Re: Timothy Campbell, 2025 CanLII 26088

Ontario Review Board

Re: Timothy Campbell

ORB File No: 6884

Hearing held on: Tuesday, January 21, 2025

Place of hearing: Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care

Pursuant to: Sections 672.48(1) and 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Ms. J. Mills

Members: Dr. P.L. Darby

Dr. G. Stones

Ms. M. Chamberlain

Ms. B. Naegele

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Timothy Campbell

Counsel: Mr. T. McIver

The person in charge of hospital: Representative: Ms. T. Murdock

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. M. Levasseur

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated March 26, 2025)

1. On January 8, 2016, Timothy Campbell was found unfit to stand trial on charges of criminal harassment and failing to comply with probation, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada, (the “Criminal Code”).

2. Mr. Campbell is subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”) dated February 8, 2024, detaining him at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care – Brébeuf Program for Regional Forensics, Penetanguishene (“Waypoint” or the “Hospital”), with privileges to live in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge, within the catchment area of Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.

3. On Tuesday, January 21, 2025, the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing at Waypoint pursuant to ss. 672.48(1) and 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Campbell was in attendance and was represented by his counsel, Mr. McIver.

Position of the Parties

1. Counsel for the Hospital submitted that Mr. Campbell remained unfit to stand trial and also submitted that the terms of Mr. Campbell’s current disposition should be maintained but that his reporting condition should be decreased to report to the person in charge of the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care, or his or her designate not less than once every two weeks. Counsel for the Attorney General adopted the Hospital’s position and counsel for Mr. Campbell did not take a position at the outset of the hearing.

Alleged Offences:

5. The circumstances of the alleged offences are taken from the most recent Reasons for Disposition, as follows:

“A summary of the alleged index offences is taken from the Hospital Report. Mr. Campbell approached the female victim in front of her store and made sexual comments to her in the presence of her husband. When she ran into the store and called 911, Mr. Campbell continued to harass her husband. The victim reported that a similar incident had occurred the previous week. At the time of these alleged offences, Mr. Campbell was subject to a probation order requiring him to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.”

Evidence at Hearing:

1. The evidence at the hearing consisted of the Hospital Report, dated December 10, 2024, and the viva voce evidence of Dr. Ismail, Mr. Campbell’s treating psychiatrist.

2. The Hospital Report addresses Mr. Campbell’s fitness to stand trial as follows:

“Mr. Campbell’s statements demonstrate a significant misunderstanding of the nature and objective of the legal proceedings, as he repeatedly characterizes them as a personal attack or conspiracy against him by the authorities, the province, and the judiciary. This delusional interpretation prevents him from grasping the legal nature of the charges or engaging meaningfully with the process. Additionally, his fixation on irrelevant issues, such as financial conspiracies and perceived persecution by the Municipality of Barrie, further suggests an inability to focus on the actual legal matters at hand. Mr. Campbell also appears to lack a reality-based understanding of the potential consequences of the proceedings, expressing hopelessness and a belief that the system is rigged against him, which undermines his capacity to assess the outcomes of his defense rationally. His inability to answer basic legal questions, such as the meaning of pleading, taking an oath, or perjury, further indicates a limited understanding of fundamental legal concepts. Moreover, his paranoia and belief that the judge, Crown, and jury are conspiring against him likely impede his ability to communicate effectively with counsel or engage in decision-making necessary for his defense. These factors collectively indicate that Mr. Campbell, due to a mental disorder, is unable to conduct a defense, instruct counsel, or participate meaningfully in the trial, rendering him unfit to stand trial under the statutory criteria.”

1. Dr. Ismail informed the Board that he had read and agreed with the contents of the Hospital Report. He confirmed that Mr. Campbell remains unfit. He last assessed Mr. Campbell the morning of the hearing and continued to find him unfit. Mr. Campbell was not able to adequately answer the Taylor test questions and could not meaningfully instruct counsel or engage in a trial.
2. Dr. Ismail updated the Board regarding Mr. Campbell’s Clozapine levels as they were much lower than would be expected based on the dosage that Mr. Campbell is currently prescribed. Mr. Campbell takes a morning dose of Clozapine while on the phone with staff from his current residence. In the evening, he attends Shopper’s Drug Mart to take his second and larger daily dose. Mr. Campbell is monitored while taking his medication by the pharmacist at the store. The Hospital has asked Mr. Campbell to reduce his caffeine, citrus and nicotine, as these substances are known to affect Clozapine levels however, this has not made a noticeable difference.
3. Mr. Campbell does exhibit some of the side effects of Clozapine; he has had increased drowsiness and some drooling. The Hospital has managed these side effects effectively. At this time, the Hospital is still trying to find the optimal dosage.
4. Dr. Ismail provided a brief update regarding Mr. Campbell’s housing. He has been living in his current placement in TRYP housing for the last 4 to 5 months. The Hospital is aware that transitions can be difficult for Mr. Campbell and has been extremely careful with the transition. Mr. Campbell is doing well in this placement and wants to prove to himself and the Hospital that he is able to manage with more independence. The Hospital is encouraged by Mr. Campbell’s progress over the past year and with how he is managing in his current placement. It is for this reason that the Hospital is recommending a decrease in the reporting condition of his current disposition.
5. Dr. Ismail testified that the treatment team do not consider Mr. Campbell to be permanently unfit at this time but feels that he will likely remain unfit for the near future. Mr. Campbell has had ongoing delusions that have been resistant to treatment thus far. He feels that the whole judicial system is rigged against him. He believes the government has taken large sums of money from him and he has lost all faith that he could receive a fair trial.
6. In response to questions from Mr. Campbell’s counsel, Dr. Ismail agreed that despite the fluctuating Clozapine levels, his client’s mental health has remained stable. With education, Mr. Campbell is able to get some of the Taylor test questions correct but he continues to lack an understanding of the legal proceedings. He believes that his criminal matter is a case of mistaken identity and thinks that the alleged offence involves a cup of warm tea. Dr. Ismail agreed with counsel that Mr. Campbell does comply with all requests from the Hospital and is cooperative.
7. In response to questions from the Board, Dr. Ismail stated that if Mr. Campbell were to stop taking his medication, he would become more delusional and would likely revert to previous self-injurious behaviour. He would also become increasingly suspicious of the people around him and could become threatening.
8. The Board questioned whether a conditional discharge would be an appropriate disposition. Dr. Ismail stated that he would want the detention order to remain in place as Mr. Campbell could decompensate quickly and the Hospital would need the ability to bring him back quickly. Also, given the issues regarding Mr. Campbell’s Clozapine levels, it would be premature to recommend a conditional discharge. The doctor also noted that Mr. Campbell’s current housing provides the right level of structure and support.
9. Although Mr. Campbell has returned to the Hospital voluntarily in the past, Dr. Ismail thinks that this was a bit lucky as Mr. Campbell was also talking about leaving the province at that time.

Final Submissions:

1. The Hospital maintained their position at the end of the hearing. Mr. Campbell continues to express delusions and there are issues with his Clozapine levels. Ms. Murdock submitted that a conditional discharge was not appropriate for Mr. Campbell as it is necessary for the Hospital to approve his accommodation and there may be the need to bring him back to the Hospital quickly. The Hospital was requesting a lessening of the reporting expectations as an appropriate next step for Mr. Campbell.

2. The Crown adopted the Hospital’s position and stated that they would ensure that the next prima facie hearing would occur before the next annual review.

3. Mr. McIvor stated that his client was requesting a conditional discharge. He noted that Mr. Campbell is taking his medication and is following all Hospital directions. Further, he submitted that there was no evidence that Mr. Campbell’s Clozapine levels have affected his behaviour and Mr. Campbell’s mental health has remained stable.

4. Finally, Mr. Campbell addressed the Board. He expressed concern that the government was taking money from people and that the index offence involved a quarter cup of warm tea.

Findings of the Board:

1. The panel has carefully considered the Hospital Report and the evidence of Dr. Ismail and finds that Mr. Campbell remains unfit to stand trial. Because of his delusional misunderstanding of the judicial system, Mr. Campbell is unable to appreciate the charges that he is facing. Further he would be unable to participate meaningfully in a trial or instruct counsel.

2. The panel further agrees that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a continuation of the current detention order with a change in the reporting clause as recommended by the Hospital. The following is taken from the Hospital Report, at p. 78:

“Overall, Mr. Campbell’s lack of insight into his illness, fluctuating treatment adherence, persistent delusional beliefs, and vulnerability to stress indicate that he continues to require the current level of oversight and intervention to mitigate risk. Any relaxation of his disposition at this time would likely result in destabilization and a heightened risk to public safety. It is recommended that his current disposition remain in place to ensure ongoing monitoring and support.”

1. Accordingly, the panel finds that that the current detention order with the terms and conditions as recommended by the Hospital is the necessary and appropriate disposition. In arriving at this conclusion, the panel has considered the paramount factor of the safety of the public, Mr. Campbell’s community reintegration, his mental condition and his other needs as required by s.672.54 of the Criminal Code.

2. The Board agrees with the Hospital that, given Mr. McNaughten has made gains over the past year. It is for this reason that he will not be required to report to the Hospital as often. The Board feels that a conditional discharge is not appropriate at this time as Mr. McNaughten continues to experience delusions and there are still issues with his Clozapine levels.

DATED this 26th day of March 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

Ms. M. Chamberlain

Legal Member

Office of the Registrar

Ontario Review Board