Ontario Review Board
Re: Christopher Hines
ORB File No: 6386
Hearing held on: Wednesday, April 2, 2025
Place of hearing: Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences 700 Gordon Street, Whitby
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Goldenberg Members: Dr. P. Prendergast Dr. T. Stirpe Ms. N. Nathanson Mr. A. Mete
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Christopher Hines Counsel: Ms. M. Perez
The person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. J. Pytyck
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. N. MacDonald
REASONS FOR DECISION
(Dated April 23, 2025)
On August 12, 2013, Christopher Hines was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on four charges of failure to comply with probation order and three charges of assaulting a peace officer. Mr. Hines is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated July 8, 2024, directing that he be detained at the Forensic Program of the Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (“Ontario Shores”) with a number of prohibitions and privileges.
By letter dated March 7, 2025, the Clinical Forensic Coordinator of Ontario Shores advised the Ontario Review Board of a significant restriction of liberty. We note the following from the letter:
“Following his last annual review hearing Mr. Hines was transferred to the Forensic Transitional Unit (FTU) on February 5, 2025, from FARU; and on February 27, 2025, Mr. Hines was transferred back to FARU following a serious and unprovoked assault toward a vulnerable peer.”
- As a result of the restriction of liberty notice, the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing on Wednesday, April 2, 2025, and conducted a restriction of liberty hearing.
Position of the Parties
At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as to their recommendations to the Board.
Dr. Pytyck appeared as the hospital’s representative. She advised of the hospital position that the decision to move Mr. Hines from the General Forensic Unit (FTU) back to a Secure Forensic Unit (FARU) was justified and Mr. Hines ongoing stay in FARU is the least onerous and least restrictive decision available to the hospital.
Ms. MacDonald appeared for the Crown. She agreed with the hospital’s position.
Ms. Perez appeared for Mr. Hines. Ms. Perez advised of her client’s position that the hospital was not justified in transferring her client back to the Secure Forensic Unit and as well his ongoing stay in the Secure Forensic Unit is not the least onerous and least restrictive decision available to the hospital.
Evidence at Hearing:
- The Board admitted into evidence the ROL notice given to the Board and as well a Restriction of Liberty Report dated March 19, 2025. As the Hospital Report was made an exhibit in this hearing it is not necessary to reproduce the information contained in the Hospital Report. We do note, however, the following from the Hospital Report:
“On February 26, Mr. Hines assaulted a co-patient on the FTU, punching the co-patient in the face two or three times and breaking his nose. Of note, the co-patient was extremely low functioning and vulnerable. The day prior, the co-patient had said “fuck you” and shown the middle finger to Mr. Hines, as well as to another peer, and was redirected from this behaviour by nursing staff. On the day of the assault, Mr. Hines reported that the co-patient had resumed this behaviour (saying “fuck you” and giving the middle finger gesture) at lunch time, although staff did not witness this behaviour. Mr. Hines walked up to the peer and punched him repeatedly in the face while he (the peer) was sitting down and eating his lunch. The co-patient did not retaliate or defend himself when Mr. Hines punched him.”
Dr. Pytyck gave evidence on behalf of the hospital. In response to a question from the Alternate Chair, Dr. Pytyck advised that Mr. Hines had been transferred to the General Forensic Unit approximately three weeks prior to the assault. At that time Dr. Pytyck became Mr. Hines’ most responsible physician. The doctor noted that the team was taken by surprise concerning this assault. The doctor stressed the severity of the assault on a vulnerable co-patient. The doctor noted that Mr. Hines simply has no insight into the incident. The doctor is concerned that Mr. Hines seemingly did not seem troubled or apologetic having regard to the incident. The doctor is concerned that Mr. Hines simply puts all the blame for the incident on the treatment team. In the doctor’s opinion, Mr. Hines is paranoid about his clinical team on the FTU.
This panel is aware that FARU is a Secure Forensic Unit and is further aware that the FTU is a General Forensic Unit. The doctor and the clinical team on the FTU are also concerned that Mr. Hines simply takes no responsibility for his conduct in the assault. In the doctor’s opinion, the decision to return Mr. Hines to the Secure Forensic Unit was absolutely necessary and in the doctor’s opinion his ongoing stay in the Secure Forensic Unit is also absolutely necessary. The doctor also stressed that the victim of the index offence is a very vulnerable individual with an intellectual disability The doctor repeated that Mr. Hines continues to blame the treatment team on the FTU for the events of the assault. The doctor puts it that it is both necessary and appropriate that at the present time Mr. Hines remains on the Secure Forensic Unit.
In response to questions from Ms. Perez, the doctor agreed that Mr. Hines lost some privileges as a result of his being transferred back to the Secure Forensic Unit. He is exercising accompanied passes while back in the Secure Forensic Unit and the hospital expects that Mr. Hines will be able to exercise indirectly supervised hospital and grounds passes that are available to those patients being detained on that unit.
The doctor agreed that Mr. Hines has not tested positive for alcohol or substances and that he is compliant with his medication requirements.
The doctor agreed that the patient who was assaulted resides in one particular General Forensic Unit, and that there are two other General Forensic Units at Ontario Shores.
Again, in response to questions from Ms. Perez, the doctor acknowledged that there is a higher level of staff available to patients on a Secure Forensic Unit as compared to patients on a General Forensic Unit and the doctor repeated the necessity that Mr. Hines be detained on a Secure Forensic Unit and that he does need a higher level of supervision from staff as compared to the supervision available on a General Forensic Unit.
Again, in response to questions from Ms. Perez, Dr. Pytyck understood that at the time of the incident Mr. Hines approached a nurse and alleged that the victim was swearing at him and asked the nurse to intervene. The nurse indicated that she was dealing with another patient at that moment in time and would not be available to deal with Mr. Hines’ allegations instantly. Shortly thereafter Mr. Hines assaulted the co-patient which resulted in Mr. Hines breaking the co-patient’s nose.
Dr. Pytyck acknowledged that the police were not informed. Dr. Pytyck explained that the decision whether or not to inform the police was one that was made by the patient and his family members. Their decision was that this matter not be reported to the police.
No other evidence was called on behalf of the hospital. The Crown did not call evidence. Ms. Perez advised that Mr. Hines had a statement that he would like to read to the panel. Mr. Hines did so. Mr. Hines emphasized that the victim had been cursing him and “staring me down” and Mr. Hines suggested that what he did was an act of self-defence. Mr. Hines at some point did say “I messed up” but continued to blame the staff on the FTU for this entire incident.
Final Submissions:
Each party maintained their initial position. Dr. Pytyck stressed how vicious the assault was on the victim and that public safety requires, and indeed, Mr. Hines requires, a higher level of supervision that is available on a Secure Forensic Unit. Ms. MacDonald, on behalf of the Crown, agreed with the hospital submissions.
Ms. Perez noted her client’s wish that he be transferred back to the General Forensic Unit. Ms. Perez asked the Board to consider all of the evidence and asked the Board to find that the act in question did not justify the transfer back to the Secure Forensic Unit.
Findings of the Board:
The Board accepts without reservation the evidence given by Dr. Pytyck and the evidence contained in the Hospital Report. We accept that Mr. Hines carried out a very significant assault on a co-patient and there was no justification whatsoever for that assault.
We are aware that Mr. Hines had previously been detained at the maximum secure facility at Waypoint. We are aware that he was transferred from Waypoint on December 7, 2023 and that he had been detained on the Secure Forensic Unit until his transfer to the General Forensic Unit on February 5, 2025.
We are satisfied that the decision to return Mr. Hines to the Secure Forensic Unit was warranted and indeed was absolutely necessary. We are further satisfied that his ongoing detention in the Secure Forensic Unit is the least onerous and least restrictive decision available to the hospital. We are satisfied that public safety, including the safety of co-patients in the General Forensic Unit, requires at this time for Mr. Hines to be detained in the Secure Forensic Unit. There is no doubt that Mr. Hines absolutely requires the greater amount of staff supervision and support that is available on the Secure Forensic Unit.
Accordingly, we find there was a restriction of Mr. Hines’ liberty but that restriction was warranted and remains the least onerous and least restrictive decision to date.
DATED this 23rd day of April 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. J. Goldenberg Alternate Chairperson Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board