a phone to contact police. Mr. Bedard was subsequently placed under arrest.

On September 13, 2009, Wendy reported that she received a telephone collect call. The caller simply said, “Wendy, please, we just need to talk.” She recognized the caller’s voice to be that of Mr. Bedard. At the time Mr. Bedard was remanded into the custody of the Elgin Middlesex Detention Centre and an order was in place for Mr. Bedard to abstain from communicating with the victim.

Mr. Bedard met the victim of the index offences while they were inpatients at the Regional Mental Health Centre, St. Thomas. He described the relationship as good, until the commission of the offences, but she describes other episodes of violent behaviour prior to those offences.”

Background Information:

10Mr. Bedard’s background, psychiatric history and criminal convictions are outlined in detail in the Hospital Report, and they are accurately summarized in last year’s Reasons:

“He was seen by psychiatrists at a very young age as a result of issues with his behaviour. His mother reported that the school board utilized a psychologist to assist him. He eventually was placed at the Huron Boys Home from the ages of 12 to 17 where he completed grade 10. After he was discharged from the home, he attended high school for a brief period before being expelled for setting a fire on the front step of the Vice Principal’s home. He did not return to school.

Mr. Bedard has a long history of problematic substance use, beginning in his early teens. Mr. Bedard’s mother reported that Mr. Bedard was using marijuana at 13 years of age and he would steal his prescribed Ritalin and sell it to purchase street drugs. His drug use included amphetamines, crystal methamphetamines (including intravenously), LSD and cannabis.

Mr. Bedard has a criminal record that commenced as a youth in 2003 and extends to convictions in March 2019, while under the jurisdiction of the Board. His convictions include assault, uttering threats, and failing to comply with a court order.

Following the NCR verdict, Mr. Bedard was admitted to St. Joseph’s Health Care, Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care in October 2009. During the eight years that he was at that facility, he experienced relapses into either substance use or behavioural problems. Mr. Bedard tested positive for various illicit substances (alcohol, opiates, cannabis, amphetamine), particularly while utilizing indirectly supervised privileges. He was convicted of offences involving violence and aggression on three occasions while at that facility. Mr. Bedard remained there until he was transferred to St. Joseph’s Hamilton Health Sciences in April 2018, in part due to a perceived therapeutic impasse.

Mr. Bedard struggled while at St. Joseph’s Hamilton. He frequently would become argumentative with staff when his needs were not immediately met or to his satisfaction. He would become threatening and aggressive and, on occasion, cause damage to property. In the latter half of 2018, there were a number of Code Whites in response to Mr. Bedard’s violent behaviour. He was admitted to the High Secure Provincial Forensic Program at Waypoint (Waypoint) under the auspices of an Assessment Order pertaining to the issue of criminal responsibility for charges arising out of significant damage caused on December 13, 2018. Once those charges were resolved, Mr. Bedard was readmitted to Waypoint under the auspices of a disposition of the Board.

In November 2019, staff on the treatment team attempted to speak with Mr. Bedard regarding calming techniques and ways to manage his behaviour, in particular his anger and frustration. In response, Mr. Bedard began speaking about the index offences, stating “I beat the shit out of my girlfriend but she deserved it.” He became increasingly agitated. Over the ensuing months, Mr. Bedard engaged in dysregulated and aggressive behaviour including damage to hospital property, verbal and physical aggression, and threats toward staff and co- patients. He also required an extended period of seclusion.

In June 2020, Mr. Bedard agreed to a change in medication to olanzapine and then to a gradual increase in dosage. Notably, an improvement in his mental state was observed. There was no evidence of irritability or aggression. He was polite, adherent to the rules, and participated in various activities on the ward. Mr. Bedard participated in substance use counseling, although he minimized the impact of substance use and did not believe that substance use would have any impact on his risk of violence.

Mr. Bedard was transferred from Waypoint to a secure forensic unit at Ontario Shores on September 15, 2022. He actively participated in recreation programs and worked well with his treatment team. He was able to recognize his period of stabilization while at Waypoint and attributed it to his medication. However, he expressed a lack of insight into the severity of his index offences and the victim’s experience. Periodically, he requested PRN to manage feelings of restlessness and frustration and reported that these were effective.”

Course Since Last Disposition:

11Mr. Bedard’s course since his last Disposition is set out in detail in the Hospital Report. The following extracted paragraphs are relevant to this hearing:

“Mr. Bedard began the reporting year on the Forensic Psychiatric Rehabilitation Unit (FPRU).

Mr. Bedard was discharged from the Forensic Psychiatric Reintegration Unit (FCRU) in mid-spring 2024. Mr. Bedard was discharged to Westwood Manor HSC, a group home located in Holland Landing, Ontario.

Upon discharge, Mr. Bedard was initially being seen 3 days per week, in person, at his residence. These visits were reduced to twice per week, in person, several months after being discharged. Mr. Bedard has always been co-operative in meeting with his Forensic Outpatients Service (FOS) clinicians.

Mr. Bedard has settled in well to his new home often stating he enjoys the home and “likes being out of the hospital.”

Mr. Bedard has remained fully compliant with his medication. The administration of medication continues to be supervised by staff at Westwood Manor. He has been fully compliant, without incident. Mr. Bedard has consistently maintained that he will remain fully and permanently compliant with his prescribed medication; often stating the need for medications to keep him well.

Mr. Bedard has been fully compliant with random drug screening, collected once per week. He has not relapsed into substance use, and all of his urine screens have been negative. Mr. Bedard has been fully aware of the prohibition on substance use, however, he has expressed a desire to have the cannabis prohibition removed from his Disposition for the next reporting period. Mr. Bedard has feels this would help with his overall mental health and “quality of life.”

On February 21, 2024, Mr. Bedard was reported to have touched the arm/leg of a female staff stating “I’ll touch if I want to”. Mr. Bedard also seen giving a long hug to a female co-patient, however the co-patient seemed receptive. When behavioral expectations were reviewed with Mr. Bedard, he minimized the interaction as “nudges” and denied ever saying his comment about “I’ll touch if I want to.”

On March 31, 2024, Mr. Bedard made a veiled threat during snack time. He was running low on his coffee and stated to staff “I’ve had code whites over much less” with a smirk and threatening tone. He denied this, saying that he was “misquoted.”

Mr. Bedard had several urines come back positive for amphetamines, however these were all determined to be false positives by the hospital.

There have been no notable incidents since Mr. Bedard’s discharge to the community.

Mr. Bedard has not participated in any formal or informal programming during this reporting period. [our emphasis added]

Position of the Parties:

12At the outset of the hearing, counsels for the hospital, the Attorney General and Mr. Bedard, advised that this was a joint submission; all were adopting the hospital recommendation of a Conditional Discharge, with the terms set out on pages 29 and 30 of the Hospital Report. All parties were also recommending that there be no restriction on Mr. Bedard’s right to travel.

13At the conclusion of the hearing, counsel for the Attorney General advised, after hearing the evidence, that she no longer supported a Conditional Discharge. Rather, she was in favour of continuing the existing Detention Order, with the additional privilege of travel passes of up to 14 days, indirectly supervised, with an itinerary approved by the person in charge.

14Counsel for Mr. Bedard maintained his original position, that he was joining the hospital in their recommendation. However, in the event that this Board finds that a Detention Order is the appropriate Disposition, he would recommend the addition of travel passes, for up to 14 days, indirectly supervised, to visit Mr. Bedard’s mother.

15For the purposes of this hearing, counsel for Mr. Bedard advised that significant threat was not in dispute.

Evidence at the Hearing:

16The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence from Dr. Pallandi. Dr. Pallandi co-authored the Hospital Report and testified as follows:

a) He has been Mr. Bedard’s attending psychiatrist with the Forensic Outpatient Service (“FOS”) since May of 2024, when Mr. Bedard was discharged to live at his current residence.

b) He has read the Hospital Report and adopts its contents.

c) Since Mr. Bedard’s discharge into the community, he has had no behavioural issues or positive urine drug screens, and he has been mentally stable.

d) When Mr. Bedard first came under his care, he had some concerns about how Mr. Bedard would do, living in the community, based on his history and the actuarial assessment of risk. Mr. Bedard has exceeded his expectations. He has been compliant with his treatment, has readily provided urine drug samples, and has been quite willing to meet with the FOS, upon request.

e) Mr. Bedard’s psychiatric symptoms have been well managed on his current medication regimen.

f) Mr. Bedard agrees that his medication regimen is working for him, and he believes that Mr. Bedard’s medication compliance is internally motivated.

g) Mr. Bedard is currently residing in an all-male supervised group home. The treatment team is very familiar with the home and has a good working relationship with its staff. The treatment team has confidence in the home’s ability to provide appropriate oversight, and they are confident that staff would communicate any concerns they have about Mr. Bedard to them.

h) He is mindful of Mr. Bedard’s high actuarial scores on his PCL-R. He recognized that these scores indicate a high likelihood that Mr. Bedard would deal with his problems in a criminal manner. It would be speculative on his part to say whether Mr. Bedard would come to the FOS if he had any concerns with his mental stability. Since Mr. Bedard’s discharge to the community, he has been very cooperative with the treatment team and shares his thoughts about his mental stability. Given Mr. Bedard’s openness over these last nine months, he is more optimistic that Mr. Bedard would advise the treatment team of any issues with his mental state.

i) His attention was drawn to the following paragraph on page 27 of the Hospital Report:

“Since residing in the community, Mr. Bedard has been adherent with medication, remained abstinent from substance use, and has consistently engaged with professional services mandated by the ORB (e.g., psychiatrist, FOS clinician). That said, given Mr. Bedard’s limited insight into his risk for violence in conjunction with his personality features and historical challenges with treatment compliance, in the absence of ongoing supervision, it is unclear if he would be forthcoming regarding substance consumption and/or changes in his mental status, or voluntarily attend hospital should readmission be deemed prudent.”

He agreed that whether a patient returns voluntarily for readmission is always a matter of speculation. Mr. Bedard’s behaviour in the last nine months makes him more optimistic that Mr. Bedard would return to hospital voluntarily.

j) He also believes that Mr. Bedard is motivated to stay out of hospital, which is another reason he believes Mr. Bedard would be more open with the FOS.

k) Mr. Bedard has been doing well in terms of staying away from substances.

l) Mr. Bedard’s statistical risk profile is very high. If he not seen Mr. Bedard’s success in the community over the last nine months, he would have considered him an inappropriate candidate for a Conditional Discharge. He is less focussed on Mr. Bedard’s static risk factors than on the dynamic ones, particularly how Mr. Bedard has managed his transition into the community.

m) Mr. Bedard is living in a group home with patients who are much less mentally stable than him and who are highly unpredictable and challenging in their conduct. Despite this situation, Mr. Bedard has had no issue with his co-tenants.

n) Mr. Bedard has good insight and understands that substances can be a contributing factor to his overall risk profile. He is highly motivated not to have any readmissions into the hospital.

o) The FOS has no idea if Mr. Bedard is involved in any romantic relationships.

p) Mr. Bedard is diagnosed with a major mental illness, and if his behaviour were to become more aggressive or self-destructive, he believes Mr. Bedard would be certifiable under the Mental Health Act (“MHA”).

q) Only last week did Mr. Bedard inform him that he is willing to engage in programs and therapy.

17In response to questions from counsel for the Attorney General, Dr. Pallandi testified:

a) There have been many discussions with Mr. Bedard about the Index Offences. Mr. Bedard generally takes the position that it was just an interactive occurrence between him and the victim, and he sees both of them as being responsible for what happened. Mr. Bedard has not linked the symptoms of his major mental illness to his conduct at the time of the Index Offences.

b) His attention was drawn to the following sentences from page 27 of the Hospital Report:

“Consistent with this, another likely re-offence scenario would involve Mr. Bedard feeling frustrated in the context of residing with a romantic partner. During this circumstance, Mr. Bedard would present as extremely agitated and aggression may take the form of verbal threats to harm and could escalate to physical aggression, potentially with a high likelihood for lethality (e.g., strangulation).”

He reiterated that his response would be a matter of speculation about what would happen, and he is relying on the fact that Mr. Bedard has engaged in programming to address these issues, over the years. He takes comfort in the fact that Mr. Bedard has recently indicated a willingness to attend 1:1 therapy, which would help him develop appropriate coping mechanisms and learn how to engage in relationships appropriately.

c) He could not speculate whether Mr. Bedard’s mother would contact the treatment team, should she notice his mental state decompensating. He agreed that Mr. Bedard’s mother lives quite a distance from the hospital; should the FOS team need to monitor him, it would most likely be remotely.

18In response to questions from counsel for Mr. Bedard, Dr. Pallandi testified:

a) He agreed a Conditional Discharge would be the next logical step for Mr. Bedard.

19In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Pallandi testified:

a) Even if there were a term in a Conditional Discharge Disposition requiring Mr. Bedard to return to hospital for assessment, this term would not allow the hospital to detain Mr. Bedard under the MHA, unless he met the criteria under the MHA to be detained.

b) His attention was then brought to the following sentences from the Hospital Report, at page 27:

“Since residing in the community, Mr. Bedard has been adherent with medication, remained abstinent from substance use, and has consistently engaged with professional services mandated by the ORB (e.g., psychiatrist, FOS clinician). That said, given Mr. Bedard’s limited insight into his risk for violence in conjunction with his personality features and historical challenges with treatment compliance, in the absence of ongoing supervision, it is unclear if he would be forthcoming regarding substance consumption and/or changes in his mental status, or voluntarily attend hospital should readmission be deemed prudent. Additionally, while Mr. Bedard has previously participated in some mental health and addictions programming, he has adamantly maintained that non-pharmacological coping skills do not benefit him. In line with this, he has reported experiencing ongoing anxiety and tension that cause significant distress and he has demonstrated an avoidance coping approach for daily stressors and responsibilities.”

The doctor was asked if he was concerned that Mr. Bedard is only recently willing to do 1:1 therapy, when he had consistently refused to do so previously.

He replied that Mr. Bedard had engaged in various therapies in the past, including concurrent disorders treatment.

He believes that Mr. Bedard is now willing to engage in therapies because he reviewed the Hospital Report, and he now understands the importance of ongoing therapy for his progress in the forensic system.

c) His attention was then brought to the following sentences, also on page 27 of the Hospital Report:

“In light of these considerations, there is no tangible evidence to confirm whether Mr. Bedard has developed effective problem-solving skills or coping strategies to manage daily stress (e.g., financial, interpersonal) or conflicts within romantic relationships.”

He clarified that if one leaves out the words “romantic relationship,” and instead focuses on interpersonal relationships, Mr. Bedard’s ability to cope with the stressors of the diverse, and difficult, personalities at his current residence indicates that he does have these coping skills.

d) He feels that, if necessary, the FOS could control Mr. Bedard’s ability to travel for an extended length of time, to his mother or elsewhere, with a requirement to report on a daily basis.

e) If the treatment team felt that Mr. Bedard’s risk to public safety was elevated under a Conditional Discharge, they would come back to the Board to request an early hearing.

f) It is fair to say that, if Mr. Bedard were visiting his parents, who are three to four hours away from Ontario Shores, it is unlikely that police services in that district would transfer Mr. Bedard to Ontario Shores. However, such transfers have happened in other cases.

g) Mr. Bedard has better opportunities to do the appropriate therapy while in a more structured environment, such as at the hospital, versus being in the community. However, Mr. Bedard would likely attend at the hospital to participate in appropriate programming. He agreed they could not require Mr. Bedard to attend programming under a Conditional Discharge, nor would it be a good idea to force any patient to engage in therapy.

h) Mr. Bedard is no longer taking any PRN medication.

i) Even though Mr. Bedard has been abstinent from substances for six years, it is not appropriate at this time to remove the condition that Mr. Bedard must abstain from using substances from his Disposition.

j) Mr. Bedard has not taken any recent relapse prevention programs, but he has done substance abuse treatment at St. Joseph’s Health Care: Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care - St. Thomas and at other hospitals.

k) Mr. Bedard has not engaged in any DBT.

l) His attention was then brought to the following paragraph, on page 28 of the Hospital Report:

“To further aid Mr. Bedard over the course of the coming year and to prepare him for future discharge from the ORB, he would benefit from individual psychotherapy to address gaps in insight and aspects of his presentation (e.g., use of instrumental violence, violence condoning attitudes, avoidance coping, frustration tolerance) that contribute to violence risk. In particular, skills drawn from dialectical behaviour therapy (e.g., distress tolerance, emotion regulation, interpersonal effectiveness) and cognitive-behaviour therapy (e.g., challenging underlying thoughts driving unhelpful behaviours) may help with identifying precursors to aggressive and impulsive behaviour and implementing alternative responses.”

He observed that Mr. Bedard has done elements of all the above, over the course of time he has been under the authority of the Board.

m) Mr. Bedard has done work with a therapist before he was discharged to the community, and they have a good relationship.

20No other evidence was called.

Analysis and Conclusions:

21Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence, as well as submissions from the parties, the Board agrees with the joint submission: Mr. Bedard remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.

22In Winko, the Supreme Court outlined that, in coming to the conclusion on the issue of significant risk, a Review Board should closely examine a range of evidence, including: the circumstances of the original offence; the past and expected course of the accused’s treatment; the present state of the NCR accused’s medical condition; the NCR accused’s own plans for the future; the support existing for the NCR accused in the community; and most importantly, the recommendations provided by experts who examined the NCR accused. In coming to our conclusion in this matter, the Board relies on the uncontroverted expert evidence of Dr. Pallandi, in addition to the documentary evidence before us.

23Of greatest relevance to violence risk for Mr. Bedard is his significant history of past violence, interpersonal conflict, substance use, personality features, violence-condoning attitudes, and difficulty adhering to treatment and supervision. While Mr. Bedard’s official criminal record began at age 17, file information documents behavioural changes from an earlier age.

24In particular, the Board relies on the following paragraphs, extracted from the Hospital Report:

“Since residing in the community, Mr. Bedard has been adherent with medication, remained abstinent from substance use, and has consistently engaged with professional services mandated by the ORB (e.g., psychiatrist, FOS clinician). That said, given Mr. Bedard’s limited insight into his risk for violence in conjunction with his personality features and historical challenges with treatment compliance, in the absence of ongoing supervision, it is unclear if he would be forthcoming regarding substance consumption and/or changes in his mental status, or voluntarily attend hospital should readmission be deemed prudent. Additionally, while Mr. Bedard has previously participated in some mental health and addictions programming, he has adamantly maintained that non-pharmacological coping skills do not benefit him. In line with this, he has reported experiencing ongoing anxiety and tension that cause significant distress and he has demonstrated an avoidance coping approach for daily stressors and responsibilities. While he reports to have romantic feelings towards a peer with whom he speaks with via telephone and virtually, he has not engaged in an in-person intimate interpersonal relationship since being discharged from the hospital. In light of these considerations, there is no tangible evidence to confirm whether Mr. Bedard has developed effective problem-solving skills or coping strategies to manage daily stress (e.g., financial, interpersonal) or conflicts within romantic relationships.

Potential Re-offence Scenario of Future Violence: A plausible re-offence scenario for Mr. Bedard would involve a reduction in supervision secondary to him opting to live independently under a Conditional Discharge, coupled with a state of increased irritability precipitated by psychosocial stress (e.g., challenges in relationships, unfulfilled request, financial limitations, increased responsibilities) and/or a relapse into substance use (e.g., methamphetamine, opioids, cannabis, alcohol). In this context, Mr. Bedard would likely cease medication, which would in turn exacerbate mental decompensation. While intoxicated, withdrawing from substances, and/or experiencing a re-emergence of mood and/or psychotic symptoms (e.g., elevated or irritable mood, grandiosity, flight of ideas, paranoia), Mr. Bedard will present as extremely reactive to perceived slights from others and may utilize violence instrumentally (e.g., to gain compliance, to intimidate to meet needs). Aggression would initially take the form of verbal threats to harm and, if decompensation persists, it would escalate to environmental aggression (e.g., throwing objects, destroying property) and physical aggression (e.g., punching, kicking). Opportunistic weapon use (e.g., items within the vicinity) may be involved should Mr. Bedard become increasingly frustrated.

While the victims of Mr. Bedard’s previous violent offences have predominantly included men, his overall pattern of offending also indicates an increased risk for women with whom he has engaged in intimate relationships. Consistent with this, another likely re-offence scenario would involve Mr. Bedard feeling frustrated in the context of residing with a romantic partner. During this circumstance, Mr. Bedard would present as extremely agitated and aggression may take the form of verbal threats to harm and could escalate to physical aggression, potentially with a high likelihood for lethality (e.g., strangulation).”

25The Board agrees that Mr. Bedard’s psychiatric issues are being properly treated and that he has remained abstinent from substances. The Board does not believe that the MHA would be sufficient to manage Mr. Bedard’s risk to the safety of the public. For example, while visiting his parents, should Mr. Bedard experience a decompensation in his mental state, or engage in aggressive behaviours as a result of his antisocial personality disorder, he would most likely be brought to a non-forensic emergency room facility, and he would not be certifiable under the Mental Health Act. The Board finds that the current Disposition is necessary and appropriate, as the hospital needs the authority of a Detention Order to readmit Mr. Bedard before the MHA would be available, to protect the public safety.

26The Board finds that that the current Disposition is necessary and appropriate because the hospital needs the authority of a Detention Ordered to readmit Mr. Bedard. There was considerable discussion at the hearing about the Mental Health Act and the Young provisions, whether his criteria for admission would be met, and if Mr. Bedard could be kept in hospital before becoming a threat to public safety. It is important to note that the Mental Health Act sets different thresholds for risk for admission to hospital, and for ongoing hospital detention, than does Part XX.I of the Criminal Code. The latter is explicit that public safety is the paramount consideration. The Board concluded, based on the facts before us, that a Young clause and the Mental Health Act, were not adequate for the protection of public safety.

27Of particular concern to the Board in not granting a Conditional Discharge is Mr. Bedard’s total score of 28, out of a possible score of 40, on the PCL-R. This score falls into the high range, suggesting Mr. Bedard displays strong traits of psychopathy. Specifically, Mr. Bedard’s score fell in the 93rd percentile on Factor 1 (interpersonal/affective domains of psychopathy) and the 69th percentile on Factor 2 (lifestyle and behaviour domains). Overall, these findings indicate that features of psychopathy contribute to Mr. Bedard’s risk for future violence.

28The Board also feels that Mr. Bedard’s score on the Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment (“ODARA”) are also quite concerning and have not yet been addressed with appropriate therapies in these last nine months.

29It also appears that Mr. Bedard has not changed his position, as set out in last year’s Reasons, that the victim of the Index Offences was equally responsible for what happened.

30Last year’s Reasons for Disposition states at paragraph 37:

“The Board strongly encourages Mr. Bedard to engage in counseling to address substance relapse prevention, stress management and, in particular, healthy intimate relationships. Further the Board encourages the treatment team to facilitate a DVRAG assessment.”

The above has not been implemented, and this panel agrees that it is necessary.

31While Mr. Bedard’s lack of engagement in therapy is concerning, it would be especially so if he were to be granted a Conditional Discharge, rather than a Detention Order.

32In particular, the Board relies on the paragraphs, quoted in the doctor’s evidence on pages 27 and 28 of the Hospital Report, and as set out in Dr. Pallandi’s evidence. The Board finds Mr. Bedard’s actuarial, and clinical, risk assessments are very concerning, and they have yet to be addressed with appropriate therapy. Mr. Bedard has only been in the community for a brief period of time.

33The Board also considered the multiple ways of securing patients’ attendance at the hospital when they fail to comply with the condition of their discharge (see Valdez (Re) 2018 ONCA 657). As discussed above, Mr. Bedard’s high actuarial risk assessment scores, and his lack of engaging in programming since being in the community, as well as all the other evidence contained in the Hospital Report, indicate that a Conditional Discharge is not appropriate.

34Mr. Bedard is to be commended for his successful transition to the community, including maintaining medication adherence, abstinence from substances for over six years, behavioural stability (under trying conditions), and complying with rules and expectations. However, in the last nine months he has not engaged in any necessary programing to address his heightened risk for violence, as per his high PCL-R scores.

35The skills Mr. Bedard could draw from engaging in DBT would be of particular importance to manage his risk profile.

36Last year’s Board also encouraged the treatment team to facilitate a DVRAG assessment. We strongly agree with last year’s panel. As set out in the Hospital Report, Mr. Bedard does not believe that non-pharmacological coping skills would benefit him. This lack of insight is very troubling, especially considering his high ODARA scores and his perception that the victim shared responsibility for the very violent Index Offences.

37It was only last week that Mr. Bedard indicated that he would engage in the recommended therapy. We do not agree with Dr. Pallandi that nine months is a sufficiently prolonged period to conclude that Mr. Bedard’s dynamic risk factors now overcome his many static risk factors. Nor do we agree that the MHA would be sufficient to protect public safety, our paramount concern. Pursuant to the MHA, one still must be found certifiable to be detained in hospital. Mr. Bedard’s risk assessment indicates that his risk to engage in violent behaviour is likely due to his anti-social personality disorder, which can be characterized as him being impulsive, deceitful, and manipulative. None of these factors would justify the MHA being engaged before he acted out violently. It is also worth noting, as Dr. Pallandi testified, that the treatment team has no knowledge of any intimate relationships in which Mr. Bedard may now be, or will become, engaged. Mr. Bedard has yet to be actively engaged in therapy, to increase his insight into the causes of the Index Offences and to develop appropriate coping mechanisms. For all the above reasons, we find that a Conditional Discharge is premature and would not protect the safety of the public.

38In consideration of all the evidence, submissions of the parties and criteria set forth in s. 672.54, the paramount consideration being the safety of the public, in addition to the mental condition of Mr. Bedard, his reintegration into society and his other needs, the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Detention Order, upon the terms set out in our formal Disposition.