Re V. (D.), 2025 CanLII 33829

Ontario Review Board

Re: V. (D.)

ORB File No: 8181

Hearing held on: Wednesday, February 26, 2025

Place of Hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre

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

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Ms. M. Labrosse

Members: Dr. S. Lessard

Mr. D. Sandor

Ms. K. Brisson

Parties Appearing:

Accused: V. (D.) Counsel: Ms. M. Lord

Person in charge of hospital: Representative Dr. D. Bourget

Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. M. Dufort

AMENDED REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated April 10, 2025)

Please see underlined changes to the original reasons made April 16, 2025: “Ms. K. Brisson” has been corrected to read “Ms. M. Dufort” on page 1; “Mr. Dufort” has been corrected to read “Ms. Dufort” at paragraph 29.

Introduction

1. On July 7, 2022, the accused, V. (D.), was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on a charge of sexual assault contrary the Criminal Code of Canada.

2. Mr. V. (D.) is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated February 28, 2024, which discharges him on certain terms and conditions, including the requirement to report to the hospital not less than once per month, and not to have any contact with the victims of the index offences without their written revocable consent.

3. On February 27, 2025, the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, hereinafter referred to as the hospital, to conduct the annual review of Mr. V. (D.)’s Disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. V. (D.) attended his hearing and was represented by his counsel, Ms. Melanie Lord. Mr. V. (D.)’s CMHA Case Manager, Shawn Perrault, was also present. A hospital report dated January 30, 2025, was entered as Exhibit No. 1 for the hearing. The Victim Impact Statement dated February 22, 2023, written by the victim’s mother, was entered as Exhibit 2.

4. The issues for this hearing are whether Mr. V. (D.) continues to meet the threshold of significant threat to the safety of the public and, if so, to determine the disposition that is necessary and appropriate in the circumstances.

5. For the reasons set out below, the Board finds that Mr. V. (D.) no longer meets the threshold of significant threat to the safety of the public, and accordingly, we grant him an absolute discharge.

Index Offences

6. The details of the index offences are extracted from last year’s Reasons for Disposition as follows:

“Between December 21, 2015, and July 5, 2019, Mr. V. (D.) sexually assaulted his daughter on multiple occasions by touching her vaginal area and her breast while he masturbated. The victim, his daughter, was only 8 years old on the first incident. All incidents occurred in the family home.

Details of the offences are provided in the Crown Brief Synopsis”.

Background History

7. Mr. V. (D.)’s background history is set out in detail in the hospital report dated January 30, 2025. Briefly summarized, Mr. V. (D.) is presently 57 years of age and was born and raised in Rockland, Ontario, the youngest in a sibling line of eleven. His parents are deceased.

8. Mr. V. (D.) has a Grade 12 education and worked for the same employer, Potvin Construction, for 31 years before stopping work in 2015 because of a back injury.

9. Mr. V. (D.) was involved in several relationships with women, before entering into a relationship with B.B. The relationship lasted ten years and two children were born from the relationship, a son and a daughter, the latter being the victim of the index offences. When Mr. V. (D.) returned from a residential addictions program in 2010, Ms. B.B. had moved out with the children, effectively ending the relationship.

10. Mr. V. (D.) has a long history of substance abuse dating back to when he was 13 years old when he started using cannabis. He has participated in several addictions programs including residential programs. He has used different substances including cannabis, alcohol, cocaine, and other substances.

Criminal History

11. Mr. V. (D.) has a criminal record that spans from 1993 to 2011 and includes convictions for mischief (1993 and 1995), fraud over $100,000 (1994), and assault (2011).

Psychiatric History

12. Mr. V. (D.)’s reported psychiatric history dates back to the late 1990s according to a report from the Montfort Hospital.

13. He was later admitted to the Montfort in early 2006. The admission was due to acute psychosis likely resulting from substance use. It was noted that he was suffering from a dependant personality disorder. He was incoherent and presented with verbally aggressive behaviour. His family reported that the psychotic episode had been very sudden and was similar to an episode that had taken place some ten years earlier when he had been sent to the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre.

14. Mr. V. (D.) was again admitted to the Montfort Hospital for four days in December 2006. He was brought to the hospital by the police because of inappropriate behaviour and aggressivity toward the police. It was noted that he was suffering from a manic episode likely brought on by antidepressants that had been prescribed several weeks earlier. His psychiatrist at the Montfort Hospital felt that he was suffering from a bipolar disorder for which he was self-medicating with substances. He was treated with Lithium and remained stable for a while.

15. Mr. V. (D.) reported to several health professionals that he had been sexually abused by an Ontario Provincial Police officer when he was 8 years old. The officer had told him that if he reported what had happened to his father, he would kill him with his service weapon. He reported the incident when he was 27 years old. Following this, he was harassed by the officer. These assaults had left Mr. V. (D.) suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

16. Following a charge of assault, Mr. V. (D.) appeared before a judge who requested an investigation of his allegations against the police officer. The investigation went on for 18 months and the officer, who had assaulted him, eventually committed suicide.

17. Mr. V. (D.)’s current diagnoses are:

• Bipolar Disorder

• Post Traumatic Stress Disorder

• Cannabis Use Disorder

Evidence at the Hearing

18. The hospital’s evidence was presented through its report as well as through the oral testimony of Dr. Dominque Bourget, who is Mr. V. (D.)’s attending psychiatrist from the Forensic Program of the ROMHC. This evidence is summarized as follows.

19. Dr. Bourget testified that Mr. V. (D.) has made significant progress over the past year. He continues to meet with a community psychiatrist, Dr. Diane Morissette, at the Hawkesbury General Hospital. Dr. Morissette prescribes Mr. V. (D.)’s medications for him. Dr. Bourget has spoken with Dr. Morissette who confirms that Mr. V. (D.) has remained stable in the community. He is receiving the long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication, Abilify, as well as oral Quetiapine and Buspirone for anxiety.

20. Mr. V. (D.) also meets regularly with his CMHA worker, Mr. Perrault, with whom he maintains a good relationship. Mr. Perrault wrote a short note for the hearing to report that Mr. V. (D.) is working hard to improve his health, that he is cooperative, and has been able to navigate the issue of his most recent drug-related criminal charges quite well.

21. With respect to his criminal charges for drug possession/trafficking, Mr. V. (D.) is on house arrest until May 2025, after which he will be on probation. As a result of the house arrest, Mr. V. (D.) is unable to participate in any community activities.

22. Mr. V. (D.) has reportedly lost approximately fifty pounds. He is now taking Ozempic. He continues to have back issues for which he meets with an osteopath. According to Dr. Bourget, he is working diligently to improve his mental and physical health.

23. Mr. V. (D.) has not had any contact with his daughter, the victim of the index offences. He has not lost hope that he may some day renew contact with her, once she is an adult. He accepts that this will be up to her.

24. Mr. V. (D.)’s mental illness is well treated. He has not had any further dissociative episodes.

25. Mr. V. (D.) has received numerous services from the Forensic Program of the hospital. He has participated in a neuro-psychological assessment with a psychologist, Ms. Marcil, of the Forensic Program. The results demonstrate that he has certain cognitive impairments.

26. Over the course of the past reporting year, Mr. V. (D.) also had meetings with an Addictions counsellor of the Forensic Program. He acknowledges that his cannabis consumption was considerable and that he was using for the pain associated with his back issues. Mr. V. (D.) has reportedly significantly reduced his cannabis consumption.

27. Mr. V. (D.) has been residing in the community since 2019. In the opinion of Dr. Bourget, his risk of reoffending is low. He has no history of paraphilia or other sexual offences. The index offences occurred in the context of dissociative episodes.

28. It is unlikely that Mr. V. (D.) will ever work. He receives ODSP and lives a very quiet and passive lifestyle.

29. In response to questions posed to her by counsel for the Attorney General, Ms. Dufort, Dr. Bourget responded as follows:

(a) Mr. V. (D.) is consciously working on reducing his cannabis consumption, but it is unlikely that he will abstain completely.

(b) Dr. Bouget has not spoken to Mr. V. (D.)’s probation officer. He received a sentence of 8 months of house arrest and 7 months of probation for possession of cocaine for trafficking purposes. Though there is no evidence that Mr. V. (D.) was not consuming any cocaine, he reports that he was not and that he was doing this to supplement his income. Cocaine consumption has not been an issue for him for many years.

(c) If Mr. V. (D.) receives an absolute discharge from the Board, he will continue to receive psychiatric care from Dr. Morrissette.

(d) Mr. V. (D.) expresses great remorse for the index offences. He does not intend to attempt to contact the victim and respects that any future contact would have to be at her initiative.

30. In response to a question posed to her by counsel for Mr. V. (D.), Ms. Lord, Dr. Bouget confirmed that Mr. V. (D.) meets with his CMHA worker on a weekly or biweekly basis, as needed.

31. In response to questions posed to her by members of the Panel, Dr. Bourget acknowledged that Mr. V. (D.) was using substances at the time of the index offences, when he experienced dissociative episodes. She believes that he is in a very different mental and physical state today, and that he is not experiencing the same level of stressors that he was at that time. Though it would be better for him to abstain completely from substances, Dr. Bourget believes that the likelihood of further dissociative episodes occurring is extremely low.

32. Finally, Dr. Bourget confirmed that Mr. V. (D.) had recently completed a Men’s Sexual Assault Program in Hawkesbury on September 25, 2024. The Program’s focus was to help Mr. V. (D.) better deal with the stressors in his life.

33. No other evidence was presented.

Submissions of the Parties

34. The hospital submits that Mr. V. (D.) no longer poses a significant threat to the safety of the public and should therefore be granted an absolute discharge.

35. Counsel for the Attorney General, Ms. Dufort, questions whether the threshold of significant threat continues to be met, given the nature of the index offences involving sexual assault against his daughter, who was a young child at the time. Though Mr. V. (D.) has made significant progress and has been stable living in the community, he was recently convicted of cocaine trafficking, for which he is currently under house arrest.

36. Counsel for Mr. V. (D.), Ms. Lord, supports the hospital’s recommendation for this hearing, emphasizing her client’s stability in the community, as well as his many mental health supports, which will continue to be available to him.

Conclusion and Disposition

37. Having considered all of the evidence presented at the hearing, and the submissions of the parties, the Board finds that Mr. V. (D.) no longer poses a significant threat to the safety of the public as set out in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code of Canada and as further defined by the Supreme Court of Canada in Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625.

38. In coming to this conclusion, we have relied upon the documentary evidence and the expert testimony of Dr. Bourget, particularly regarding Mr. V. (D.)'s course over the past several reporting years. As well, the panel carefully considered the decision of the Supreme Court in Winko v. British Columbia. In that case, the Court identified a significant risk as a "real risk of physical or psychological harm to members of the public that is serious in the sense of going beyond the merely trivial or annoying. The conduct giving rise to the harm must be criminal in nature". There must be a positive finding by the Board of a significant risk to the safety of the public to engage the provisions of the Criminal Code and to support restrictions on an NCR accused’s liberty. Something else, for example, uncertainty, cannot suffice. If the Board cannot resolve the question of whether or not the NCR accused constitutes a significant threat to public safety, it must grant the accused an Absolute Discharge.

39. In Winko, the Supreme Court also outlined that in coming to a conclusion on the issue of significant risk, a Review Board should closely examine a range of evidence including the circumstances of the original offence, the past and expected course of the accused's treatment, the present state of the NCR accused's medical condition and the NCR accused's own plans for the future, the support services existing for the NCR accused in the community and, perhaps most importantly, the recommendations provided by experts who have examined the NCR accused.

40. The evidence before us outlined the sustained progress that Mr. V. (D.) has made over the past several years. Mr. V. (D.) remains well engaged in treatment. He has continued to participate in various programs offered to him, including addictions counselling and a Men’s Sexual Assault Program. He continues to meet with his community psychiatrist, Dr. Morissette, who will remain his primary treating psychiatrist in the long term. He also receives support from his CMHA worker, Mr. Perrault.

41. Most importantly, Mr. V. (D.) has not engaged in any violence or assaultive behaviour since the index offences. Mr. V. (D.)’s bipolar disorder appears to be well treated, and he remains compliant with medication, including a long-acting injectable antipsychotic. Mr. V. (D.)’s cannabis consumption has reportedly diminished as he now follows other treatment modalities to deal with his back pain and anxiety.

42. The uncontradicted opinion of Dr. Bourget is that the likelihood of Mr. V. (D.) reoffending in a manner similar to the index offences is extremely low.

43. Though it remains concerning that he was convicted of possession of cocaine for trafficking purposes, there is no evidence that Mr. V. (D.) was using cocaine himself, and this appears to have been nothing more than a misguided (and criminal) effort to supplement his income. Mr. V. (D.) appears to have maintained his stability despite having to go through the criminal justice system to face the charges. In last year’s Reasons for Disposition, the concerns around a potential relapse due to the destabilizing effect of having to deal with his legal issues appear to have been central to the Panel’s finding that Mr. V. (D.) still posed a significant threat to the safety of the public.

44. In view of the foregoing, this Board finds that Mr. V. (D.) no longer meets the threshold of significant risk to the safety of the public and we order that he be absolutely discharged.

DATED this 10^th^ day of April 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

Ms. M. Labrosse Alternate Chairperson

____________________________________

Office of the Registrar

Ontario Review Board