Re Christopher Brunet, 2025 CanLII 31427

Re: Christopher Brunet

ORB File No: 6241

Hearing held on: March 21, 2025

Place of hearing: North Bay Regional Health Centre-North Bay

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

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. R. Bigelow

Members: Dr. A.D. Jones

Dr. T. Stirpe

The Hon. E. Kruzick

Ms. K. Brisson

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Christopher Brunet

Amicus Curiae: Mr. W. Stickland

The Person in charge of Hospital: Representative: Ms. J. Doyon

Counsel: Mr. P. Trenker

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

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated April 9, 2025)

Introduction:

1. On November 15, 2012, Christopher Brunet was found not criminally responsible (NCR) on account of mental disorder on charges of assault and mischief not exceeding $5000 contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (Criminal Code).

2. As a result, the Mr. Brunet is currently under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board (ORB or Board) pursuant to a Disposition dated, February 27, 2024 whereby he is detained subject to conditions.

3. On March 21, 2025, adjourned from January 15, 2025, the ORB convened a hearing at the North Bay Regional Health Centre-North Bay (NBRHC or the hospital) pursuant to s. 672.81(1). Mr. Brunet, who now acts on his own behalf was not present. On January 15, 2025 the ORB convened to consider an adjournment of Mr. Brunet’s annual hearing. The ORB sought fit to adjourn the hearing to today’s date and appoint amicus curiae. As a result of that Disposition, Mr. W. Stickland was appointed and appears as amicus curiae.

Issues at the Hearing

4. The questions for the Board on this hearing are whether to proceed with Mr. Brunet’s annual hearing given that Mr. Brunet is not present nor represented by counsel. If the Board decides to proceed the panel must determine if Mr. Brunet poses a significant threat to the safety of the public and if so, what disposition is necessary and appropriate in the circumstances.

Initial Positions of the Parties

5. On the issue of proceeding with the annual hearing, Mr. Trenker counsel for the hospital, took the position that the Board should proceed with the hearing and expressed, that if the hearing proceeds, the position of the hospital is that Mr. Brunet poses a significant threat to the safety of the public and the necessary and appropriate disposition is a continuation of the current detention order with no changes to the current provisions. Counsel for the Attorney General, Ms. Mazurski, agreed with the position of the hospital and referred the panel to R. v. LePage (Le Page), 2006 CanLII 37775 (ON CA), 2006 OJ 4486 (C.A.) to support her position. If the hearing proceeds she also agreed Mr. Brunet poses a significant threat to the safety of the public and the necessary and appropriate disposition is a continuation of the current detention order with no changes to the current provisions. Mr. Stickland, as amicus curiae took no position.

Findings

6. For reasons that follow, the panel found that it should proceed with Mr. Brunet’s annual hearing. On the issue of significant threat to the safety of the public, the Board finds the threshold is met and that a Disposition of Detention on the same terms as last year is necessary and appropriate in the circumstances.

Index Offence

7. The Hospital Report sets out the circumstances surrounding the Index Offences as follows: set out the following:

8. September 1, 2012: Mischief Under $5000

The accused in this matter is Christopher Brunet (DOB: 24 April 1979) and is currently an inpatient in the Acute Psychiatry Unit at the North Bay Regional Health Centre.

On the 1st of September 2012, the accused was in the lounge area of the D2 Ward at the North Bay Regional Health Centre, when he began to rip two couch cushions causing damage to them. The accused was subsequently escorted to his room on the D2 Ward, at which point he began to rip his foam mattress from his bed. The accused was escorted to the D2 seclusion room, where he ripped an alert sensor off the ceiling. The accused was moved to a seclusion room on the C2 Ward, where he took his clothes off, stuffed them in the toilet and began to flood the room. The accused was escorted back to the D2 seclusion room, where he again began to flood the room by plugging the toilet. The accused was moved back to the C2 seclusion room, where he began to rip off the metal plates on the doors and ripped off a security camera hanging from the ceiling area. The accused put the camera into the toilet and again began to flood the room. The accused was subsequently chemically restrained at this point by hospital staff.

On the 2nd of September 2012, Constable Jackson of the North Bay Police Service attended the North Bay Regional Health Centre and spoke with Dawn Bougie, the shift supervisor, in relation to the accused. The accused was subsequently charged with one count of Mischief Over $5000. He was provided his Rights to Counsel and Caution and was released at the scene on an Appearance Notice with a court date for the 6th of November 2012.

2. September 30, 2012: Assault

The accused in this matter is Christopher Brunet (DOB: 24 April 1979) and is currently an involuntary patient being treated at the Northeast Regional Health Centre for psychiatric disorders.

The victim is Dr. Brian Talarico, who is a psychiatrist at the Northeast Regional Health Centre, Psychiatric Unit. On September 30, 2012, shortly after 8:00 a.m., the victim, Dr. Talarico, was seeing patients at the Northeast Regional Health Centre in the inpatient psychiatric unit, D2. The victim left the interview room when he was suddenly attacked without warning by the accused, Christopher Brunet. The accused lunged at the victim and punched him repeatedly on the right side of his head. The attack stopped when staff members intervened. The accused was then transferred to another area of the unit for safety reasons.

The injuries sustained were cuts to the right ear, which included redness and swelling.

Criminal History

8. Mr. Brunet’s legal history as set out in last year’s Reasons are as follows:

Legal History

Date & Location

Charge(s)

Disposition

1999.03.17 North Bay, ON (Youth Court)

Break, Enter and Theft

Probation 2 years

1999.11.22 North Bay, ON

Uttering Threats

Suspended sentence & probation 1 year

Mr. Brunet also incurred the following charges with varying dispositions.

Date & Location

Charge(s)

Disposition

1997.09.23 North Bay, ON

Theft Under $5000

Stayed

1999.11.22 North Bay, ON

Assault

Withdrawn

2012.11.15 North Bay, ON

Assault Mischief Under $5000

Found Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder

Background Information Regarding the Accused:

9. Mr. Brunet is 44 years old and is single. He had been living in the community of North Bay since January of 2014.

10. On December 3, 2023, while under the current Disposition dated, April 12, 2023, and living in the community, Mr. Brunet voluntarily admitted himself to the NBRHC. He continues to reside at the hospital.

11. Mr. Brunet has a criminal history as set out above. Mr. Brunet has an extensive psychiatric history with numerous admissions set out in detail in the Hospital Report.

12. Mr. Brunet has the longstanding support of his mother. Financially, he receives monthly benefits through Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) and was in receipt of a rental subsidy provided through the local Canadian Mental Health Association (CMHA) when living in the community.

13. Substitute consent is provided by the Ontario Public Guardian and Trustee (OPGT). Mr. Brunet is not capable of consenting to treatment.

Current Diagnosis

14. The current diagnosis is taken from the Hospital Report: schizophrenia.

Evidence

15. The Hospital Report, dated December 6, 2024, was made an exhibit at the hearing. Dr. Munro who is a co-author of the Hospital Report testified at the hearing and adopted it contents. Dr. Munro has been Mr. Brunet’s attending psychiatrist since October 24, 2024 assuming Mr. Brunet’s care from Dr. Alabi. Dr. Munro informed the Board that she has developed a good relationship with Mr. Brunet. Since the preparation of report, and the adjournment of January 15, 2025, Mr. Brunet is doing well. She testified that he is more accepting of his illness and circumstance and less hostile in his environment and toward staff.

16. Dr. Munro informed the Board that Mr. Brunet has been more engaged with the hospital team and because he has been doing well he has increased privileges on the hospital grounds and community privileges in a group setting and under staff supervision.

17. When asked about Mr. Brunet’s insight, Dr. Munro testified that with respect to his mental illness, which is schizophrenia, his insight varies. While Mr. Brunet acknowledges his illness he sometimes denies any mental health issues and expresses scepticism toward psychiatry and psychiatric medicine. Mr. Brunet continues to take his medication but expresses concern and questions the effectiveness of his medication. Dr. Munro expressed that if left to his own devices, Mr. Brunet would likely discontinue his medication regime and withdraw from formal support services, thereby heightening his risk of violent behaviour.

18. Dr. Munro’s evidence was that Mr. Brunet finds attending the ORB hearings stressful and negative to his self-esteem. When Dr. Munro met with Mr. Brunet prior to this ORB hearings she describes him as being stressed and agitated.

19. The current disposition allows him to live in the community. Dr. Munro recommended that a sustained period of forensic inpatient hospitalization would facilitate further psychiatric and psychological evaluations and treatment adjustments. If he continues his current trajectory community living may be possible for Mr. Brunet. Dr. Munro acknowledged that Mr. Brunet is motivated and aware of the limitations that he would have to have if living in the community was recommended for him. Dr. Munro expressed that, when he is ready, the Maplewood facility in North Bay would likely be most suitable for Mr. Brunet.

20. Dr. Munro opined that while Mr. Brunet has made good progress in the hospital he has a long and concerning history of anti-social behaviour which include physical attacks on people including his psychiatrist. When he is off his medication, Dr. Munro informed the Board that Mr. Brunet is prone to rapid decomposition. Mr. Brunet also has a longstanding history of non-compliance with medication. As she expressed earlier, if not supervised Dr. Munro opined Mr. Brunet would likely not be adherent to his medication.

21. Dr. Munro testified, and as set out in the Hospital Report, that she and the treatment team recommend further time is necessary to formulate and implement a responsible plan to manage Mr. Brunet risk of recidivism.

22. When asked by a Board member about Mr. Brunet’s misrepresenting himself to people, as detailed in the Hospital Report, Dr. Munro acknowledged that his behaviour could pose a risk to the safety of the public. She testified to concerning behaviour when in September Mr. Brunet approached nursing students at the Owl Lodge and introduced himself as a clinical instructor. He handed them anti-psychiatric literature booklets and represented them as part of a homework assignment.

23. In the past he has shared his anti-psychiatric beliefs to other patients in the hospital. The concern expressed and acknowledged by Dr. Munro was for more vulnerable members of the public who might fall prey to Mr. Brunet’s misrepresentation.

24. To that end, the hospital team has engaged Mr. Brunet in education regarding the serious risk of misrepresenting himself, his education, degrees and titles. He has since stopped calling himself “doctor” and he acknowledges he doesn’t have a degree or qualifications. He has been advised that he is a patient on the unit and that it is inappropriate to introduce himself otherwise.

25. Although Mr. Brunet interacts with his peers, he lacks close friendships and has expressed feelings of loneliness, including a desire for a long-term relationship, marriage and children. Dr. Munro testified that Mr. Brunet’s risky behaviour makes him feel good about himself. He acknowledged his loneliness and desire to engage with others which is being addressed in his therapy.

26. The Hospital Report states that Mr. Brunet maintains regular communications with his mother who provide on going support through frequent visits and telephone calls.

27. No other evidence was called.

Submissions

28. After hearing the evidence of the positions of counsel’s positions remained as at the outset of the hearing. As amicus curiae Mr. Stickland chose to make no closing submissions.

Analysis

Hearing in the Absence of the Patient

29. The services of Mr. Brunet former counsel were terminated before Mr. Brunet’s annual hearing, originally set for January 15, 2025. Mr. Brunet was present at the January, 2025 hearing. The annual hearing was adjourned to today’s date. On today’s return date Mr. Brunet was not present and was not represented by counsel. After hearing the submissions of counsel and after deliberating the issue, in the interests of justice, the Board independently and unanimously decided to proceed with Mr. Brunet’s annual hearing.

30. In coming to our conclusion, the Board is mindful of the provision in s. 672.5(10)(a) which allows the Board to permit the patient to be absent from the hearing. The panel also considered s. 672.5(8) which deals with assigning counsel for the patient if the person is not represented. On January 15, 2025 when Mr. Brunet informed the Board he would be self-represented, the Board saw fit to appoint amicus curiae. Mr. Stickland has now been appointed in that role.

31. In our deliberation and then our conclusion, the panel bears in mind that Mr. Brunet was aware of today’s date. When canvassed by the hospital staff, Mr. Brunet informed the staff member he was “too busy” to attend and acknowledged the Board could proceed in his absence. Furthermore, from the record before us, Mr. Brunet was aware, that on January 15, 2025 when Mr. Schieck no longer represented Mr. Brunet, the Board appointed amicus curiae. Mr. Stickland, as amicus curiae informed the Board that when he attempted to speak to Mr. Brunet, he was told that Mr. Brunet did not wish to speak with him.

32. In proceeding today, we bear in mind that on January 15, 2025, Mr. Brunet attending in-person for the Adjournment Hearing. The Reasons for the Adjournment read:

At the start of the hearing, Mr. Brunet eloquently stated that he was capable of self-representing and wished to proceed in the absence of counsel. He added that he was on the “same plane” as Dr. Munro and was ready to self-represent and proceed with his annual hearing.

The endorsement continues:

It was emphasised to Mr. Brunet by the panel that his ORB hearing occurs but once a year, during which important issues are canvassed and decided upon.

33. We bear in mind the direction of the Court of Appeal in Le Page, supra, at para. 29:

When NCR accused are involved, there is an elevated possibility that all issues may not be presented. In my view, amicus curiae may be appointed by the Board and assigned the role of presenting the issues favouring the accused which otherwise might not be raised. I am satisfied that an amicus curiae who is assigned this role may be said to “act for the accused”.

34. In the interests of justice, the Board is of the view that we should proceed with this hearing in the absence of Mr. Brunet. He is clearly aware of today’s hearing and has expressed that he does not wish to attend. In this matter we have amicus curiae counsel appointed to safeguard Mr. Brunet’s interests. Mr. Brunet is also aware of that appointment, moreover, counsel attempts to speak to Mr. Brunet were refused. As stated by the Court of Appeal in Le Page, supra, at para. 31:

Even if the appellant refuses to cooperate, amicus curiae has a role to play both in representing his interests and in assisting the Board.

35. We find therefore find that, where Mr. Brunet is aware of today’s hearing and, where we have amicus curiae counsel to represent Mr. Brunet’s interest and assist the Board, the Board should proceed with Mr. Brunet’s annual hearing.

Significant Threat

36. The panel unanimously accept the evidence of Dr. Munro that Mr. Brunet poses a risk to the safety of the public. The evidence supports that Mr. Brunet suffers from a significant mental illness with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. The acute manifestations of his illness include paranoia, grandiose and persecutory delusions, thought disorder, auditory hallucinations, irrational anger and intimidating and aggressive behaviour.

37. Mr. Brunet’s index offence includes a charge of assault on his psychiatrist. In the context of the index offence and Mr. Brunet’s criminal history, his risk to the safety of the public is most strongly linked to his psychiatric illness and the evidence of his inflated sense of self-worth. We rely on the evidence in the Hospital Report that scenarios where Mr. Brunet is likely to be violent in the future are likely to involve reactive, unplanned and impulsive acts.

38. While we accept Dr. Munro’s evidence that Mr. Brunet appears to now be doing better and that his criminal history is serious and criminal in nature. More recent inappropriate and threatening behaviour this past reporting year toward his community are concerning to the panel.

39. We rely on the Hospital Report which sets out that, in considering Mr. Brunet’s psychological assessments and his history, his current risk for future violence and serious physical harm is assessed to be moderate with the risk of imminent violence low given the supports in place.

40. In the end, the Board relies on the evidence at this hearing that Mr. Brunet suffers from a serious mental illness and that his mental health is such that he poses significant threat to the safety of the public.

Disposition

41. In light of our finding of significant threat we accept the evidence of Dr. Munro and the Hospital Report on disposition. We unanimously find a sustained period of forensic impatient hospitalization is necessary and appropriate and that there be a continuation of the current detention disposition to the forensic programs of the NBRHC with no changes to the provisions.

Conclusion

42. Jurisdictional threshold of significant threat to the safety of the public is supported by the evidence at this hearing.

43. Pursuant to s.672.54 of the Criminal Code, the Board find this disposition is necessary and appropriate and that this disposition is the least onerous and least restrictive while recognizing public safety as our ‘paramount consideration’.

44. In the circumstances of this case a discharge subject to conditions would simply be insufficient to protect the safety of the public.

DATED this 9th day of April 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

E. Kruzick

Legal Member

Office of the Registrar

Ontario Review Board