Ontario Review Board
Re: Marcus Campbell
ORB File No: 7647
Hearing held on: Thursday, February 13, 2025
Place of Hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre (Via Zoom Audio Visual Technology)
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before: Alternate Chairperson: Mr. P. Capelle Members: Dr. G. Glancy Dr. G. Boulais Mr. P. Hageraats Mr. A. Bernardo
Parties Appearing: Accused: Marcus Campbell Counsel: Mr. M. Davies Person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. A. Sandhu Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. M. Dufort
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated April 9, 2025)
Introduction:
On November 26, 2019, the accused, Marcus Campbell, was found not criminally responsible (NCR) on account of mental disorder on charges of criminal harassment, unlawful entry to dwelling and a breach of recognizance (section 810 peace bond), contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (the Criminal Code).
Mr. Campbell is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated February 23, 2024, which detains him in the secure forensic unit of the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre with privileges up to and including to live in the community of Ottawa in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
On February 12th, 2025, a panel of the Ontario Review Board (“the ORB” or “the Board”) convened a hearing at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre (“ROMHC”) pursuant to s. 672.81(1)of the Criminal Code of Canada. The annual review was held in person, with Mr. Campbell attending alone from his apartment, via Zoom Audio Visual Technology. The hospital was represented by Dr. A. Sandhu, the Attorney-General by Ms. Marie Dufort and Mr. Campbell by his counsel, Mr. Michael Davies.
Preliminary Issue
At the outset of the hearing Mr. Davies asked the Board for an appointment as counsel which the Board so ordered pursuant to s. 672.5(10) of the Criminal Code.
Without Prejudice Position of the Parties:
Dr. Sandhu is recommending a conditional discharge which represents a change from the current detention disposition. Ms. Dufort, counsel for the Attorney-General, indicated she would be reserving her position until having heard the evidence. Mr. Davies, on behalf of the patient, agreed with the conditional discharge recommendation and asked for the inclusion of international travel passes.
Index Offences
The circumstances of the index offences are summarized in last year’s Reasons for Disposition as follows:
“Mr. Campbell had been a Masters’ level student in Public Administration at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario. A few years, while having financial difficulty and with no place to live, his professor, Ms. L, him into her family residence to help him out. Not long after, Mr. Campbell developed an unhealthy attraction toward her; consequently, he was removed from the family home. In the months that followed, he engaged in a course of stalking. There were many reports to police over the years.
On February 23, 2018, Mr. Campbell travelled to Kingston from Ottawa, where he was then residing, to see Ms. L. Ms. L’s husband turned him away at the door. However, soon after, he returned and knocked at the window. Police found him on the street nearby: a citizen had called in advising that he was wandering around the area looking confused. The officers apprehended Mr. Campbell under the Mental Health Act and took him to the Kingston General Hospital (KGH).
On March 10, 2018, Ms. L contacted the Kingston Police to seek advice on what to do about Mr. Campbell: she had heard from several people that he was still looking to see her and was talking about her often. She had heard that he was in Kingston, but she had not yet seen him.
On November 28, 2018, police officers were dispatched to Ms. L’s home. Mr. Campbell had attended the residence and was refusing to leave. When the officers arrived, they could not locate Mr. Campbell. Ms. L did not wish to proceed with charges. The very next day, Mr. Campbell travelled to Kingston by cab from Ottawa to see her. She called the police when he got to her home. Mr. Campbell was again apprehended under the Mental Health Act and taken to KGH.
On December 21, 2018, Mr. Campbell contacted the Queen’s University Faculty Relations. He filed a sexual assault claim against Ms. L. Following this, Ms. L filed a criminal harassment report with the Kingston Police who charged Mr. Campbell.
Ultimately, on May 9, 2019, the charges were stayed, with Mr. Campbell entering into a Section 810 recognizance (Peace Bond under The Criminal Code). Court ordered conditions required that he not communicate with Ms. L and that he not be within a 100-metre radius of her person, home, or places of work or school.
On September 9, 2019, just before 7:00 p.m., Kingston Police Officers were contacted by Ms. L. She reported that Mr. Campbell was in her residence: he was with her children. On arrival, police officers observed Mr. Campbell on the front step of the home. Mr. Campbell stated that he knew he was not allowed to be there but that it was not logical and that he needed to see Ms. L. The officers arrested Mr. Campbell for breaching his court order. He was handcuffed and brought to a police vehicle.
From speaking to Ms. L and her children, ages 15 and 13, the officers learned that during the time the children were at home alone, Mr. Campbell had let himself into the residence and had demanded to speak to Ms. L. The children were frightened. They notified their mother by text, as she was at another location. She in turn called the police. Mr. Campbell was charged with breach of a court order, criminal harassment, and unlawful entry to a dwelling. When advised of his rights to counsel and issued a formal police caution, and asked if he understood, Mr. Campbell stated, “Yes, but this isn’t logical”. When asked if he wished to call a lawyer, he did not reply but instead went on talking about a time in Ottawa that he had called a lawyer. The officers asked Mr. Campbell about why he breached the court order. He made a comment, something to the effect of “One way or another this game has to end tonight.” He refused to clarify what he meant. Taken to the police station, he was processed; duty counsel was called. A handwritten suicide note was found inside his wallet. It stated, “I am going to commit suicide by jumping over the railing at the top of the staircase. Please keep the area below clear of others to make sure of their safety”.
By way of further background, it was later learned that earlier on that same day, with Mr. Campbell living in Ottawa, he had brought himself to the Emergency Room of the Ottawa Hospital. Emergency Room staff did not recognize his mental condition but found him to be disruptive. Police were called and he was escorted from the premises and was issued a trespass to property notice. From there, Mr. Campbell made his way by cab to Kingston, going on to commit the index offences.”
Background
The Board admitted into evidence the Hospital Report dated February 6th, 2025, as Exhibit 1. The document provides minimal information concerning Mr. Campbell’s personal history, mental health history as well as his course in hospital and in the community both prior to and subsequence to the 2019 index offences. Page 1 of the Hospital Report states:
For Information related to Mr. Campbell’s previous hearings and background information, please refer to Dr. Gojer’s cumulative report for the ORB dated February 2, 2023.
Regrettably, the aforementioned cumulative report was not provided by the Hospital. The following background information is therefore taken from the Board’s most recent Reasons for Disposition, dated May 6th, 2024, updated with information from Exhibit 1. Briefly, Mr. Campbell is 36 years old and was raised in Brampton, Ontario, where his mother and younger sister still live. His father died by suicide about six years ago by jumping from the family’s apartment balcony. Mr. Campbell had a closer relationship with his father than with his mother whom he describes as ‘cruel’. His mother described him as a "quirky" child who needed strict routines and became upset when these routines changed. As a teenager, he developed panic attacks and avoided touching people due to cleanliness concerns. Mr. Campbell hasn't fully processed his father's death and has expressed concerns that he might eventually follow the same path.
Mr. Campbell performed exceptionally well academically. He earned a B.A.(Hons.) from the University of Toronto with high distinction in Sociology and Criminology and received an award for being the top student across all three campuses. He later completed a master's degree in public policy at Queens University.
After moving to Ottawa, he worked as a policy analyst for the federal government. While symptoms of his depression improved he struggled to make friends. He attended social events because it was expected but felt awkward and unable to connect with others. His ongoing feelings of hopelessness and recurring psychotic episodes have made it difficult for him to maintain stability.
Mr. Campbell psychiatric history dates from February 2018, when he was admitted to the Queensway-Carleton Hospital. At that time, he appeared disorganized and had trouble communicating. Work stress and housing concerns contributed to an unhealthy fixation on a former professor. He spent eleven days in hospital and his condition improved with antipsychotic medication. Doctors considered both psychosis and a possible developmental disorder. He left the hospital without follow-up care in place.
In March 2018, Mr. Campbell again tried to contact the female professor. By November 2018, his fixation intensified, and he took a taxi from Ottawa to Kingston to try to reach her. Police became involved, leading to another hospital admission. At this time, it was noted that he had very poor coping skills and didn't know where to turn during a crisis.
After being charged by police in November 2018, Mr. Campbell was admitted to the Forensic Unit at the Providence Care Hospital in Kingston. Following assessment, Dr. Chan recommended court diversion, and the charges were dropped. He returned to his government job with hospital support and was assigned a regular Canadian Mental Health Association worker. Mr. Campbell has had no other involvement with the criminal justice system prior to the 2019 commission of the index offences.
Following the NCR finding he lived in the community before being admitted to the Royal Ottawa Hospital in November 2020. Thereafter, he briefly returned to work but went back on sick leave. In May 2021, he was readmitted as he had stopped taking his medication. He was discharged and briefly readmitted in December 2021 after using marijuana due to reported feelings of hopelessness and boredom.
By January 2022, his situation had become unstable. Despite attending appointments, he refused counseling and medication. His fixation on his former professor grew worse, including beliefs about conspiracies against him. He became unable to work and began receiving disability benefits. As his condition deteriorated, he exhibited threatening behavior and was admitted to the ROMHC’s Forensic Assessment Unit (“FAU”) on September 7th 2022 until discharged on February 13th 2023. Thereafter, he was admitted to the Ottawa Hospital for 10 days the following month.
Mr. Campbell’s care was transferred from Dr. Gojer to Dr. Selaman in October of 2023 and then to Dr. Sandhu in the summer of 2024.
Current Diagnoses
Mr. Campbell’s current diagnoses are:
Schizophrenia
Autism Spectrum Disorder
Evidence at the Hearing
Dr. Sandhu advised that he took over Mr. Campbell’s care in the summer of 2024. Mr. Campbell was discharged and returned to his apartment in late September. Mr. Campbell continues to engage well with the treatment team. He has been forthcoming with descriptors of his mood, boredom, and difficulty working towards goals.
Responding to questions from a panel member, Dr. Sandhu advised that Mr. Campbell remains concerned that if he tries to engage in volunteer activities or employment, this will negatively impact his government pension.
There have been no relapses of cannabis use. Mr. Campbell was transitioned to an injectable antipsychotic in the fall of 2024. He has saved money for international travel which he is very much looking forward to.
Mr. Campbell currently presents with significant amotivation, manifested by him not wanting to leave his apartment. Dr. Sandhu noted that Mr. Campbell’s father committed suicide, therefore there is a need to closely monitor this patient’s mood on an ongoing basis.
Responding to questions from Ms. Dufort, Dr. Sandhu testified that leading up to Mr. Campbell’s last restriction of liberty hearing on July 30th of 2024, Dr. Selaman had completed a Form 1, which saw him brought to the Ottawa Hospital – Civic Campus by the police on July 2nd, 2024. There, he was assessed and discharged. According to Dr. Sandhu, had there been a bed available on the ROMHC’s Forensic Assessment Unit, Dr. Selaman would likely have admitted him there.
On July 17th, 2024, Mr. Campbell went to the Emergency Department of the Ottawa Hospital due to distress. A Form 1 was completed, and he was transferred to the Montfort Hospital and kept for less than 72 hours. He was assessed once again in late July and thereafter admitted to the ROMHC’s FAU, this time under the care of Dr. Sandhu. Responding to questions from Ms. Dufort, as to the future ability to return Mr. Campbell to hospital using the provisions of the Mental Health Act, Dr. Sandhu stated that his patient did eventually agree to a return to the ROMHC because this requirement is contained within his current disposition. Dr. Sandhu therefore believes that if subject to a Conditional Discharge, the provisions of the Mental Health Act would be sufficient to enable Mr. Campbell’s return to hospital. Dr. Sandhu advised that he has a positive relationship with this patient and believes he would return to hospital if asked.
Asked if a treatment provision pursuant to s. 672.55 of the Criminal Code had been considered, Dr. Sandhu advised that he had not discussed this with his patient. This is because as an inpatient, Mr. Campbell, who is treatment capable, had agreed to medication changes which were easier to oversee within a hospital setting. There are no plans to adjust Mr. Campbell’s prescribed medications at present.
Ms. Dufort inquired about the ongoing suitability of subparagraph 2(k) which reads:
2(k) travel passes for up to one month, upon first obtaining approval of his itinerary by the person in charge of the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, or his or her designate, to travel to Brampton to visit his mother, indirectly supervised, and during travel, the accused should not stop in the City of Kingston”.
Dr. Sandhu confirmed that Mr. Campbell had travelled to Brampton and spent two weeks with his mother in late December, adding that overall, the pass went well
Mr. Campbell would now like to visit Italy or Greece. This would give him the opportunity for meaningful activities over the next 12 months. Mr. Campbell currently receives his injection of an intramuscular antipsychotic every four weeks. Therefore, the intention is that the duration of any proposed trip be less than 28 days and the hope is that he would also travel with a 28-day supply of his oral medications. Mr. Campbell does have a mobile phone and were he to travel internationally he could keep in touch with his case manager as he has previously done on his December 2024 trip to Brampton.
It was suggested that a more frequent reporting requirement may be appropriate if Mr. Campbell was granted an international travel pass. Dr. Sandhu agreed as this would be a novel environment for Mr. Campbell.
Dr. Sandhu testified that Mr. Campbell’s mental health challenges can perpetuate low mood and the possibility that he may attempt to end his life. The possibility of future travel reflected in travel passes are important to keep his spirits up. This includes travel to visit his family within Ontario as well as international travel. The doctor added that with a preapproved itinerary and contact information international travel can be arranged in manner that protects the public. Compliance with a long-acting injectable further increases that likelihood.
Dr. Sandhu currently meets with Mr. Campbell once per month and contact with forensic case manager Meaghan Hartley occurs a minimum of every two weeks, often more frequently. Mr. Campbell has accepted that Ms. Fitzpatrick will shortly be taking over as his CMHA case manager. If he fails to engage with Ms. Fitzpatrick, he can be referred back to Ms. Meaghan Hartley, who he has worked with for the past few years.
Ms. Dufort inquired about the stability of Mr. Campbell’s residence for the coming year and inquired if it is necessary to specify an address in the event the Board agrees to order a Conditional Discharge. Mr. Campbell engaged a cleaning service prior to the annual inspection of his apartment. His finances are not in jeopardy due to his receipt of a federal employee disability pension. Dr. Sandhu described his patient’s housing situation as fairly stable notwithstanding that Mr. Campbell has expressed the desire to leave his current apartment and relocate to a shelter. Were Mr. Campbell to leave his apartment, he appreciates that other places, like shelters, would not be as clean as his current residence. There is no present concern with him moving to another residence. Nevertheless Dr. Sandhu would not be resistant to specifying an address, namely 307-175 Bronson Avenue, within a Conditional Discharge Disposition.
Mr. Campbell’s thought rigidity, which Dr. Sandhu attributes to autism, has caused difficulties. However, Mr. Campbell has recently demonstrated a degree of openness in discussing his observations/beliefs that he feels he is being provoked.
Responding to questions from Mr. Davies, Dr. Sandhu confirmed that Mr. Campbell has no history of physical violence. The risk he presents is that he may misinterpret events in the community if he feels targeted or monitored and then engage in acts similar to those seen at the time of the index offence. Dr. Sandhu added that there have been no attempts by Mr. Campbell to contact the victim of the index offence.
Mr. Davies inquired about the appropriateness of including a term within a conditional discharge that Mr. Campbell must attend for an assessment as directed or have breached his disposition. Dr. Sandhu responded that that would be helpful to assess Mr. Campbell’s mental state and determine whether there was a need to issue a Form 1 under the Mental Health Act.
It was suggested that because boredom could jeopardize Mr. Campbell’s mental stability, that Dr. Sandhu insist that he participate in outpatient programming. The Doctor responded that it would be appropriate that Mr. Campbell participate in groups that would be stimulating to him and from which he would acquire information.
Responding to questions from another panel member, Dr. Sandhu advised that his patient has adequate insight regarding the impact of cannabis use and the disinhibition that comes from alcohol use. He added that recent testing has been negative for both.
Dr. Sandhu opined that his patient understands both the terms and conditions of his current disposition and holds no animosity towards the identified victim of the index offence who resides in Kingston.
Closing Observations
Dr. Sandhu relies on the evidence presented to support the hospital recommendation.
Ms. Dufort submitted that a detention disposition remains necessary and appropriate. She would support travel passes for up to 27 days with an approved itinerary. With regard to the ongoing presence of significant threat, Ms. Dufort relies on the background to the hospitalizations in the summer of 2024 which necessitated a Restriction of Liberties, together with other assessments and admissions. Ms. Dufort also submitted that the recent change of treating psychiatrist and upcoming voluntary engagement with Ms. Fitzpatrick from the CMHA are tenuous. This is because Mr. Campbell’s has previously disengaged with professional mental health personnel. As noted at page 16 when he was visited at his apartment:
“In February 2024, in the days leading up to his annual review hearing, Mr. Campbell was met at his house by his case manager. His case manager identified the odour in his apartment. He was encouraged and educated in cleanliness and the need to keep a tidy apartment. He was noted to have a baseball bat; the next day Ms. M. Hartley (case manager) and Mr. O’Keefe (social worker) attended his apartment to retrieve the weapon. The weapon was removed. Mr. Campbell ended the meeting “now get the fuck of my apartment both of you.”
An excerpt from page 17 of the Hospital Report, wherein Mr. Campbell questions the competency of his forensic case worker and requests the assignment of another follows:
In the days leading up to his case conference in May, Mr. Campbell contacted Ms. Hartley and made multiple demands to be visited in the community. He questioned the case manager’s competence and asked to be switched team members.
At page 18, Mr. Campbell expresses a belief that changing treating psychiatrists will expedite his discharge from hospital.
Mr. Campbell sent multiple emails to Dr. Gojer and made contact with him in person asking to switch physicians. He believed switching physicians would expedite his discharge to hospital.
Further, when in the community, Dr. Selaman, his previous treating psychiatrist, did not agree to Mr. Campbell’s multiple requested changes to his medication regime as noted at page 18 of the Hospital Report. A discussion of what medications would be appropriate eventually led him to accept injectable antipsychotics. Dr. Sandhu stated that there may be a need for a future change of prescribed medications. Recently Mr. Campbell has been symptomatic and retains the same delusional thoughts regarding Dr. Gojer, CSIS and the manager of his residence.
Mr. Campbell has expressed the desire to leave his current apartment and relocate to a shelter which is inappropriate and augments the management of his risk.
Dr. Sandhu concluded his testimony by stating that Mr. Campbell should report in person not less than once per week, regardless of whether he is subject to a conditional discharge or a detention disposition. The doctor also accepted Mr. Davies’ proposal that if Mr. Campbell is ordered subject to a conditional discharge, that if requested, he present for an assessment within 24 hours.
Mr. Davies submitted that what has changed is that Mr. Campbell is now being treated with an intramuscular long-acting antipsychotic and although delusions remain, there is no history of him acting upon them. Mr. Campbell has no history of physical violence. Not every risk needs to be dealt with via a detention disposition. There is some talk of him moving in the absence of substantive steps to do so. Mr. Campbell is seeing Dr. Sandhu as well as Ms. Hartley, his forensic case manager on a regular basis and will soon willingly engage with CMHA case manager Ms. Fitzpatrick.
Mr. Davies reiterated that his client is requesting the addition of an international travel pass with an approved itinerary and if subject to a conditional discharge would agree to a term requiring his attendance at the hospital within 24 hours for an assessment.
Analysis and Decision
Significant Threat
Ongoing significant threat to the safety of the public cannot be speculative. It must entail a real risk of serious physical or psychological harm arising from conduct that is both serious and criminal in nature.
In determining whether Mr. Campbell represents a significant threat to the safety of the public the Board has carefully analyzed the evidence as it relates to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Winko, 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625.
The Board unanimously finds that Mr. Campbell poses a significant threat to the safety of the public. In arriving at this determination, the Board considered the joint position of the parties and accepted the uncontroverted evidence of Dr. Sandhu that Mr. Campbell continues to pose a significant threat. The Board also relies on the Hospital Report in determining that Mr. Campbell suffers from Schizophrenia a serious mental illness and that he is currently symptomatic. His primary illness is complicated by Autism Spectrum Disorder.
At page 30 of the Hospital Report, Dr. Sandhu’s Violence Risk Assessment concludes as follows:
Mr. Campbell’s likely risk scenario includes acting on acute chronic delusions related to his ongoing persecution by numerous people. Despite his delusions relating to bullying, he experienced while living in Kingston, Ontario, he continues to believe that others are targeting him. It is likely that he would perceive the behaviour of others in response to these beliefs while inadequately treated with his current antipsychotic medication regiment on the background of schizophrenia.
The Board therefore accepts that absent an ORB Disposition, Mr. Campbell would likely become non-compliant with prescribed medications which would lead to decompensation and the re-emergence of behaviours similar to those seen at the time of the index offences. We are satisfied that absent an ORB Disposition, it is likely that Mr. Campbell will cause serious psychological harm to members of the public and such conduct will likely be criminal in nature.
Disposition
Flowing from the Board’s finding that Mr. Campbell continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public it must shape a Disposition for the year ahead. Its paramount consideration in doing so must be the safety of the public while also considering Mr. Campbell’s needs pursuant to s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
The necessary and appropriate disposition for Mr. Campbell provides him as much freedom as possible without subjecting the community to a real risk of dangerous behaviour.
In advance of Mr. Campbell’s September 11th 2024, Restriction of Liberties hearing, under the heading Recommendations Dr. Sandhu writes:
Mr. Campbell’s fluctuating on chronic decompensations of symptoms of psychosis necessitated four Form 1’s under the mental health act, however, were each completed and not continued with further involuntary admissions. He required inpatient forensic admission to reassess his symptomology of schizophrenia and address his inadequate treatment.
I agree with Dr. Seleman’s previous assessment that Mr. Campbell likely presents with a treatment resistant schizophrenia. His above average intelligence allows Mr. Campbell to avoid divulging many of his chronic delusions and misperceptions, to avoid appearing floridly psychotic. I am concerned that with his increasing use of an adult drop-in centre that Mr. Campbell’s levels of stress resulted in ongoing decompensations of his schizophrenia that were minimally managed as an outpatient with his reluctant participation with his treatment team. This culminated with his own concern that he may have breached his disposition by contacting the victim of the index offences.
Despite education that he on several occasions that his medication regimen was inadequate as an outpatient and now as an inpatient, Mr. Campbell remains hesitant to switch or modify his medication regiment. His rigidity around his medications is further complicated by his autism spectrum traits that interfere with his ability to accommodate change.)
The panel was encouraged to learn that Dr. Sandhu has developed a positive relationship with Mr. Campbell and believes his patient would return voluntarily to hospital if asked.
However, in the summer months preceding this hearing, four Form 1s issued pursuant to the Mental Health Act, in order to return Mr. Campbell to hospitals in the Ottawa region for assessment. As indicated at paragraph 23(b) of the Board’s November 6th, 2024, Reasons for Decision, regarding a Restriction of Liberties, that commenced on July 30th, 2024, none of the aforementioned Form I hospitalisations were continued under a Mental Health Act Form 3. This was “despite advocacy from Dr. Sandhu and Dr. Gojer for those hospitalizations to continue.”
Since taking over as Mr. Campbell’s treating psychiatrist Dr. Sandhu transitioned his patient to an injectable antipsychotic in the fall of 2024. This relatively recent change appears to be the only initiated variation to Mr. Campbell’s treatment plan by Dr. Sandhu.
Following a careful review of the evidence this Panel of the Board has not been satisfied that Mr. Campbell has demonstrated sufficient stability or commitment to his treatment, since the summer of 2024. Therefore, a transition from a Detention Disposition to a Conditional Discharge is unwarranted. Specifically, because of Mr. Campbell’s:
history of disengagement with previous mental health treatment providers on the cusp of a transfer from a forensic case worker to a CMHA worker that is unknown to him.
short duration of psychiatric care from Dr. Sandhu, thereby potentially still in the ‘honeymoon stage’ of a therapeutic relationship with no instances of disagreement to date.
being described as recently symptomatic with ongoing delusional thoughts in relation to Dr. Gojer, CSIS and the manager of his apartment building.
current housing situation is somewhat precarious given his expressed desire to to leave his apartment and relocate to a shelter.
psychotropic medications do not appear to have been sufficiently optimized to control his delusional thoughts and reduce levels of anxiety about the world that surrounds him. The possibility of a change to his psychotropic medications remains.
In considering Mr. Campbell needs, the Board was both attentive to and sympathetic to his plans to travel internationally. However, the panel perceives that Dr. Sandhu may be attempting to foster a therapeutic relationship with this patient using the possibility of international travel as a ‘carrot’.
The panel is concerned that if Mr. Campbell was permitted to travel to Italy or to Greece during the 2025/2026 Reporting Year, absent the level of oversight he is currently provided, yet another decompensation of his mental state is likely. He may be overwhelmed by the uncertainties inherent with international travel given the fragility of his mental state far from the supports associated with the ROMHC and outside the jurisdiction of the ORB.
The motivational prospect of international travel and exploration appear to conflict with Mr. Campbell’s current amotivation to leave his apartment. When he does venture out he misinterprets stimuli from the world around him, envisioning imagined enemies. It was noted subsequent to Mr. Campbell’s September 5th 2024, mental status examination that “He demonstrates some guardedness regarding chronic delusions and does not readily offer evidence or ideas as he attempts to protect how others view him.”
Mr. Campbell does not wish to be perceived as floridly psychotic. However, the evidence presented leads this panel of the Board to determine that the combination of guardedness, as described in the preceding paragraph, a high degree of intelligence, thought rigidity and a medication regime that may not yet be optimized could mask the intensity of his entrenched delusional beliefs. Those beliefs could manifest in his international travel plans conflicting with the international lecture/conference circuit plans of the victim of the index offences. Mr. Campbell recently revealed that his delusional thoughts vis-à-vis Dr. Gojer, CSIS and the manager of his residence remain. Given the foregoing, this panel is uncertain whether or not Mr. Campbell retains undisclosed delusional beliefs regarding the victim of the index offence notwithstanding that there have been no reported attempts by Mr. Campbell to contact her and his statement that he holds no animosity towards her.
Therefore, absent strong and sustained evidence substantiating the stability of Mr. Campbell’s mental state, the entitlement to international travel will not be included in his upcoming Disposition.
Conclusion
The Board unanimously determines that the necessary and appropriate Disposition required to manage the threat Mr. Campbell poses to the safety of the public while still meeting his needs, remains a Detention Disposition.
In making this Disposition, the Board carefully considered the positions and submissions of the parties and the evidence of Dr. Sandhu and is satisfied that this determination is both necessary and appropriate. The Board reviewed the provisions of s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code and carefully considered the need to protect the public from dangerous persons, Mr. Campbell’s mental condition, his reintegration into society and other needs.
DATED this 9th day of April 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. P. Capelle Alternate Chairperson
____________________________________
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board