Re: K. (S.-J.), 2025 CanLII 31435

Re: K. (S.-J.)

ORB File No: 6635

Hearing held on: Tuesday, February 18, 2025

Place of hearing: Thunder Bay Regional

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

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Goldenberg

Members: Dr. H. Bloom Dr. P. Wright Mr. D. Sandor Mr. S. Duffy

Parties Appearing:

Accused: K. (S.-J.) Counsel: Ms. B. Rogers

The Person in charge of Hospital: Representative: Ms. M. Davidson

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. T. Jukes

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated April 10, 2025)

Introduction:

1K. (S.-J.) was found not criminally responsible by reasons of mental disorder on a charge of abduction of a person under 14 years of age. Ms. K. (S.-J.) was found N.C.R. on September 18, 2014.

2Ms. K. (S.-J.) is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board detaining her at the Secure Forensic Unit of the Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre (TBRHSC) That disposition contained a number of prohibitions and a number of privileges, including the privilege of living in the community. The Board understands that Ms. K. (S.-J.) has been living in a residence in Thunder Bay since June 16, 2023.

3On Tuesday, September the 18th, 2025, the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing at Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre and conducted the annual review of Ms. K. (S.-J.)’s disposition. Given the extremely difficult weather conditions, this matter proceeded virtually.

Position of the Parties:

4At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as to their recommendations to the Board.

5Ms. Davidson appeared the hospital. She advised of the hospital position that Ms. K. (S.-J.) remains a significant threat to public safety, and if the Board so finds, the necessary and appropriate disposition is for Ms. K. (S.-J.) to be discharged subject to a number of conditions.

6Mr. Jukes appeared for the Attorney General of the province. He supported the hospital’s position both that Ms. K. (S.-J.) remains a significant threat to public safety and also that the necessary and appropriate disposition currently is a Conditional Discharge rather than a Detention Order.

7Ms. Rogers appeared for Ms. K. (S.-J.). Ms. Rogers also accepts that her client remains a significant threat to public safety and that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a Conditional discharge rather than a Detention Order.

Index Offences:

8The index offences are described as follows:

During the early evening hours of October 1, 2013, Ms. K. (S.-J.) approached two girls playing in the street and asked them to walk with her to a local convenience store. They obliged, and Ms. K. (S.-J.) told one of the girls to go back to where they met to look for her lost purse. The child did so, but when she returned to the store, her friend and Ms. K. (S.-J.) were gone.

Ms. K. (S.-J.) lived in the same neighbourhood, and in the course of their investigation, the police spoke to a male with whom she had a previous relationship. While they were doing so, Ms. K. (S.-J.) called him, and he then told the police where he had arranged to meet her. Police arrested Ms. K. (S.-J.) when they saw her enter the male’s truck with the young girl. She informed police that Ms. K. (S.-J.) had not hurt or threatened her and had taken her by bus to her home after the convenience store, where she was given a change of clothes and watched television while eating dinner.

Ms. K. (S.-J.) admitted taking the young girl home to keep her safe because she appeared to be crying and upset and “lived at a place with bad people”. She told police the girl looked unhealthy and that she believed the girl’s parents were drug dealers. She acknowledged that she became uncertain about what to do with the little girl and contacted her former boyfriend for advice.

Evidence at Hearing:

9The Board admitted into evidence the Hospital Report dated November 13, 2024. The Hospital Report provides a great deal of information concerning Ms. K. (S.-J.)’s personal history, her mental health history, details of a number of criminal convictions, details of the index offence, and Ms. K. (S.-J.)’s course in hospital and in the community subsequent to the date of the N.C.R. finding. As the Hospital Report was made an exhibit in this hearing, it is not necessary to reproduce the information contained in the Hospital Report in these reasons.

10We do note, however, the stated diagnoses of schizophrenia, antisocial personality disorder, cannabis use disorder, alcohol use disorder, and synthetic cannabis use disorder.

11In addition to the documentary evidence, the Board heard from Dr. Schubert. Dr. Schubert has been following Ms. K. (S.-J.) since she was found N.C.R. approximately 10 and a half years ago. Dr. Schubert noted at the outset that Ms. K. (S.-J.) has had “a very good year.”

12Dr. Schubert notes that when Ms. K. (S.-J.) becomes unwell, she experiences bizarre delusions. Approximately five years ago, Dr. Schubert switched Ms. K. (S.-J.) to depot medication and that resulted in a significant improvement. Dr. Schubert’s believes that she has not experienced psychotic symptoms since the transfer to depot medication.

13Dr. Schubert noted that Ms. K. (S.-J.) has been living in the community since June of 2023 in her own independent apartment. It is also subsidized. The doctor noted that Ms. K. (S.-J.) grew up in Thunder Bay. She has no interest in living anywhere other than Thunder Bay. Dr. Schubert repeated that Ms. K. (S.-J.) is compliant with her medication requirements. Over the past year, Ms. K. (S.-J.) has attended all of her appointments with the doctor save for one missed on January 15, 2025. Ms. K. (S.-J.) did meet with the doctor as required last week.

14The hospital historically has concerns about difficulties they have in reaching Ms. K. (S.-J.) from time to time. Dr. Schubert believes that Ms. K. (S.-J.) has a “fairly good therapeutic relationship” with the hospital clinical team. The doctor noted that Ms. K. (S.-J.) reached out to Dr. Lake, a psychologist at the hospital, on three occasions when she was having some difficulty. Ms. K. (S.-J.)’s case manager meets Ms. K. (S.-J.) two or three times per week. We note that Ms. K. (S.-J.) participated at this Zoom hearing, and we understand the case manager was accompanying Ms. K. (S.-J.) during this hearing.

15The doctor noted Ms. K. (S.-J.) visits her four children every two weeks. Dr. Schubert noted that Ms. K. (S.-J.) has continued to struggle with the use of synthetics substances. This has been a significant issue, and Dr. Schubert noted that on three occasions when Ms. K. (S.-J.) sought out Dr. Lake, it was in connection with her use of synthetic substances.

16Dr. Schubert noted that Ms. K. (S.-J.) has two convictions for assault while under the Review Board. There was an assault on a bus driver in 2018 and an assault on a co-patient in 2020. Dr. Schubert noted improvement in the use of substances and described this has been her best year in that regard. Dr. Schubert believes that Ms. K. (S.-J.) is motivated to move forward. Dr. Schubert and the clinical team all support Ms. K. (S.-J.) receiving a Conditional Discharge. Dr. Schubert is satisfied that the Mental Health Act will be sufficient to manage Ms. K. (S.-J.)’s current level of threat to public safety.

17Dr. Schubert noted that Ms. K. (S.-J.)’s ongoing use of substances remains problematic.

18Dr. Schubert noted that Ms. K. (S.-J.) keeps her apartment neat and tidy. Ms. K. (S.-J.) enjoys cooking in her apartment.

19In response to questions from Crown counsel, Dr. Schubert acknowledged Ms. K. (S.-J.)’s use of synthetic cannabis. Dr. Schubert acknowledged that Ms. K. (S.-J.) has used Kush. The doctor noted that use of Kush has hallucinatory effects but noted that the effects are short lived for approximately an hour or so.

20In response to further questions from Mr. Jukes, Dr. Schubert acknowledged that Ms. K. (S.-J.) has participated on two occasions with a residential substance abuse program offered by Dilico. Ms. K. (S.-J.) does not feel that she needs to attend such a program for a third time.

21Dr. Schubert reported that Ms. K. (S.-J.) has some improved insight. Dr. Schubert, however, is concerned about the difficulties the hospital has had on occasion in their inability to contact Ms. K. (S.-J.). The doctor is concerned that Ms. K. (S.-J.) may be avoiding contact when she has been using substances. Dr. Schubert noted that since December 1, 2024, Ms. K. (S.-J.) has provided 20 urine samples, all of which were negative for substances.

22A panel member drew Dr. Schubert’s attention to a portion of a 2023 risk assessment stating that Ms. K. (S.-J.)’s risk for future violent reoffending remains high. Dr. Schubert did not necessarily agree with that conclusion. Dr. Schubert believes that Ms. K. (S.-J.) has matured and is not engaging in impression management. In response to questions from another panel member, Dr. Schubert noted that Ms. K. (S.-J.) will tell members of the clinical team when she has been using substances such as Kush and/or K2. Dr. Schubert noted that Ms. K. (S.-J.) provides a breathalyzer sample at most meetings with the case manager and those samples have been negative for a period of time.

23In response to questions from another panel member, Dr. Schubert advised that the team had put their mind to specifying a condition of the discharge requiring Ms. K. (S.-J.) to continue to live at her current address. Dr. Schubert and the team did not believe it was necessary to do so. Dr. Schubert noted that her residence is part of the Thunder Bay Housing program and there is always a potential that the program might require Ms. K. (S.-J.) to move to another residence, although there is no suggestion that this is likely to happen anytime soon.

24The Alternate Chair noted that questions were asked about the possibility of the Board specifying her current specific residence. The Alternate Chair asked the doctor for the address. The doctor did not have it handy, and with permission of counsel, the Alternate chair asked Ms. K. (S.-J.) and she provided her apartment number and the address of the apartment building.

25No other evidence was heard at this hearing.

Final Submissions:

26All parties maintained their original positions, namely that Ms. K. (S.-J.) remains a significant threat to public safety and that her threat to public safety can be managed with a Conditional Discharge.

27Ms. Davidson noted that the hospital did not believe it necessary to specify her current address in the Conditional Discharge, but if the Board saw fit to do so, the hospital would not take any objection to such a clause.

28Mr. Jukes also supports a finding of significant threat and also concurs in the granting of a Conditional Discharge. Mr. Jukes did not believe that it was necessary or appropriate for the Board to specify Ms. K. (S.-J.)’s current address.

29Ms. Rogers repeated that she accepts that her client remains a significant threat to public safety and repeated that the necessary and appropriate disposition does not include specifying Ms. K. (S.-J.)’s current address.

Findings of the Board:

30The Board accepts the evidence of Dr. Schubert and the evidence contained in the hospital report. In particular, we accept at the present time Ms. K. (S.-J.) remains a significant threat to public safety. We note the serious nature of the events of the index offence. We are aware of the convictions for assaultive behaviour. We are satisfied that at the present time Ms. K. (S.-J.) remains a significant threat to public safety.

31The panel also is satisfied that Ms. K. (S.-J.)’s threat to public safety can be managed with a Conditional Discharge. We accept Dr. Schubert’s evidence in this regard. Dr. Schubert noted that Ms. K. (S.-J.) had been subject to a Conditional Discharge approximately 8 years ago and noted that at that time it was necessary for the hospital to apply for an early hearing to revert to a Detention Order.

32We accept Dr. Schubert’s opinion that Ms. K. (S.-J.) has matured, and in his opinion that she has enjoyed a very good period since her last hearing approximately 15 months ago. Dr. Schubert simply noted that his patient has matured considerably since 2018.

33The Board considered at length whether it is necessary and appropriate to specify her current residence. There is suggestion that Ms. K. (S.-J.) would not want to move out of her current residence. She is doing well in that residence. We are satisfied that Ms. K. (S.-J.) would not wish to move to any other residence. We are also mindful of the doctor’s evidence that the residence is in the Thunder Bay Housing program and the possibility only that the program would want to move Ms. K. (S.-J.) elsewhere. We accept the submissions of the Crown that it is simply not necessary nor appropriate to specify the current residence as part of our Conditional Discharge.

34At some point in questions from panel members, an issue of including a Young clause as part of our disposition was raised. Ultimately, the proposed terms of a Conditional Discharge gives the hospital the right to require Ms. K. (S.-J.) to report not less than once per week. In the Board’s opinion, this would include the right to have Ms. K. (S.-J.) report daily, and we simply see no reason to include a Young clause.

35In the result, we do find Ms. K. (S.-J.) remains a significant threat to public safety and we are satisfied that the necessary and appropriate is a Conditional Discharge with all of the privileges and prohibitions set out in the hospital report.

36In reaching our disposition, the Board has taken into consideration the safety of the public, Ms. K. (S.-J.)’s mental condition, her other needs, and her reintegration into society.