Re: Wesley Shortt
ORB File No: 4723
Hearing held on: Tuesday, April 8, 2025
Place of hearing: St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton Via Zoom Video-Conference
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code
Before: Alternate Chairperson: Ms. L. Banks Members: Dr. R. W. Hill Dr. J. Cheston Ms. K. Tomaszewski Ms. K. Brisson
Parties Appearing: Accused: Wesley Shortt Counsel: Mr. J. Marshman
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Mr. S. O’Brien
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. K. Malkovich
REASONS FOR DECISION
(Dated: April 24, 2025)
Introduction:
On March 7, 2007, Wesley Shortt, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”), on charges of uttering threat and breach of probation order, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”). Mr. Shortt is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB” or “Board”) dated December 24, 2024, which detains him at the Forensic Psychiatry Program of St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton (“SJHH” or the “hospital”) with privileges up to residing in the community of Southern Ontario in approved accommodation.
On March 13, 2025, the ORB received notice from the Clinical Legal Counsel of the hospital advising that Mr. Shortt had been readmitted to the hospital from his residence in the community on March 5, 2025. The letter was to be considered notice pursuant to s. 672.56(2)(b) of the Criminal Code.
On April 8, 2025, Board convened a hearing to review the increased restrictions of Mr. Shortt’s liberties pursuant to s. 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Shortt was in attendance at the hearing and was represented by his counsel, Mr. Marshman. All parties participated at the hearing by Zoom video-conference. While some technical difficulties were encountered, Mr. Shortt was able to hear and see the Board, and to verbally communicate to his counsel, and through his counsel to the Board, via telephone.
Position of the Parties:
At the commencement of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as to their recommendations to the Board. Counsel for the hospital submitted that Mr. Shortt’s readmission to the hospital on March 5, 2025, was the least restrictive and least onerous intervention in the circumstances and that it remained so up to March 18, 2025, when Mr. Shortt was discharged to live in his apartment in the community.
Counsel for the Attorney General supported the hospital’s submission.
Counsel for Mr. Shortt indicated that he supported the hospital's submission.
The Board had before it a joint submission. All parties maintained their respective recommendations to the Board in closing submissions and all parties confirmed that there was no need to review the terms of Mr. Shortt’s existing Disposition.
Index Offence:
- The circumstances giving rise to the index offence are extracted from the Board’s Reasons for Disposition dated January 7, 2025, as follows:
“The description of the Index Offence is taken from the Crown Brief Synopsis as follows:
On the l0th of November, 2006 at approximately 1: 00 pm, the accused Wesley Shortt was in his bedroom at 60 Fife Rd. #307, Guelph and was yelling, screaming and carrying on banging on the walls. His father went into the room and spoke to him and told him to stop the yelling and screaming and to take his medication as it would make him feel better. This upset Wesley a great deal, he refused to take the medication and told him to
“Fuck off and get the hell out of my room or I will kill you”. He followed his father out into the living room of the apartment and continued to scream and berate him threatening to kill him. Wesley’s father was upset so he left the apartment to calm down and while he was gone Wesley told his sister and his mother that when his father came back and if he asked him to take his medication he was going to force him on the ground and then take a knife which was on the counter and stab him as hard as he could in his face and chest until he was “Puking up blood”. Wesley’s father Timothy Shortt was extremely disturbed by this and frightened and due to Wesley’s enraged mental state he was inclined to take him very seriously. Police were called, attended and as a result of the threats Wesley was arrested, cautioned and advised of his Rights to Counsel. It was further learned that the accused was also on Probation. He is bound by a Probation Order entered into on July 12th, 2006 made by the Ontario Court of Justice – Guelph with a condition to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. This was breached by committing the offence of Utter Threats. He was further charged with Breach of Probation. He was transported to the Police Station and at that time he was processed and lodged in the cells pending a Bail Hearing.
The incident that gave rise to the Probation Order under which Mr. Shortt was bound at the time of the Index Offence is taken from a Crown Brief Synopsis and is as follows:
The accused is currently a patient at the Homewood Health Centre located at 150 Delhi Street in Guelph. It is alleged that on April 23, 2006 at approximately 4:15 pm at the Homewood, the accused approached the victim (name of victim) and for no apparent reason punched him on the left side of the face and then proceeded to punch the victim several times in the arms. This alleged assault left the victim with swelling to the left side of his face around his left eye, and a scratch on his upper chest near his neck. While the assault was taking place, the victim did not retaliate, however he was simply trying to cover his face.
This incident was not reported until April 28, 2006, when the victim’s sister (name of victim’s sister) who has Power of Attorney over him attended the Police Station. (Sister of victim) advised Police that victim does not have the mental capacity to inform what had happened. The Police attended to the Homewood on April 28, 2006 and spoke with the accused and cautioned him on the charge of assault and the accused stated that he understood. A doctor at the Homewood advised that he would speak with the Nurses that were on duty the day of the incident and that they would speak with them (s i c) with regards to providing witness statements.
On May 03, 2006 Police collected the witness statements from the Homewood staff. After several attempts were made to contact (sister of victim), Police spoke with her on May 5, 2006 and were advised that she would support criminal charges.
On May 5, 2006, Police attended to the Homewood and located the accused. At approximately 1:30 pm the accused was placed under arrest for Assault contrary to Section 266 of the Criminal Code, was cautioned and given his rights to counsel. The accused was released on an Appearance Notice at approximately 1:37 pm and agreed to attend the Guelph police Service on May 24, 2006 at 2:30 pm for the purposes of fingerprinting. The accused also agreed to attend court located at 35 Wyndham Street South on June 19, 2006 at 9:00 am to answer to the charge of Assault.
In addition to the above assault charge on the co-patient, records indicate that Mr. Shortt was charged with a second assault on this same co-patient stemming from an incident that took place on June 8, 2006, also at the Homewood Hospital, and is described in the Crown Brief synopsis as follows:
The victim (name of victim) and the accused, Wesley Shortt (80JUN09) are both residents of the Homewood Health Care Centre located at 150 Delhi Street in the City of Guelph. The victim has fetal alcohol syndrome and is presently nonverbal.
On June 8, 2006 at 8:50 PM (name of RN) was working in the nursing station in the Trillium Health Care Centre. At this time the victim was standing at one of the doors looking inside the station as he does often. At 8:50 PM, the accused exited the washroom across the hallway from the station and unprovoked, charged across the hallway and body checked the victim causing him to crash into the wall and fall to the floor. The victim suffered minor scrapes as a result of this assault.
At approximately 10:37 PM, the accused was arrested for Assault contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code of Canada. He was read his rights to counsel and cautioned, all of which he understood, He was transported to Guelph Police station where he was held for a bail hearing scheduled for June 9th, 2006.”
Background Information:
The details of Mr. Shortt’s background are set out fully in the Hospital Report of November 14, 2024, and the ROL Report dated March 24, 2025, which were made exhibits at the hearing, so this information need not be repeated in detail. The following information is extracted from the Board’s latest Reasons for Disposition.
Mr. Shortt’s aggression was noted to have begun as early as eight years of age and progressed as he grew older. He has a long history of being brought to the hospital by police as a result of his aggressive behaviours.
Under the current Disposition, Mr. Shortt resides in a two-bedroom apartment in Hamilton which has been specifically modified for his physical needs. It is administered by Choices Association (“Choices”). In the unit, the Choices housing staff occupy the second bedroom as their office so that in his accommodation Mr. Shortt has 24/7 supervision. Mr. Shortt’s needs are such that he needs prompting for toileting, showering and for maintaining personal hygiene. Choices housing staff supervise the administration of Mr. Shortt’s medications.
Current Diagnoses:
- Mr. Shortt’s current diagnoses as set out in the Hospital Report are Schizophrenia and Intellectual Disability.
Evidence at the Hearing:
Dr. Alatishe testified on behalf of the hospital at the hearing. He adopted the contents of the Hospital Report. He is the author of the ROL Report, and is Mr. Shortt’s attending physician.
The full details of the circumstances which led to the ROL are set out in the ROL Report. Dr. Alatishe provided an oral summary of these circumstances.
By way of background, Dr. Alatishe explained that Mr. Shortt has a history of “cheeking” his oral medications, which can interfere with the effectiveness of the medications. The treatment team developed a plan for the administration of Mr. Shortt’s medications. Part of the plan is to check the inside of Mr. Shortt’s mouth following administration of oral medications. The plan requires Mr. Shortt to open his mouth, and lift his tongue to allow for inspection of his mouth.
According to Dr. Alatishe, this part of the plan has not been consistently enforced by all Choices staff. In other words, not every Choices staff member historically required Mr. Shortt to allow them to examine his mouth after the administration of oral medication.
At a Choices staff meeting in the week of March 4, 2025, the staff were instructed to consistently conduct the oral inspection in accordance with the plan.
On the evening of March 4, 2025, a staff member who had not historically conducted oral inspections with Mr. Shortt, asked him to open his mouth and lift his tongue so that she could perform the inspection.
Mr. Shortt became very upset, angry, raised his voice and shouted profanities at the staff member. She became frightened and concerned for her own safety, and left the apartment.
She returned to the apartment after a period of time. Mr. Shortt settled and went to bed.
Mr. Shortt’s case manager was made aware of the incident, and the decision was made to bring Mr. Shortt into the hospital the next day, March 5, 2025, for a period of observation and respite in the hospital. The purpose of the admission was to give Mr. Shortt time to settle, reflect, and to adjust to this new protocol for consistent oral inspection post medication administration, which would continue in the hospital until Mr. Shortt’s discharge.
Dr. Alatishe told the Board that the incident with the Choices staff member on March 4, 2025 is significant because a member of the public felt threatened by Mr. Shortt and felt that she had to leave the apartment for her own safety. Mr. Shortt has been admitted to the hospital five times since February 28, 2022, when he was discharged to live in the community. Each readmission was related to Mr. Shortt’s frustrated and agitated response to medication administration.
Dr. Alatishe pointed out that this is the same behaviour which prompted the index offence, and that the circumstances giving rise to the probation order involved aggression against a caregiver.
Mr. Shortt’s time in the hospital was uneventful. For the first few days, he was not at his baseline, but over time, he settled and complied with oral inspections. Mr. Shortt achieved some privileges within the first few days, and used them appropriately. During the admission, the treatment team emphasized the expectation that it is not appropriate for Mr. Shortt to threaten the staff when he becomes frustrated.
Because of Mr. Shortt’s diagnoses (schizophrenia and intellectual disability), he required repeated instruction to comply with oral inspections. This is reflective of Mr. Shortt’s cognitive limitations. The hospital had no other intervention available than admission, and Mr. Shortt could not have been discharged any sooner. It took the full time of the ROL for Mr. Shortt to consistently exercise compliance with the oral inspections, and to regain his full privileges.
Mr. Shortt has been doing very well since his discharge, and has been compliant with the oral inspections. Dr. Alatishe noted however, that it has come to his attention very recently that Mr. Shortt has not been fully compliant with oral inspections by the staff person with whom he had the problematic intervention on March 4, 2025. Dr. Alatishe indicated he will investigate this further.
In response to a question about whether long-acting injectable medication would alleviate the need for oral inspections, Dr. Alatishe responded that Mr. Shortt is prescribed two oral antipsychotic medications, and one mood stabilizer medication. The mood stabilizer is not available in injectable form, so oral inspections would have to continue even if Mr. Shortt decided to accept injectable antipsychotic medications.
Mr. Shortt indicated through his counsel that he was willing to take only one injection, and not two injections of antipsychotic medications.
No further evidence was called.
Analysis and Conclusions:
The analytical framework established by Campbell (Re), 2018 ONCA 140 requires the Board to consider the liberty norm and the liberty status of an accused on a restriction. The liberty norm and liberty status for each restriction must be examined to determine the significance of the increase (if any) on the restriction of an accused’s liberty caused by the restriction. In determining the liberty norm of an accused at the outset of each period of restriction, the Board must “take a contextual approach, one that considers the individual’s pattern of liberty in the recent past.” ((Re) Campbell, ibid at para. 66). The liberty she/he was actually experiencing (rather than what she/he was entitled to) at the time of the increase is what the Board is to consider, and that “liberty must be of sufficient duration to have become, objectively speaking, the NCR accused’s norm” ((Re) Campbell, supra at para. 65).
Pursuant to the decision of (Re) Campbell, the Board agreed that a restriction of liberty had taken place. Prior to admission to the hospital, Mr. Shortt lived in the community. While in the hospital, his privileges were significantly restricted.
The Board finds that the initial restriction of Mr. Shortt’s liberty on March 5, 2025, was warranted and that the intervention taken by the hospital at that time was the least restrictive and least intrusive in the circumstances. Mr. Shortt has a history of physical aggression directed at caregivers. On March 4, 2025, Mr. Shortt responded to a staff member with behaviour similar to that at the time of the index offence, to the point where the staff member felt unsafe and left the apartment. The hospital was warranted in removing Mr. Shortt from his apartment.
The Board finds that the restriction of Mr. Shortt’s liberty from March 5, 2025, until March 18, 2025, was the least restrictive and least onerous intervention in the circumstances. Because of his cognitive limitations, Mr. Shortt required sufficient time to learn to comply with oral inspections. Mr. Shortt began to regain privileges within days of admission, and was discharged to his apartment as soon as possible.
In reaching our decision the Board considered public safety, Mr. Shortt’s mental condition, his integration into society and his other needs.
The Board wishes Mr. Shortt all the best.
DATED this 24th day of April 2025 at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. K. Tomaszewski Legal Member
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board