Re Gregory Joseph Nafziger, 2025 CanLII 28941

Ontario Review Board

Re: Gregory Joseph Nafziger

ORB File No: 8657

Hearing held on: Thursday, January 30, 2025

Place of hearing: Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care 401 Sunset Drive, St. Thomas

Pursuant to: Section 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Ms. T. Mann Members: Dr. A.D. Jones Dr. H. Moulden Ms. K. Tomaszewski Ms. C. Plyley

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Gregory J. Nafziger Counsel: Mr. W. Glover

The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Zamprogna

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. D. Rows

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated March 31, 2025)

Introduction:

1. On October 22, 2024, Gregory Nafziger was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on two counts of criminal harassment, failure to comply with release order and uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”). The matter of a Disposition was then deferred to the Ontario Review Board (“the ORB” or “the Board”).

2. On January 30, 2025, the Board convened this panel to conduct a hearing at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care (“the Southwest Centre” or “the Hospital”) to make an initial disposition. Mr. Nafziger was present at the hearing and represented by his counsel, Mr. W. Glover.

3. A Hospital Report dated December 18, 2024, was received by the panel and entered as Exhibit 1 at the hearing.

4. A Victim Impact Statement dated October 3, 2024, was entered as Exhibit 2. The Board advised all parties that it was aware of and intended to apply the procedure approved by the Court of Appeal in the decision of Klem 2016 ONCA 119. As such, the Board would only take into consideration those parts of the Victim Impact Statement that complied with the provisions of the Criminal Code. On this basis, all parties consented to the admissibility of the Victim Impact Statement.

5. At issue in this hearing is first, whether Mr. Nafziger is a significant threat to the safety of the public, as that term is defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code. If so, then the necessary and appropriate Disposition to manage his risk and his care must be determined, bearing in mind the factors enunciated in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

6. For the reasons set out below and based on the expert evidence and opinions before it, the Board concluded that Mr. Nafziger represents a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board further concluded that his risk can be properly managed with a detention disposition order maintaining him at the Southwest Centre, on the terms and conditions set out in our formal Disposition. The most liberal privilege accorded to Mr. Nafziger in the Disposition, is that he be permitted to enter the community of Southwestern Ontario, accompanied by staff or delegate or person approved by the person in charge, for the sole purpose of facilitating contact with his mother, upon first obtaining approval of his itinerary from the person in charge of the Hospital or his or her designate.

7. The Board further ordered that Mr. Nafziger shall be required to abstain absolutely from drugs and alcohol and other intoxicants, and to submit samples of urine and/or breath to the person in charge. The Board also ordered that Mr. Nafziger refrain from having in his possession any firearm, ammunition or the like and a number of terms enjoining him from contact or communication with the victim of the index offence or her child with Mr. Nafziger.

8. The Board also allowed Mr. Nafziger to attend and participate in a drug and alcohol rehabilitation program in the Province of Ontario.

Current Psychiatric Diagnoses:

9. Mr. Nafziger is diagnosed with Bipolar 1 Disorder with Psychotic Features and Substance Use Disorder (in remission, in a controlled environment).

Index Offences:

10. The following index offence information was taken from pages 2-4 of the Hospital Report:

“This information was taken from the Crown Brief Synopsis, Ontario Provincial Police Case File Synopsis, dated September 2, 2023:

1. Criminal Harassment: engage in threatening conduct s. 264(2) (d) CCC

On September 2, 2023, at approximately 1:00 a.m., [the victim] contacted the Perth County Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) to report online harassment by her excommon-law partner, Mr. Gregory Joseph Nafziger. Mr. Nafziger had posted defamatory messages online, specifically naming [the victim]. He was charged with two counts of Criminal Harassment and one count of Harassing Communications, with [name redacted] being the victim in all three incidents. Mr. Nafziger is currently under court-ordered conditions to have no communication, direct or indirect, with [the victim] and is prohibited from attending any place where he knows she lives, works, or frequents. They share two children together, and a Family Court Order is currently in place.

Details of the Incident

On September 2, 2023, at approximately 1:00 a.m., Mr. Nafziger posted on his Facebook page under the name "Gregory Joseph Nafziger," alleging that "JLKB, formerly JJ," was involved in watching child pornography and allowing adults to engage in sexual activities with a minor, specifically his son [name redacted] and her daughter. Mr. Nafziger also claimed that [the victim] was HIV positive. Later, Mr. Nafziger clarified that "JLKB" referred to [name of victim] and "JJ" referred to [the victim’s]maiden name.

Mr. Nafziger used Facebook to publish defamatory libel with the intent for it to be read or seen on the internet, causing others to believe it to be true. This act of publishing libel has caused [the victim], her son, and her daughter to live in fear for their safety. Over the past two years, [the victim] has reported multiple incidents to the police where Mr. Nafziger used social media to publish libel. She has observed a steady escalation in the violence and threatening nature of his behavior. [The victim]is concerned that Mr. Nafziger will retaliate against her and may attempt to attend her residence. [The victim]operates a daycare out of her home, and she believes that the Facebook posts are negatively impacting her business and the safety of the children in her care.

2. – 4. Failure to comply with Release order s. 145(5)(a) CCC, Criminal Harassment: repeatedly communicate/engage in threatening conduct s. 264(2)(d) CCC and Uttering Threats: to cause death or bodily harm s. 264.1(1)(a) CCC

This information was taken from the Crown Brief Synopsis, Ontario Provincial Police Case File Synopsis, dated October 26, 2023.

On October 25, 2023, Perth County OPP were dispatched to 5700 Line 16, St. Mary’s, in response to a report from [the victim], who had received death threats from her ex-partner, Mr. Nafziger. [The victim] showed police text messages sent by Mr. Nafziger, which led officers to form grounds for the following charges:

Failure to Comply with a Release Order: Mr. Nafziger is currently under a release order from the Ontario Court of Justice dated September 9, 2023, in the City of Stratford. The order includes the condition that Mr. Nafziger must not contact or communicate with [the victim]. Despite this, he sent her multiple messages, thereby failing to comply with the order.

Criminal Harassment: The messages sent by Mr. Nafziger were reckless, excessive, and caused Ms. Bluhm to fear for her safety. The communication was persistent and occurred even while police were present, leading to the charge of criminal harassment.

Uttering Threats: In the text messages, Mr. Nafziger repeatedly threatened [the victim’s] life, stating that she would die that night and that he would not be arrested before her death. These threats were explicit, lewd, and referenced sexual offenses…which further heightened the fear and distress experienced by [the victim].

Circumstances Prior to the Index Offence:

11. The Hospital Report set out the circumstances prior to the index offence from Mr. Nafziger’s self-report. They do not have to be repeated in detail, but the following passages are relevant:

“Mr. Nafziger was asked to recall the time around the index offences…[He] stated that he became increasingly concerned for his son's safety and well-being around September 2, 2023, approximately three months before the incident in question…after hearing from friends that his son's mother was dating a man rumored to be a pedophile. He explained that this, combined with the mother's history of physical abuse toward her other child, led him to feel deeply anxious and protective.

Mr. Nafziger disclosed that he began using crack cocaine heavily around July or August 2023, in addition to drinking alcohol and consuming large amounts of cannabis edibles. His substance use escalated…after he received an email from the Crown Attorney at the end of August, stating that his diversion program was being canceled and he would have to go to trial without a lawyer. He described his drug use to cope with the overwhelming stress and fear he was experiencing.

Mr. Nafziger mentioned that during this period, his daily routine started to deteriorate. He had been meeting regularly with various support workers and attending the gym, but these activities diminished as his substance use intensified. He shared that he began to isolate himself, driven by growing paranoia and anxiety, especially concerning his son's safety.

When discussing the messages he sent on October 25, 2023, Mr. Nafziger…stated that on the night he sent the messages, he was in a heightened state of paranoia and distress. He had been using crack cocaine and alcohol heavily that day, and his mental state was significantly impaired. He described his mindset as, “I felt like I was losing control, and I was convinced that something bad was going to happen to my son if I didn’t act” and “at that moment, I wasn’t thinking about the consequences. I wasn’t thinking about whether it was right or wrong. I was only thinking about my son and making sure he was safe.”

Background Information:

12. The Hospital Report contains a great deal of information about Mr. Nafziger’s legal and psychosocial history which will not be repeated in detail in these Reasons, except to highlight the following relevant points:

13. Mr. Nafziger is 45 years old. His parents are Judy Nafziger and William James Nafziger. He was raised in Milverton, Ontario. There were no perinatal complications or cigarette/toxicant use during the pregnancy.

14. Educationally, Mr. Nafziger was recognized as gifted and did well at school, notwithstanding reported difficulty with hyperactivity, attention and concentration. According to his mother, Mr. Nafziger tended to seek attention and be talkative, which sometimes led to conflicts with teachers and peers. In high school, he achieved grades in the 80s and 90s despite some interpersonal difficulties with authority figures and significant absenteeism. His university experience was characterized by personal challenges, including the death of his grandfather to whom he was close. He found his program to be difficult and had a hard time keeping up, thus extending the period of time it would normally have taken to finish his degree. He completed a bioengineering degree in Guelph, graduating in 2005.

15. Following his graduation from university, Mr. Nafziger worked in real estate, eventually obtaining his real estate license and becoming a professional realtor. He worked in real estate for 17 years. Mr. Nafziger was successful in his career, achieving a number of awards but struggled at times with the demands of being self-employed. He was emotionally impacted by his grandmother's death in 2009, which led to increased use of alcohol and drugs. After selling his house and accumulating around $200,000 in savings, he decided to retire in 2021. Prior to his arrest on the index offences, he was living in London and had no source of income.

Psychiatric History:

16. Mr. Nafziger had a trauma history in childhood (sexual assault) and was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in his early 30s. According to Mrs. Nafziger, her son began experiencing mood swings in 2013, potentially linked to substance abuse, as well as instances of excessive spending, risky driving behaviours and periods of high energy which were often associated with his professional activities in real estate sales.

17. Mr. Nafziger’s mental health has worsened since 2020, with possible contributing factors being ADHD and substance use. His mental health difficulties led to problems in interpersonal relationships, including with the victim of the index offences. His erratic behaviour also affected his son, especially during periods of heightened paranoia and instability. Mr. Nafziger had a tendency to blame others for his circumstances. He has a history of failure to remain adherent to medication, treatment and follow-up.

18. The NCR Assessment authored by Dr. Jafarzadehfadaki and Dr. Ajay Prakash dated August 2, 2024, contains a detailed summary of Mr. Nafziger’s history of involvement with mental health services, which is extensive. Mr. Nafziger met the diagnostic criteria for a number of psychiatric conditions including ADHD (predominantly inattentive presentation, onset prior to age 12), post-traumatic stress disorder (currently in remission; onset in mid to late 20s), alcohol use disorder (currently in remission in a controlled setting, onset in early 20s, previously severe), a stimulant use disorder (cocaine, currently in remission due to controlled environment, onset in early 20s, previously severe). Mr. Nafziger was also assessed to determine if he met the criteria for a personality disorder. While he did not reach the threshold for formal diagnoses, he did endorse several traits of narcissistic personality disorder, histrionic personality disorder and borderline personality disorder.

19. It was the assessors’ opinion that Mr. Nafziger primarily suffered from bipolar I disorder with psychotic features, currently in a manic episode, due to his elevated mood and psychosis persisting in the absence of substance use.

Substance Use History:

20. Mr. Nafziger has a lengthy history of substance use from an early age, in particular a long-standing and problematic use of alcohol, stimulants, cannabis, crack cocaine and crystal methamphetamine. He periodically participated in community-based abstinence support programs beginning in 2008, including a number of residential treatment programs, one of which was an intensive 12-month residential treatment program completed in early 2022.

“Mr. Nafziger reported that he experienced a period of sobriety lasting 14 months, starting in February 2022. However, a lapse led to heavy substance use during his charges. After his release from jail around September 2023, Mr. Nafziger…began using many substances. This period was marked by heavy use of crack, cocaine, cannabis, and alcohol. The stress and lack of structure following his release contributed to a significant increase in his substance use, and he found it challenging to maintain sobriety…During this time, he experienced symptoms of mental illness, including delusions and paranoia, which exacerbated his substance use and made it difficult to function in daily life.”

Medical History:

21. Mr. Nafziger suffers from a number of physical health issues, including two episodes of syncope (fainting), following which his driver’s licence was suspended for a period of time (year unknown). Mr. Nafziger received treatment for a number of physical and mental health issues in connection with his experience as a victim of childhood sexual assault.

Course Subsequent to NCR Finding- August 2, 2024 - December 18, 2024

22. Mr. Nafziger was admitted to the Southwest Centre’s assessment unit on August 2, 2024, under the care of Dr. Ajay Prakash. Following his admission, his mental status was observed to be unstable and he presented with ongoing symptoms of mental illness. He was observed responding to unseen stimuli and his mood often fluctuated. He demonstrated pressured speech, either making jokes or crying during conversations. His thought process was circumstantial and tangential. He presented with symptoms suggestive of mania and demonstrated some irritability when his needs were not met according to his timeline. He also exhibited narcissistic, histrionic and borderline personality traits including grandiosity, positive impression management, exaggerated behaviours, and reckless, irritable and impulsive actions. Negative symptoms included signs of guardedness, and a tendency to hold grudges against certain staff.

23. Although he was co-operative with unit rules and enjoyed various recreational activities within the Hospital, there was a significant period of time from June 12 to December 11, 2024, where Mr. Nafziger declined to accept treatment with psychiatric medication. He challenged his finding of incapacity to the Consent and Capacity Board and on October 2, 2024 the finding was upheld. Mr. Nafziger’s mother agreed to assume the role of substitute decision maker for psychiatric treatment. For several months, Mr. Nafziger continued to be fixated on his capacity ruling, trying to appeal it and attempting to have Dr. Prakash replaced by a different psychiatrist. Over time, Mr. Nafziger became more amenable to treatment with psychiatric medication and took his first dose on December 11, 2024.

Position of the Parties:

24. Counsel for the Hospital, the Attorney General and Mr. Nafziger advised that this was a joint submission in that all parties were adopting the Hospital’s recommendation that Mr. Nafziger be found to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a Detention Order subject to certain terms and conditions, as set out at pp 47-48 of the Hospital Report.

25. For the purposes of this hearing, counsel for Mr. Nafziger advised that significant threat was not in dispute and that his client was in agreement with the disposition proposed by the Hospital, including the minor amendments.

26. Counsel for the Attorney General indicated he might ask questions regarding the imposition of a weapons prohibition.

27. Counsel for the Hospital advised that shortly before the hearing, all parties agreed upon some minor changes to the proposed Disposition, including that Mr. Nafziger be granted the privilege of accompanied access to the county in which his mother resides and deleting the 90-day time limit on Mr. Nafziger’s potential attendance at a drug and alcohol rehabilitation treatment program. Another minor amendment was adding “or delegate” to the list of approved persons who may accompany Mr. Nafziger during community outings.

28. During the hearing, the parties consented to changing the radius restriction set out in the Hospital Report to match that of a 12-month common law peace bond made on October 4, 2024 (from 100 meters to 250 meters) and expanded the no-contact provision to include the parties’ son.

29. There was also discussion as to whether Mr. Nafziger’s privilege of entering the community of Huron County and/or Grey/Bruce Counties would be better described as entering Southern or Southwestern Ontario with staff or delegate or person approved by the person in charge.

Evidence at the Hearing:

30. The Board had available to it the documents forming the Record, the Exhibits as well as oral evidence from Dr. Prakash. The doctor confirmed that he adopted the contents of the Hospital Report following which he provided an overview of Mr. Nafziger’s current clinical status, level of risk and the rationale for the Hospital’s recommendations as to the disposition and its terms.

31. Dr. Prakash noted that Mr. Nafziger had a lengthy period of instability for over a decade preceding the index offenses, including symptoms related to substance use and bipolar disorder with psychotic features. Past diagnoses included attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), trauma and some maladaptive personality traits. Dr. Prakash advised that these diagnoses would be explored further once the symptoms of Mr. Nafziger’s mood disorder had settled. The doctor emphasized he had no doubt as to Mr. Nafziger’s diagnosis of bipolar disorder with psychotic features.

32. Clinically, Mr. Nafziger is now doing better than he was over most of his admission. Dr. Prakash attributed this improvement to Mr. Nafziger commencing treatment with psychotropic medications on December 11, 2024, when he started treatment with Abilify. Dr. Prakash explained that Abilify is a mood stabilizing medication as well as an antipsychotic and is recommended for use in those with bipolar disorder. Dr. Prakash described the start of medication as a “major milestone in Mr. Nafziger’s life” and “the beginning of a new chapter” because he had never before been trialed on medications appropriate to his diagnosis. Mr. Nafziger’s response to Abilify has been robust. There has been significant improvement in all aspects of Mr. Nafziger’s symptomatology including mood lability, poor sleep and affective and behavioural instability. Other improvements include increased cooperativeness with his treatment team and increased participation in programs and activities. On January 19, 2025, Mr. Nafziger was started on the injectable formulation of Abilify.

33. Dr. Prakash cautioned that these are still early days in terms of Mr. Nafziger’s recovery and there is further room for optimizing his medication regimen. Moreover, Dr. Prakash observed that Mr. Nafziger’s improved presentation has occurred within the context of the assessment unit, which is a very controlled, structured environment, with no unsupervised privileges.

34. The next step in Mr. Nafziger’s recovery will be his transfer to a treatment unit, which is an entirely different milieu wherein he will be exposed to many other stressors. His ability to maintain stability and abstinence from substances in a less structured environment is unknown. While this is being assessed, supervision is important to maintaining his medication adherence. Privileges will be granted slowly, having regard to the fact that an increase in his liberty also increases his level of risk.

35. Dr. Prakash highlighted the difficulties presented by Mr. Nafziger’s refusal to accept medication and the role this played in finding him incapable of consenting to treatment with antipsychotic medication. Mr. Nafziger remains incapable and his medications are administered by virtue of the substitute consent of his mother, Judy Nafziger. Dr. Prakash described Mrs. Nafziger as a good support to her son.

36. Mr. Nafziger still mentions appealing the CCB finding from time to time, and the reason for his decision to accept medication is still unclear. How he will respond to direction from the team remains to be seen.

37. Dr. Prakash confirmed that Mr. Nafziger’s substance use was a factor in the index offences, but was unable to say how much of his substance use was driven by his untreated bipolar disorder – likely, “a lot”. Despite Mr. Nafziger attending a peer-led Alcoholic Anonymous (AA) group within the Hospital, and his stated desire to attend a residential treatment program, Dr. Prakash felt he remained vulnerable to relapse with opportunity.

38. Mr. Nafziger’s desire to attend a seven-to-nine-month long program at Stonehenge is the rationale for removing the 90-day clause from the Hospital’s recommendations. Dr. Prakash pointed out that the treatment team will have to assess if and when it may be appropriate for Mr. Nafziger to attend Stonehenge. The concern is that going there will involve a considerable amount of time away from a secure forensic setting where his progress and safety can be supported and monitored by his treatment team. Stabilizing Mr. Nafziger’s bipolar symptoms and assessing for the presence of maladaptive personality traits will take priority over attending an external residential treatment program. There are other addiction programs that can be offered to Mr. Nafziger, including those that are hospital-based and within the local community.

39. Dr. Prakash touched upon Mr. Nafziger’s past involvement with the criminal legal system, which appears to have involved charges similar to the index offences but had outcomes where the charges were either withdrawn, dismissed or acquitted. Because these incidents targeted the same victim, the Hospital believes that a no-contact provision, subject only to the victim’s written and revocable consent, is necessary and appropriate. Dr. Prakash said that if Mr. Nafziger and the victim felt ready, and the team assessed it to be appropriate, help would be offered to re-establish the relationship. Mr. Nafziger has voiced that he does not bear any ill-will towards the victim.

40. With respect to Mr. Nafziger’s insight into the index offences, need for medication and his violence risk potential, Dr. Prakash indicated that prior to the start of medication, his insight was poor but is getting better since he has been on medication. While Mr. Nafziger is regretful for what happened and is starting to appreciate his bipolar illness drove his behaviour at the time of the index offences, remorse has been elusive because to some extent he still feels justified by his longstanding concerns for his son’s wellbeing.

41. As for the issue of significant threat, Dr. Prakash endorsed the integrated assessment of risk at p. 45 of the Hospital Report as well as the factors outlined on p. 46. The doctor confirmed that despite Mr. Nafziger’s symptoms coming under better control, the risk to the victim that remains is real and more than trivial.

42. Dr. Prakash did not know whether Mr. Nafziger was still licensed to drive and said that the Hospital would not approve him driving regardless.

43. Mr. Nafziger’s support consists of his mother. Dr. Prakash believes that Mrs. Nafziger has the potential to be an approved person but this is something that will be looked into over the year.

44. Dr. Prakash did not think that a weapons prohibition was necessary as there was no evidence from a mental health perspective to justify such a clause. However, he was not opposed to one being added to Mr. Nafziger’s disposition. Dr. Prakash agreed that Mr. Nafziger’s risk of harm to others was both physical and psychological and that his access to weapons would be higher once he is permitted to leave hospital.

45. Dr. Prakash felt that a specific prohibition on Mr. Nafziger’s ability to use social media platforms such as Facebook except under supervision is captured by the no-contact order and therefore redundant. The doctor also noted that patients on the treatment and rehabilitation units are not allowed to have computers in their rooms and that computer access in general is closely monitored. Independent access only happens gradually. Initially, staff will sit beside Mr. Nafziger to monitor his on-line activities to ensure that he is not attempting to contact the victim.

46. Dr. Prakash did not support a term permitting Mr. Nafziger to live in the community in approved accommodation at this time, as Mr. Nafziger’s improved condition is very recent and much work needs to be done. The doctor said that Mr. Nafziger is off to a good start which, if continued, makes his prognosis within the forensic system a favourable one.

47. Mr. Nafziger’s capacity to consent to treatment will be re-assessed should his positive trajectory be maintained. The hope is that if he regains his treatment capacity, he will continue to work with the treatment team and take medication, but whether he will do so is unknown.

Analysis and Conclusions:

48. Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence, as well as submissions from the parties, the Board finds that Mr. Nafziger’s current constellation of symptoms and behaviours are such that he poses a significant threat to the safety of the public. Although the Board was presented with a joint position of the parties on this point, the Board has no difficulty reaching an independent conclusion to the same effect. In this regard, the Board relies on the uncontroverted expert evidence of Dr. Prakash, in addition to the documentary evidence before it and in particular, the following excerpts from the Risk Assessment contained in the Hospital Report:

“Mr. Nafziger continues to present with positive symptoms of his mental illness (including psychotic features, elevated mood symptoms, and impulsivity). These symptoms were present during the time of the index offences;

Mr. Nafziger’s illness is currently under partial pharmacological control. His medication has not been optimized since his admission to the Southwest Centre due to his nonacceptance of taking the recommended prescribed psychiatric medication. He also has a history of non-compliance and lacks insight into his ongoing need for treatment;

Mr. Nafziger demonstrates limited insight into his major mental illness as well as his active personality traits and his future risk of violence. He will need to be gradually tested in a less supervised environment once optimally treated;

Mr. Nafziger has an extensive substance use history. Attending an addiction treatment center followed by further assessments to abstain will be required. Substance use significantly impacts his risk of violence and without increased supervision, he is vulnerable to relapse; and

Mr. Nafziger has no personal or professional support, aside from his current team… considered appropriate in managing his current risk of reoffence.”

49. Furthermore, the Board adopts, in its entirety, the Re-Offence Scenario set out at page 48 of the Hospital Report:

“Absent Forensic support and the controlled environment of the hospital, Mr. Nafziger would not seek appropriate mental health treatment independently due to his lack of insight into his mental health needs. His ongoing presentation of mental illness symptoms would exacerbate if left to his own devices. He would be unable to cope with these symptoms, as demonstrated historically, and would likely relapse into substance use patterns. He would likely act out similar to the index offences, causing serious psychological harm to others.”

50. The Board agrees with the evidence that Mr. Nafziger's protective factors are predominantly extrinsic and that his risk of re-offending has been managed by the external control of his current setting where he has been detained without access to the internet. His current living situation in a forensic setting serves as a significant protective factor when considering Mr. Nafziger’s clinical risk profile.

51. The Board notes that the results from the integrated risk assessment conducted at the hospital suggest that Mr. Nafziger currently presents a low to moderate risk of violent re-offending over the next 12 months while in hospital. Should this change, his level of risk would escalate to very high, as he lacks insight into the role his various mental health diagnoses play in driving his violence risk. Although his early response to treatment with antipsychotic and mood stabilizing medication has been robust, Mr. Nafziger has yet to be optimally treated and his medication regimen is expected to change over time, with uncertain effect.

52. The Board agrees that Mr. Nafziger’s risk to the safety of the public should be managed by the terms and conditions of a detention disposition. No less intrusive or onerous disposition, such as a conditional discharge, would be appropriate and it is to Mr. Nafziger's great credit that he recognizes this, as evidenced by his position at the hearing. It is still early days in the course of Mr. Nafziger’s recovery and it is important that he be gradually tested in a less supervised environment once optimally treated.

53. Mr. Nafziger’s substance abuse disorder informs the need for abstention and monitoring. The nature of the index offences, along with the history, informs the need to protect the victim from further trauma.

54. The Board believes that the nature and quality of Mr. Nafziger's risk to the safety of the public and in particular the safety of the victim and their child necessitates that his disposition include a weapons prohibition clause, notwithstanding that the clinical team did not recommend this. In this regard, the panel notes that counsel for Mr. Nafziger indicated his client would be willing to abide by such a term, in the hope that it may provide a measure of comfort to the victim who has clearly been psychologically traumatized by Mr. Nafziger’s behaviours.

55. The Board also considered the issue of supervised passes to permit Mr. Nafziger to visit his mother in Sauble Beach. The Board notes that Sauble Beach is a considerable distance away which would require his elderly mother to drive many hours to pick him up from the hospital, take him to Sauble Beach and back. Moreover, the Board believes that Mr. Nafziger has not yet achieved the clinical stability to warrant the privilege of entering Southern Ontario to visit his mother. Their relationship is in the very early stages of reconciliation, given the strain of Mr. Nafziger's illness and related behaviours upon her, amply set out in the Hospital Report. However, the Board is agreeable to Mr. Nafziger having the privilege of entering Southwestern Ontario, in the company of staff or delegate or approved person, for the sole purpose of reconciling his relationship with his mother upon first obtaining approval of his itinerary from the person in charge.

56. Additionally, Mr. Nafziger will be required to provide an approved itinerary when he enters the community of Elgin County, indirectly supervised. This will shore up Mr. Nafziger’s accountability while in the community and provide the treatment team with an additional means of monitoring his behaviour.

57. The Board remains concerned that Mr. Nafziger has not yet been assessed in a less structured environment, and in particular, an environment that provides him not only with the opportunity to use substances, which are disinhibiting, but also the potential opportunity to use telephonic or internet-based devices to potentially engage in harassing and threatening behaviour towards the victim. He does not appreciate the extent to which his behaviour traumatized the victim and their child. The Board finds that including a term in the disposition allowing the victim to provide written revokable consent to waive the no contact provision would do a disservice to her. She should not feel pressured to have contact with Mr. Nafziger nor to participate in his rehabilitation and reintegration plan. Given that Mr. Nafziger’s behaviours have also negatively affected his son, Mr. Nafziger should be enjoined from contact or communication, direct or indirect, by any physical, electronic or other means, except in accordance with a court order. Further, the Board finds that the proximity limitation in Mr. Nafziger’s Disposition should be increased to 250 meters in an effort to impress upon Mr. Nafziger the importance of staying away from the victim and to provide her with the same protection she had pending the resolution of the criminal court proceedings. An exception will be made for required court attendances.

58. The Board agrees with the rehabilitation and recovery plan set out at page 45 of the Hospital Report, and concurs with Dr. Prakash that it would first be important to stabilize Mr. Nafziger’s mental status, assess his ability to refrain from using substances or engaging in problematic behaviour when in a less intensely supported environment, following which steps can be taken to explore the appropriateness of his attending an outside addiction treatment centre. However, the 90-day limitation will be removed to allow Mr. Nafziger to attend residential treatment at Stonehenge, should the treatment team deem it appropriate for him to do so.

59. In making this disposition, the Board has considered the criteria set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code which are the safety of the public, being the paramount consideration, the mental condition of the accused, the reintegration of the accused into society and the other needs of the accused.

DATED this 31^st^ day of March 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.

Ms. T. Mann Alternate Chairperson Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board