Re Peter Huk, 2025 CanLII 28944

Ontario Review Board

Re: Peter Huk

ORB File No: 1579

Hearing held on: Thursday, February 27, 2025

Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health

Pursuant to: Section 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Ms. L. Banks

Members: Dr. R. Kunjukrishnan Dr. W. Loza Ms. K. Tomaszewski Mr. A. Mete

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Peter Huk Counsel: Ms. C. Whillier

The Person in charge of Hospital: Counsel: Ms. A. Marshall

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. V. Culp

REASONS FOR DECISION

(Dated April 1, 2025)

Introduction:

1. On January 18, 1993, Peter Huk was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on a charge of causing damage to a car by setting it on fire, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada.

2. Mr. Huk is currently subject to a Decision and Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB” or the “Board”) dated February 21, 2024, pursuant to which he was ordered detained at the Forensic Service of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (“CAMH”), Toronto, with privileges up to and including residing in the community in 24 hour a day, seven day a week supervised accommodation.

3. On December 30, 2024, the Office of the Person in charge at CAMH advised the ORB that Mr. Huk had been admitted to CAMH on December 20, 2024 and continued to be detained at the hospital on the FGUD until February 4, 2025. As a result, the ORB scheduled a hearing pursuant to s. 672.56(2) of the Criminal Code for the purpose of reviewing Mr. Huk’s Restriction of Liberty (“ROL”).

4. On February 27, 2025, the ORB convened a virtual ROL hearing at CAMH by Zoom videoconference. Mr. Huk was not present at the hearing but was represented by Ms. Whillier who advised that she had instructions to proceed in his absence. The Board excused Mr. Huk from attending the hearing pursuant to s. 672.5(10)(a) of Criminal Code.

5. The issue the panel considered at the hearing was whether the restriction on Mr. Huk’s liberties was necessary and appropriate as well as the least restrictive and least onerous intervention available to the hospital, both initially and throughout its duration. The ROL commenced on December 20 and continued until February 4, 2025.

6. For the reasons which follow, the Board found that there was a significant restriction on the liberties of Mr. Huk from December 20, 2024 to February 4, 2025 and that this was necessary and appropriate as well as the least restrictive and least onerous intervention in the circumstances, both initially and throughout its duration.

Positions of the Parties:

7. At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as to their recommendations to the Board. Counsel for the hospital submitted that the restriction of Mr. Huk’s liberty from December 20, 2024 to February 4, 2025 was necessary and appropriate and the least onerous and least restrictive decision available to the hospital in the circumstances.

8. Crown counsel supported the hospital’s position.

9. Ms. Whillier also supported the hospital’s position and conceded the ROL was necessary and appropriate at the time it commenced and throughout its duration.

10. All parties maintained their joint position in closing submissions and all confirmed that there was no request to review the terms of Mr. Huk’s existing Disposition.

Index Offence:

11. The circumstances giving rise to the index offence are set forth in detail in the Hospital Report dated January 3, 2024 (the “Hospital Report”) and may be summarized, as follows:

“On October 14, 1992 Mr. Huk attended a Subway sandwich store and asked for coffee. He left the store, picked up a bag of garbage outside the store and placed it in the owner's car. He collected three other bags of garbage and set them with the first bag. He then set the bags on fire and left the scene. The owner and the police put out the fire. There was minor damage to the paint on the car. Mr. Huk proceeded to the north end of the same building and started another fire with garbage, which he also left. When Mr. Huk was arrested, he had soot on his hand and socks, his shoes had a burn mark, and his left thumb was burned.”

Personal Background:

12. As the Hospital Report and the ROL Hospital Report dated February 20, 2025 (“ROL Report”) were made an Exhibits at the hearing, it is not necessary to reproduce the information contained therein; however, we note the following:

13. As at the hearing date, Mr. Huk was a 80-year-old single male who had never been married and had no children. He was unemployed and was supported by CPP disability payments and Old Age Security.

14. Mr. Huk has been under the supervision of the ORB since 1993. For most of that time, Mr. Huk has been detained at a psychiatric hospital. He has had periods of discharge to supervised housing in the community which have lasted for varying periods of time until his behaviour required his readmission to the hospital. His most recent supervised residence is John Gibson House (“Gibson House”), which is a 24-hour supervised community residence. He was discharged there on November 3, 2021. Since that date, Mr. Huk has had numerous readmissions to the hospital. Prior to the current readmission, Mr. Huk’s most recent returns to the hospital were from October 3 to November 30, 2023, January 26 to February 9, 2024, and February 24, 2024 to June 5, 2024.

15. Mr. Huk’s current diagnoses, as follows:

• Schizophrenia;

• Personality Disorder NOS; and

• Substance Abuse Disorder, in remission.

Evidence at the Hearing:

16. The evidence on behalf of the hospital was presented by Dr. M. Kravtsenyuk who is Mr. Huk’s most responsible out-patient psychiatrist. Dr. Kravtsenyuk advised that she conferred with Dr. Durani, Mr. Huk’s in-patient CAMH psychiatrist throughout Mr. Huk’s admission. The doctor adopted the contents of the Hospital Report and the ROL Report.

17. Dr. Kravtsenyuk advised that prior to Mr. Huk’s most recent admission, he had been residing in the community at Gibson House and was followed by the hospital’s Forensic Outpatient Service (“FOPS”) team. He presented at his psychiatric baseline, with residual grandiose and paranoid delusional beliefs and chronic, daily auditory hallucinations. Mr. Huk’s thought process was mildly disorganized and he had poor insight into his illness. As has been the case in the past, Mr. Huk frequently requested cigarettes.

18. The ROL Report indicates that by early December 2024, Mr. Huk presented with escalating behavioral issues, including verbal and physical aggression, racial slurs, persistent smoking indoors, and non-compliance with hygiene routines. It was thought that his presentation was triggered by limitations imposed on his ability to smoke outdoors due to cold weather. Despite knowledge of the housing rules related to smoking, Mr. Huk had been smoking inside at Gibson House in both common areas and private rooms. He was frequently uncooperative with staff redirection and would deny smoking even when caught in the act. There were concerns about fire hazards.

19. When agitated, Mr. Huk would engage in verbal aggression, profane language, racial slurs, and make threats towards staff and co-residents. The ROL Report indicates that he raised his fists and threatened to hit staff on multiple occasions (December 6, 11, and 17, 2024), and kicked a staff member on December 16, 2024.

20. There were no concerns from housing staff related to Mr. Huk’s compliance with his prescribed medications nor was there any concern about suspected substance use.

21. During that timeframe in December 2024, Mr. Huk expressed increasing paranoia and accused staff of stealing his personal belongings. He started to refuse hygiene assistance. He described experiencing perceptual disturbances, such as hearing a woman’s voice. He presented with heightened irritability and housing providers had concerns for their safety. The ROL Report states that: “Given the frequency and severity of incidents and increase in rule transgressions, the housing team requested urgent intervention to assess his mental state, address safety concerns, and determine appropriate next steps.”

22. Of note, the ROL Report indicates that: “At the time of his re-admission, Mr. Huk was physically threatening to multiple members of staff at John Gibson House, and smoked cigarettes inside the house, posing a fire hazard. Historically, these behaviours have been an indication of impending violent behaviour towards others….Given his history of arson and violence in similar circumstances, he was re-admitted to the hospital for stabilization.”

23. The FOPS team initiated his re-admission to CAMH on December 20, 2024. When attending the emergency department, Mr. Huk presented as agitated, disorganized and suspicious of care providers. He required encouragement to accept medications to settle.

24. When transferred to CAMH’s LGUD, Mr. Huk continued to present as irritable but he followed staff direction. He was granted increasingly liberal privileges, up to Level 3 passes, and he utilized these passes appropriately. He did not attempt to elope from the hospital. Further, he abided by the rules of the unit and did not smoke in the hospital. There were no instances of seclusion, aggression, or violence during his admission. His mental status remained at its baseline.

25. The ROL Report indicates that “During his admission, Mr. Huk’s comprehensive behavior plan was reassessed and refined by the LGUD behavior therapist in collaboration with the John Gibson House team. His psychiatric medication regimen remained unchanged, though he continued to require prompting for activities of daily living and self-care.”

26. Dr. Kravtsenyuk advised that following a discharge case conference, and with the coordinated support of the forensic outpatient team and John Gibson House staff, it was determined that Mr. Huk was ready for discharge back to his community housing on February 4, 2025. The doctor advised that since his return to the community, Mr. Huk continues to struggle with adherence to the smoking rules of his residence despite the fact that he expresses a commitment to adhere to house rules.

27. The doctor opined that Mr. Huk’s cognitive deficits appear to drive some of his challenging behaviours. She advised that a cognitive assessment will likely be conducted in the future.

28. The doctor also testified that since his discharge, Mr. Huk has engaged in episodes of verbal hostility directed at housing staff members and he continues to be resistant to redirection from staff. According to the doctor, the risk management plan for Mr. Huk is to intervene and return him to hospital for relatively brief admissions when his housing providers feel that he is no longer manageable in their home. Dr. Kravtsenyuk advised that intervention is required to re-stabilize Mr. Huk and to ensure that he does not lose his current community placement. The doctor stated that if he were to lose his placement at John Gibson house, it would likely take several years to secure an appropriate alternative community placement given Mr. Huk’s age and complex presentation.

29. No further evidence was called by the parties.

Restriction of Liberties:

30. The analytical framework established by Campbell (Re), 2018 ONCA 140 requires the Board to consider the liberty norm and the liberty status of an accused on a restriction. The liberty norm and liberty status for each restriction must be examined to determine the significance of the increase (if any) on the restriction of an accused’s liberty caused by the restriction. In determining the liberty norm of an accused at the outset of each period of restriction, the Board must “take a contextual approach, one that considers the individual’s pattern of liberty in the recent past.” ((Re) Campbell, ibid at para. 66). The liberty she/he was actually experiencing (rather than what she/he was entitled to) at the time of the increase is what the Board is to consider, and that “liberty must be of sufficient duration to have become, objectively speaking, the NCR accused’s norm” ((Re) Campbell, supra at para. 65).

31. Pursuant to the decision of (Re) Campbell, the Board agreed that a restriction of liberty had taken place. The Board found that the restrictions of liberty imposed on Mr. Huk during his readmission from December 20, 2024, to February 4, 2025 represented the least onerous and least restrictive intervention in the circumstances. Mr. Huk was not responsive to housing staff direction in his community placement and was engaging in behaviours that posed a risk of physical harm to others. His readmittance to hospital was necessary to restabilize Mr. Huk and to avert a situation where he might lose his community placement.

32. We find the restriction of Mr. Huk’s liberty throughout this time frame was warranted and necessary for public safety, as well as the least restrictive and least onerous intervention in the circumstances, as he presented with heightened aggression to staff and co-residents and his behaviours of smoking inside the John Gibson House contrary to housing rules presented a fire hazard safety risk to the occupants of his community residence.

33. In reaching our Decision, the Board carefully considered public safety, Mr. Huk’s mental condition, his integration into society and his other needs.

DATED this 1st day of April, 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

Ms. L. Banks Alternate Chairperson

__________________

Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board