Ontario Review Board
Re: George Bennett
ORB File No: 7829
Hearing held on: Monday, March 3, 2025
Place of Hearing: St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton, West 5th Campus
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. C. Flanagan
Members: Dr. K. Hand Dr. A. Kerry Mr. K. McKenna Ms. M. McKinnon
Parties Appearing:
Accused: George Bennett Counsel: Mr. R. Browne
Person in charge of Hospital: Counsel: Mr. S. O’Brien
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. C. Gzik
REASONS FOR DISPOSITON
(Dated April 9, 2025)
Introduction
On January 4, 2021, George Bennett was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on a charge of arson-damage to property contrary to the Criminal Code.
Mr. Bennett is currently subject to the terms and conditions of a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB” or the “Board”) dated March 11, 2024, detaining him at the Forensic Psychiatry Program of St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton, West 5th Campus (“SJHH” or the “Hospital”) with certain privileges, including to live in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
On March 3, 2025, a panel of the Board convened at the SJHH to conduct Mr. Bennett’s annual review, and to make a Disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code.
Mr. Bennett attended the hearing and was represented by his counsel, Mr. R. Browne. A Hospital Report dated February 10, 2025, was filed as Exhibit 1 at the hearing.
The issue for the hearing is whether Mr. Bennett continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public and, if so, to determine the necessary and appropriate Disposition in all the circumstances.
For the reasons set out below, the Board came to the unanimous conclusion that Mr. Bennett continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public and the most appropriate and necessary Disposition is a continuation of the existing Detention Disposition.
Initial Position of the Parties
At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as to their recommendations to the Board.
Mr. O’Brien, on behalf of the Hospital, submitted Mr. Bennett represents a significant threat to the safety of the public and recommended the continuation of the existing Detention Disposition on the same terms and conditions.
Ms. Gzik, on behalf of the Attorney General of Ontario, supported the Hospital’s recommendation.
Mr. Browne, on behalf of Mr. Bennett agreed with the Hospital position and conceded the issue of significant risk to the safety of the public.
Index Offences
- The circumstances of the index offences are taken from the Hospital Report as follows:
“On Thursday, October 15th, 2020, at approximately 8:12 PM police received a call for service in regards to a fire at a residence, located at 660 Montego Crescent, Burlington. It was reported that an explosion occurred blowing out the side window of the house.
Police arrived on scene and were made aware that a male, later identified as the accused, George BENNETT, was being combative with the fire department in the backyard of the residence. Police attended the backyard and escorted the accused. Upon doing so, the accused made several spontaneous utterances that he had started the fire intentionally.
The accused was subsequently placed under arrest, read his rights to counsel and transported 20 Division CLU. The accused provided an inculpatory statement that he was responsible for setting the fire. The accused admitted to pouring gas throughout the house making a trail which led to the backyard of residence. Once outside of the house he lit it on fire.”
Personal Background/Psychiatric History
Mr. Bennett’s personal background and psychiatric history are set out in detail in the Hospital Report filed as an exhibit at the hearing.
Briefly, Mr. Bennett was born in Burlington, Ontario and has three older sisters. His mother passed away in 2019. His father owns residential properties in Burlington, Ontario and Salmon Arm, British Columbia. Mr. Bennett completed high school and is one semester short of his degree in Economics and Political Science, from the University of British Columbia. He has worked at ski resorts and electrical apprentice positions.
Mr. Bennett began associating with the “wrong crowd” and experimenting with alcohol and illicit substances in high school. His family reported that he began having difficulties managing his anger, was verbally confrontational, and occasionally punched holes in the walls of their family home. There were times Mr. Bennett consumed alcohol and became more aggressive and unpredictable. In 2005, his mother relocated her son to Salmon Arm, British Columbia, to remove him from the negative influence of his peers.
In 2014, Mr. Bennett attended Selkirk College, where he enrolled in electrical training to become an electrician. During this time, he had an altercation with a man, whom he understood to be a member of “The Hells Angels Motorcycle Club”. This was the origin of his fear that the Hells Angels motorcycle gang were actively trying to end his life. His ongoing fear of being identified and located by a member of the Hells Angels resulted in him urgently leaving the city, province, and even the country on several occasions. Mr. Bennett became increasingly preoccupied with the motorcycle club’s attempts to harm him, resulting in ongoing suspicion of persons, including strangers, friends, and family members.
Mr. Bennett has several admissions to hospital. In August 2016, after a “violent outburst” at his sister’s house, his mother accompanied him to the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH). He was diagnosed with Schizophrenia, started on antipsychotic treatment, and referred to an outpatient psychiatric program. However, by April 2017 he stopped his medication and disengaged from outpatient follow-up.
Mr. Bennett frequently moved between Ontario and British Columbia. In 2019, his psychotic symptoms led him to believe that he was “spotted by the mob”, which caused him to flee to London, England. While there, he was brought to hospital by police after he expressed concerns about being monitored by the “mafia biker mob”. He was admitted to hospital from August 18 to May 7, 2019, diagnosed with delusional disorder, refused medication, and was returned to Canada by the UK government.
In April 2020, Mr. Bennett became threatening and aggressive towards his cousin and his cousin’s girlfriend, which resulted in them fearing for their safety. After this outburst, Mr. Bennett was asked to leave his aunt and uncle’s house and returned to his family’s home in Salmon Arm, British Columbia. In July 2020, he traveled to several cities in the United States, due to repeatedly being “identified and targeted” by the Hells Angels. On August 23, 2020, he returned to Ontario and reattended CAMH. He declined to accept medication and was referred to outpatient psychiatric follow-up.
Upon returning to his family home in Burlington, Ontario, Mr. Bennett noticed damage to the home caused by the neighbours who had been allowed to stay in there while their own home was under renovations. Mr. Bennett’s family became increasingly worried about Mr. Bennett’s decompensating mental health. He was setting up surveillance cameras around the home. He also was sending emails to his neighbours with increasingly threatening comments which included Mr. Bennett’s homicidal ideation towards the neighbours. In 2020, Mr. Bennett’s father secured a Form 2 under the MHA and his son was admitted to Joseph Brant Hospital between September 23 and September 28, 2020. Following his discharge, he returned to the family home in Burlington, where he resided until the index offence, on October 16, 2020.
On January 4, 2021, Mr. Bennett was found NCR on arson-damage to property and transferred to SJHH. He resided on the unit Waterfall 3 and was receiving financial support from the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) at the time of the hearing.
Current Diagnosis
- Mr. Bennett is diagnosed with Delusional Disorder, Persecutory type.
Evidence at the Hearing
The evidence was presented through the oral testimony of Dr. A. Courtright to supplement the evidence contained in the Hospital Report, filed at the hearing. Dr. Courtright has been Mr. Bennett’s attending psychiatrist since September 2024.
Dr. Courtright advised that Mr. Bennett did not further appeal his incapacity for treatment to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Public Guardian and Trustee (PG&T) became his substitute decision-maker (SDM). The doctor advised that Mr. Bennett is of the belief that he does not experience any symptoms of a mental illness and is resistant to the idea of treatment. At the end of November 2024, following the lapse of time to further appeal his incapacity for treatment, Mr. Bennett received his first injection of long-acting antipsychotic medication.
In November/December Mr. Bennett was subject to a restriction of liberty. This was precipitated by a concern regarding an acute increase in his perceived risk of elopement in the context of the initiation of treatment, and his history and statements at the time to leave the country. The team felt it was inappropriate for him to have access to level three privileges as his risk of elopement was acutely higher. The privileges were reinstated approximately a month later when his clinical presentation had stabilized. In February 2025, the Board ultimately found the restriction was necessary and warranted in the circumstances.
Dr. Courtright advised that Mr. Bennett’s insight into his illness and need for treatment remain absent. Mr. Bennett continues to feel he has been wrongly diagnosed, and his symptoms of delusions and psychosis are not the result of a mental illness, but rather due to the frustration of his confinement in hospital. Mr. Bennett disagrees strongly with the doctor and feels that the antipsychotic medication hasn’t made a difference, is unnecessary, and in fact harmful for him to receive it. In this regard, the doctor stated that Mr. Bennett is only accepting the medication to move forward through the forensic system. Dr. Courtright elaborated that Mr. Bennett’s insight into the index offence was limited. Although he has acknowledged it was an unfortunate event and caused damage, he minimizes the potential risk associated with it as well as the connection between the index offence and the symptoms of his illness.
Since receiving antipsychotic medication in November 2024, Mr. Bennett’s mental state has improved. The doctor stated that although Mr. Bennett continues to hold prior delusional beliefs, there has been no evidence of any new persecutory ideation. His hostility has decreased, he converses more effectively with treatment team members and has increased his community privileges. Mr. Bennett also has made gains working collaboratively with an occupational therapist and social worker, which aligns with his long-term goals of attaining work and housing. He also enjoys the outdoors and exercise, which he uses to deal with stress, and has expressed an interest in joining a cycling club. Dr. Courtright advised that if Mr. Bennett continues his current progress, it is probable he will be discharged to supported housing within the next year.
When asked, Dr. Courtright advised that over the next year, the treatment team would like to see Mr. Bennett increase his community integration through his indirect passes, be discharged to housing (he is on several housing waitlists), and explore employment opportunities. The doctor highlighted that Mr. Bennett still needs to improve his insight into his illness, the risks associated with lack of treatment, and how his symptoms impacted the index offence. In this regard, when asked by a Board member, the doctor agreed that psychotherapy, such as Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for psychosis (CBT-p), might be beneficial for Mr. Bennett in the upcoming year.
Dr. Courtright advised that Mr. Bennett continues to meet the threshold for significant threat to the safety of the public. She stated that the index offence was serious and could have significantly harmed others. In this regard, she reiterated that Mr. Bennett does not see a link between his need for treatment and the index offence, disputing any potential situation where harm would occur. Further, historically Mr. Bennett was disengaged and non-adherent to treatment leading to the index offence. The doctor highlighted that absent the jurisdiction of the Review Board, and given Mr. Bennett’s current insistence that he does not have any symptoms of his illness and medication is unnecessary, it would be almost certain that he would discontinue his antipsychotic medication. In this regard, he would experience a worsening of his symptoms, such as an increase in paranoia and misperception of reality and perceived threats towards his own safety. He would then be at an elevated risk of responding to misconceived threats by using aggression and violence towards others, which included dangerous acts like the index offence.
Dr. Courtright advised that a Conditional Discharge Disposition is premature at this time. It would not allow the hospital to respond quickly to mitigate the risk should there be an acute change in the risk level. The doctor agreed that the MHA would not suffice to manage the risk. As an example, the doctor stated a missed appointment due to decompensation would not necessarily meet the requirements under the MHA for admission to hospital. Further, Dr. Courtright advised that the hospital needs to approve Mr. Bennett’s accommodation. In this regard, Mr. Bennett has made comments that he could look after himself in a shelter system, which Dr. Courtright advised was inappropriate to manage his risk. Finally, Dr. Courtright highlighted that if Mr. Bennett was to become unwell, he would not seek hospitalization, as he would not see it as a medical problem.
No other evidence was presented at the hearing.
Final Submissions of the Parties
Mr. O’Brien, on behalf of the Hospital, submitted that there has been a breakthrough since Mr. Bennett was treated in November 2024 and there now is a realistic hope that significant progress can be made. In this regard, working collaboratively with the treatment team, Mr. Bennett may be discharged into the community within the next year. He submitted that the evidence is clear that under a Detention Order, the hospital needs to monitor Mr. Bennett’s situation going forward and it is still early days.
Ms. Gzik, on behalf of the Attorney General of Ontario, submitted that it was early days of treatment, and a Detention Order was the appropriate, and least onerous and least restrictive Disposition.
Mr. Browne, on behalf of Mr. Bennett, submitted that the current hospital trajectory was encouraging, and that Mr. Bennett intends to take full advantage of his privilege levels. Mr. Bennett was also looking forward to obtaining housing in the community and working with the treatment team.
Analysis and Conclusion
Having considered all the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board finds that Mr. Bennett continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public as set out in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code. We make this finding based on the evidence of Dr. Courtright and the evidence contained in the Hospital Report filed as an exhibit at the hearing, notwithstanding the joint position on significant threat of the parties.
Mr. Bennett’s long-standing delusional disorder has led to aggressive and threatening behaviour towards family members and homicidal ideation towards his neighbours, culminating in the serious index offence of arson. Although he has acknowledged it was an unfortunate event that caused damage, he continues to minimize the potential risk associated with it and most importantly, the connection between the index offence and the symptoms of his illness.
Historically, Mr. Bennett was disengaged and non-adherent to treatment. He does not believe he experiences any symptoms of a mental illness and is resistant to the idea of treatment. It was not until the end of November 2024, following the lapse of time to further appeal his incapacity for treatment to the Supreme Court of Canada, that Mr. Bennett received his first injection of long-acting antipsychotic medication.
Mr. Bennett’s insight into the need for treatment is absent and he is only accepting of his medication so he can move forward in the forensic system. In this regard, as acknowledged by Dr. Courtright, it may be that psychotherapy, such as CBT for psychosis, might be beneficial for Mr. Bennett in the coming year.
As stated by Dr. Courtright, whose evidence we accept, absent the jurisdiction of the Board, given Mr. Bennett’s insistence he does not have symptoms of his illness and medication is unnecessary, it would be almost certain that he would discontinue his antipsychotic medication. In such circumstances, his symptoms would worsen, increasing his paranoia, leading to aggression and violence towards other persons in the community.
On the positive side, since receiving antipsychotic medication over the last three months, Mr. Bennett has shown considerable improvement in his mental state. His hostility has decreased, there has been no evidence of any new persecutory ideation, and he is more engaging with his treatment team. He has also made gains working collaboratively with occupational therapy and social work towards his long-term goals of attaining work and housing. It is early days, however, and it will be important for the treatment team to carefully monitor and manage Mr. Bennett’s risk as he progresses towards community living.
Although not advanced by the parties, this Board finds that a Conditional Discharge Disposition has no air of reality. At this juncture the Hospital needs to approve his accommodation, with the ability to quickly return him, should there be signs of decompensation. In this regard, the MHA on its own will not suffice to manage the risk.
For the reasons set out above, this Board finds that Mr. Bennett remains a significant threat to the safety of public and the most appropriate and necessary Disposition is the continuation of the existing Detention Disposition, with an amendment to condition 4(d) to read “refrain from having in his possession any incendiary device or materials save and except for a lighter or matches for the sole purpose of allowing Mr. Bennett to light a cigarette”.1
In reaching our decision, the Board has considered the safety of the public, Mr. Bennett’s mental condition, his reintegration into society, and his other needs.
DATED this 9th day of April 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. C. Flanagan
Legal Member
__________________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board