Ontario Review Board
Re: James Difiore
ORB File No: 8724
Hearing held on: Tuesday, April 22, 2025
Place of Hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Pursuant to: Section 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. M. Labrosse
Members: Dr. S. Lessard
Dr. R. Cormier
Ms. M.L. Bridger
Ms. B. Naegele
Parties Appearing:
Accused: James Difiore
Counsel: Ms. M. Munsterman
Person in charge of the hospital: Representative Dr. J. Gojer
Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. M. Dufort
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated May 2, 2025)
Introduction
On February 6, 2025, the accused, James Difiore, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on a charge of criminal harassment and fail to comply(x2), all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. At the time of the finding of not criminally responsible, the Honourable Court did not make a disposition and referred the matter to the Ontario Review Board.
On April 22, 2025, the Ontario Review Board convened at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, hereinafter referred to as the hospital, to conduct Mr. Difiore’s initial hearing pursuant to s. 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Difiore attended his hearing and was represented by his counsel, Marni Munsterman. Also in attendance were the victim of the index offence, Michelle Bozak and her brother, and two hospital staff, Sara Ferrante, Case Manager, and Melanie Dubois, Social Worker.
At the outset of the hearing the following documents were entered as Exhibits:
Release Order dated January 16, 2025
Crown Brief synopsis (x3)
FCSRC Support letter dated January 31, 2025
MHSRC Support letter dated January 21, 2025
Transcript of proceedings dated February 6, 2025
Psychiatric Report dated September 5, 2025
Psychiatric Report dated November 14, 2024
Hospital Report dated March 30, 2025
Amended Victim Impact Statement from Michelle Bozak
The issues for this hearing are whether Mr. Difiore represents a significant threat to the safety of the public and, if so, to determine the disposition that is necessary and appropriate having regard to the factors set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
For the reasons set out below, the Board finds that Mr. Difiore poses a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a detention order with community living in approved accommodation and other terms and conditions which shall be set out in the analysis and conclusion section of these Reasons.
Index Offences
- The circumstances of the index offences have been extracted from the hospital report and are summarized as follows:
“Case file synopsis, from the Ontario Provincial Police, dated September 27th, 2023 Charges:
- CC 264(2)(b) - Criminal harassment
James Difiore and Michelle Bozak were in a common-law relationship for approximately 12 years. During that time, they lived at Difiore’s residence. They have 2 children together, Casper (9) and Elizabeth (7). Bozak ended her relationship with Difiore sometime in 2022 and moved out of their residence with her 2 children in April 2023. Bozak subsequently moved in with her mother, Beverly Bozak.
On August 23rd, 2023, Bozak reported receiving unwanted communication from Difiore. Difiore was served with a trespass notice for Beverly Bozak’s residence and was cautioned by police in regard to ceasing all further communication with Michelle unless it was related to childcare/exchange.
Synopsis:
Since Michelle left Difiore’s residence in April 2023, she has been experiencing repeated and unwanted communication from Difiore (messages, excessive phone calls to her and her mother, and emails). Bozak eventually blocked him on each of those platforms and filtered her emails to a separate junk folder. Bozak attempted to reason with Difiore and allowed him to contact her via Whatsapp for the sake of communicating with the children when they were not in his care. However, Difiore continued to send communications unrelated to childcare, so she asked the police to warn him in regard to harassment. Following this, Bozak asked that he only contact her on her mother’s landline.
Bozak and her mother explained specific incidents that occurred following the warning Difiore was given by police.
Harassment:
On September 20th, 2023, Difiore contacted Beverly’s landline at 2:30 am. Beverly was awakened by the phone call, and the first thing Difiore said to her was “Is Michelle at home because is she’s out I have the first right of refusal”. He then said, “Michelle I’ve got an investigator here and I’m finding bugs in the walls and more investigators are coming tomorrow so you have until noon to negotiate with me”. Beverly eventually hung up the phone.
On September 23rd, 2023, Difiore called Beverly’s landline 5 times in the span of 1.5 hours. When Difiore first called he spoke with the children, but then requested to speak to Bozak. When Bozak spoke to him, he kept telling her, “I have the first right of refusal if you go out”. On two additional calls that were made, Bozak and her mother asked Difiore to stop calling them. However, Difiore continued to call back, and at some point, he told Beverly, “if Michelle is going out, I have the first right of refusal”.
Since that date, Difiore continued to call Beverly’s landline. Every time Bozak, her mother, or the children pick up the phone, the first question Difiore asked was, “where is Michelle”. Every time he was told that Bozak was at Beverly’s house, he would end the conversation and hang up the phone. Even when the children were in Difiore’s care, Difiore would call Beverly’s landline to confirm Michelle’s location.
Michelle stated that she was fearful of James because of his relentless harassment, his obsession with where she was at all times, and his unpredictable behaviour.
Case file synopsis (2), from the Ontario Provincial Police, dated November 23rd, 2023 Charges:
- CC 145(4)(a) – Failure to comply with undertaking
Synopsis:
On November 19th, 2023, at 12:24 pm, Bozak’s mother, Beverly, received a call from Difiore. After briefly speaking with him, Beverly put the phone on speaker, and Bozak started listening on the conversation. Bozak recorded the conversation.
During the conversation, Difiore indicated he could hear an adult male talking to an adult female. He said, “they wanted to remove a camera out of the house as well. This not a mental fucking breakdown. I have two people here with me that heard the same thing. So I need you to wake up Michelle, tell her exactly what I told you and let her know that she is gonna say I’m crazy probably. Cause she doesn’t fucking talk about what she is doing that I contacted the FBI and CSES and let them know what I heard.” The audio lasted 27 minutes. He rambled on about not being mentally ill, issues in relation to his children, and issues between him and Bozak. He also complained about hearing voices in the bushes near to his house and seeing people surrounding his house earlier that day. He believed that these people had guns and that they were planning on going to his house the next day to harm him. Difiore asked Beverly to “wake Michelle up” on multiple occasions.
On November 23rd, 2023, Difiore called Beverly and asked her if she could ask “Michelle out of the goodness of her heart to let him see the kids early”.
Case file synopsis (3), from the Ontario Provincial Police, dated December 25th, 2023 Charges:
- CC 145(5)(a) – Fail to comply with release order Form 11 (x3)
Synopsis:
On the 24th of December 2023, at approximately 14:45, James Difiore called Beverly Bozak’s landline (Michelle Bozak’s mother), to speak to his and Michelle’s son, Casper. Michelle Bozak is the one who answered the call. Beverly did not have caller ID on her phone, so Michelle Bozak was not aware that it was James Difiore calling them.
Michelle Bozak told James Difiore that he was not allowed to call this number. Difiore said that it was “ok every once and a while” and that he needed to talk to Casper. Difiore then said, “you know what you did this week. You need to make a deal Michelle".
That same day, at 1804hrs, Difiore left a voicemail on the above-mentioned landline, about how his friend confirmed listening devices were placed in his home. He added that a CSIS team was coming to remove them so that their children (Casper and Elizabeth) would be “safe”.
Beverly Bozak also reported that Difiore called her landline on the 23rd of December and asked to speak with his son, Casper. Beverly said she had only given him permission to speak with her regarding childcare arrangements via the app "app close". Beverly had not given him permission to call her landline. Casper and Elizabeth share a phone that James can call to speak with them.
During the report, police informed Michelle and Beverly Bozak that Difiore was not allowed to contact her under any circumstances (not even through the app) as it was a breach of his release order. Michelle and Beverly were not aware of this.”
Background History
Mr. Difiore’s personal, legal and psychiatric history is set out in detail in the hospital report dated February 10, 2025. Briefly summarized, Mr. Difiore is presently 48 years of age and was born in Montreal, Quebec.
As a child, he used to be very shy and reserved, but when he was a teenager, he became “cocky” and “arrogant”. He denied ever being violent towards his peers. Mr. Difiore denied having problems with vandalism, lying, or cruelty towards animals. He said, however, that between the ages of 13 and 16, he used to steal “junk food, cologne, anything that could fit into a pocket or up my sleeve”.
Mr. Difiore obtained his high school diploma in 1995. He said that he had difficulties “all around in school”. He said that he was “very oppositional and defiant”, and that he never completed his homework. He said that he was “a clown” in class, and that his teachers did not want him in their classrooms. As a result, during his last semester, his teacher agreed that he would do his schoolwork at home.
In 1996, he enrolled in a Journalism program at Niagara College. A year later, he switched to creative writing at Sheridan College. He said that he dropped out from this program a year later because he “could not afford to pay for it, and I blew out my OSAP money, so I didn’t qualify for it anymore”.
Throughout the years, he had difficulties “holding onto jobs” and worked for many different companies and different fields of work. He worked as a writer, as a cook, as a freelancer, and a customer service representative until the age of 40. When asked why he had difficulties staying employed, he said that he had conflicts with his superiors and his coworkers. In retrospect, he feels he did not used to have “a work ethic”. This changed as he got older. After that, he worked for 6 years as an assistant librarian at a local library.
He said that he currently has publishing deals for books he wrote and has launched an online podcast. When asked how he currently sustains himself financially, he said that he does freelance writing and that he used up all his savings.
Mr. Difiore said that he was first introduced to alcohol when he was 18 years old through a friend. He said that he has drunk alcohol “on and off” throughout the years. He said that he did not drink alcohol regularly until the age of 23. Currently, he drinks “every other week, when the kids are not here”. He reported drinking “2 bottles of wine and a 26 oz. of vodka per week”.
He said that at the age of 14, he started LSD. He said that he used to use LSD 10 to 15 times per year, for 4 years since the age of 14. He said following this, his consumption decreased over time. After the age of 23, he used LSD 5 times over the course of a year. He denied experiencing prolonged effects of LSD or symptoms of substance induced psychosis following this.
At that same age, he was first introduced to cannabis through a friend. He said that he currently smokes “very small amounts” daily (7g per month) to help him sleep. He said that he smokes “a little bit more” during social gatherings, but that he usually has his consumption under control. He said that the drug does not give him any paranoia or hallucinations.
Sometime when he was a teenage, he started using psilocybin (magic mushrooms). He said that he used mushrooms 3 times in high school. He was not able to remember details about his consumption. In 2019, he used mushrooms “every couple of months”. He last used mushrooms in December of 2023. He denied experiencing prolonged effects of LSD or symptoms of substance induced psychosis.
When he was in his 20’s, he experimented with ecstasy and cocaine. He could not remember what his consumption was like. He said that he used ecstasy and cocaine in his 30’s “once a blue moon”. The last time he used cocaine was in January 2024. He cannot remember the last time he used ecstasy. He has abused Adderall in the past and has experienced psychotic symptoms that includes paranoia and sometimes auditory hallucinations.
Legal History
- Mr. Difiore has no prior criminal record.
Psychiatric History
Mr. Difiore said that he was diagnosed with ADHD sometime in his 30’s. He described experiencing forgetfulness, anxiety, difficulties focusing on tasks, and difficulties staying still. He initially denied ever being prescribed medication for this condition, but in a follow-up call, he stated that he was prescribed Vyvanse and Adderall in the past. He said that he currently does not take medication for this condition, and that he “manages well” without it.
Mr. Difiore said in 2021 until April 2023 he suffered panic attacks. He stated his heart would race and he would sweat profusely.
During his initial assessment, Mr. Difiore explained that for the past year and a half, usually five to seven days per week, he hears a male and female voice reading his emails and discussing his parenting decisions. He described the voices as “noise pollution” and it only occurs at his home. He said a neighbour tells him he also hears these voices.
Mr. Difiore stated in April 2023 he was admitted to the Pembroke Regional Hospital for six days due to him suffering from auditory hallucinations, sleep disruption and misusing Adderall.
Mr. Difiore shared in the summer of 2023 he was prescribed Olanzapine but only takes it occasionally.
Mr. Difiore’s current diagnosis is set out in the hospital report as follows:
“Mr. Difiore’s presentation is that of Schizophrenia. He denies any recent use of drugs and this militates more towards a diagnosis of Schizophrenia and not of a drug induced psychosis. His past includes a history of stimulant use disorder -Amphetamine/Cocaine”.
Evidence at the Hearing
The hospital’s evidence was presented through its report as well as through the oral testimony of Dr. Julian Gojer. This evidence is summarized below.
Mr. Difiore is currently untreated. According to Dr. Gojer he has no insight into his illness and is currently refusing to take medication. Mr. Difiore has some insight into the fact that his abuse of Adderall contributed to his situation, but according to Dr. Gojer, it is likely that Mr. Difiore is still experiencing some auditory hallucinations.
By way of update, Dr. Gojer advised that the hospital has just recently learned from Mr. Difiore that he is working for a U.S. company in the artificial intelligence field, that he travels monthly to the U.S. to work and that he claims to be paid in cash for his work. According to Mr. Difiore, there are security requirements for this job. The treatment team cannot yet determine if there are any delusional aspects to what Mr. Difiore is claiming to be doing in the States. Evidently, the treatment team is wanting to know more about this situation in order to determine the legitimacy of this supposed work in the United States.
The hospital is recommending a detention order with approved accommodation, and it has yet to be determined where Mr. Difiore’s approved accommodation will be. During the hearing information came out to the effect that Mr. Difiore has a new residence in Barry’s Bay and that though he has been in Ottawa for some weeks, he is intending to return there next week. This is where Mr. Difiore will be living alone with his children when they are in his care pursuant to the parenting agreement between he and the children’s mother, Michelle Bozak, the victim of the index offences.
Mr. Difiore continues to have joint parenting time with his children who are now 8 and 10 years old. Pursuant to the conditions of the judicial release order, Mr. Difiore and Ms. Bozak, the mother, have used a neutral third party as an intermediary for the parenting arrangements. Mr. Difiore does not drive, which complicates these arrangements. Counsel for Mr. Difiore, Ms. Munsterman, confirmed that the Judicial Release Order had been amended to permit Mr. Difiore’s change in residence and to allow him to attend for pick up and drop off for parenting times with his children.
At this time, Dr. Gojer believes that the correct diagnosis is that of schizophrenia. Though Mr. Difiore’s psychosis has largely resolved, Dr. Gojer believes that Mr. Difiore continues to experience symptoms of a “low grade psychosis”.
Dr. Gojer has only met Mr. Difiore once for the assessment and needs to get to know him better which he plans to do over the next several months. Though Mr. Difiore remains untreated, there is no information to suggest that he has reoffended whatsoever in the past year and a half. As he is not currently a patient of the hospital, Dr. Gojer has not had the opportunity to have him start working with the treatment team in any meaningful way though he has met with his case manager, Sara Ferrante with whom he shared that he was working in the United States.
In response to questions posed to him by counsel for the Attorney-General, Ms. Dufort, Dr. Gojer responded as follows:
(a) As Mr. Difiore has not yet become a patient of the hospital and is not currently under the terms of the disposition, there have been no random urine drug screens to confirm whether or not he is using drugs or other substances.
(b) Dr. Gojer believes that Mr. Difiore will engage with the treatment team and that there will be a serious discussion around starting medication, which in the opinion of Dr. Gojer is key to his rehabilitation. Dr. Gojer is contemplating a course of oral olanzapine; however, if there is resistance or non-compliance, there will have to be a discussion regarding the appropriateness of injectable medication. The hospital is recommending reporting not less than once every four weeks along with a condition that Mr. Difiore abstain from all substances and that he attend for random screens.
(c) Dr. Gojer believes that the disposition can be enforced with the recommended reporting provision, particularly as it is expected that the frequency will be much higher at the outset. The hospital also supports adding a non-contact provision with the victim of the index offences, subject to her written revocable consent or a Family Court Order.
(d) With respect to the issue of travel to the U.S. for work, Dr. Gojer was informed of this just prior to the hearing. He has concerns about this given that it appears to be shrouded in some degree of mystery. The hospital will need to be fully informed of the details, but for purposes of the disposition Dr. Gojer is suggesting that such travel be permitted but only with the approval of an itinerary submitted at least one week before travel.
(e) The hospital needs to see Mr. Difiore start medication and engage in therapeutic endeavours. This would be easier if he were residing in Ottawa. His intended move to Barry’s Bay will present some challenges. Dr. Gojer would have preferred that Mr. Difiore attend the hospital for a Risk and Recovery Program, in addition to relapse prevention though some of these therapeutic endeavours may be available in some fashion from local mental health services.
(f) Regarding substance use, Dr. Gojer has some concerns that Mr. Difiore is possibly still using given the underlying psychotic and delusional ideas, however Mr. Difiore has so far presented as very cooperative and pleasant. Dr. Gojer believes that if he is using drugs, it is likely at the low end of the spectrum. He intends on testing him before he leaves the hospital today.
(g) Dr. Gojer will also be looking to assess Mr. Difiore’s capacity as he has asserted that he does not have a mental illness to the case manager Ms. Ferrante. This will need to be further explored in the next few weeks.
In response to questions posed to him by counsel for Mr. Difiore, Ms. Munsterman, Dr. Gojer confirmed that he believes that Mr. Difiore will attend the hospital despite living in Barry’s Bay. He can also use local mental health services to assist him with reporting by OTN and possibly even having drives offered to him by some of these supportive services. Dr. Gojer is also considering the possibility of a short admission to stabilize Mr. Difiore and start him on medication followed by meetings through OTN.
In response to questions posed to him by members of the panel, Dr. Gojer responded as follows:
(a) Dr. Gojer will gauge the necessity of an admission to hospital based on Mr. Difiore’s cooperation and urine test results.
(b) When asked about the frequency of reporting being only once every four weeks, Dr. Gojer confirmed that it would likely be more in the range of once per week until the treatment team gets to know him better. He can also be visited in the community by the hospital’s social worker, Richard Robins, as well as by his Case Manager, Sara Ferrante.
(c) Dr. Gojer acknowledged that the hospital report indicates that Mr. Difiore was using cannabis to help with sleep but that he does not know if that currently is the case. In any event, he does not believe that Mr. Difiore has any insight into the effect of cannabis given that he does not believe he has a mental illness.
(d) Dr. Gojer explained that the therapeutic relationship is a dynamic one that has not been given much of an opportunity yet. Once a disposition is obtained, it is the expectation that the therapeutic relationship will start to develop and that Mr. Difiore will have a better understanding of what is required of him.
(e) Dr. Gojer believes that Mr. Difiore’s amphetamine use probably helped to trigger his psychosis and that given the known effects of cannabis to exacerbate mental illness it is fair for the Board to assume that cannabis is a risk factor for Mr. Difiore.
(f) Dr. Gojer believes that Mr. Difiore’s resistance to taking medication is due to his lack of insight. Given Mr. Difiore’s healthy pre-morbid personality, Dr. Gojer is hopeful that this will improve with treatment.
(g) Members of the panel expressed concerns about the proposed travel to the U.S. to which Dr. Gojer acknowledged that the hospital needs to obtain more information and to verify the legitimacy of this purported employment.
No other evidence was presented on behalf of the Attorney General or on behalf of Mr. Difiore.
The victim, Michelle Bozak, read her amended victim impact statement at the hearing.
Submissions of the Parties
The hospital submits that Mr. Difiore poses a significant threat to the safety of the public and that a detention order, with community living in approved accommodation, reporting not less than once every four weeks, and conditions to abstain from substances and submit to random testing, and that there be contact with the victim only with her written revocable consent or pursuant to a Family Court Order, is the necessary and appropriate disposition to manage the risk at this time. The hospital also endorses including travel passes to the U.S., only with the prior approval of the hospital and an itinerary presented one week before travel.
Counsel for the Attorney General, Ms. Dufort, indicated her support of the hospital recommendation and terms and conditions of the detention order, with some added recommendations for the conditions relating to contact with the victim.
Counsel for Mr. Difiore, Ms. Munsterman, also indicated her support of the hospital recommendation and the suggestions of Ms. Dufort in relation to the contact with the victim.
Analysis and Conclusion
Having considered all of the evidence tendered at the hearing, and the joint submission of the parties on this issue, the Board finds that Mr. Difiore poses a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined 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.
Mr. Difiore has a likely diagnosis of schizophrenia and the extent to which his abuse of substances contributed to his psychosis remains unclear at this time and requires further investigation. While he was experiencing psychosis, Mr. Difiore repeatedly harassed his ex-spouse, causing her obvious extreme psychological harm and fear for her safety. Her Victim Impact Statement leaves no doubt as to the extent of the harm caused to her.
Mr. Difiore has yet to truly engage in rehabilitative treatment given that he has not yet had any opportunity to work with the members of his treatment team, including his psychiatrist, Dr. Gojer, whom he has met only once for purposes of the preparation of the risk assessment.
The information available at this time is that Mr. Difiore is untreated as he does not believe that he suffers from a mental illness. It is noted, however, that there is no evidence that he has reoffended in any manner since the index offences.
Though there is no evidence before us that Mr. Difiore is not adequately parenting his children, we note that the information provided in Ms. Bozak’s amended VIS states that the children are aware that their father hears voices and that he has shared his delusional thoughts with them.
Despite the joint submission of the parties to add travel passes to the disposition to permit Mr. Difiore to travel to the U.S. for work, with the prior approval of the hospital, the Panel was struck by the complete absence of evidence warranting the inclusion of those passes.
The Panel is very concerned with the lack of available information about the purported travel to the U.S. and we find ourselves unable to grant those travel passes based on this insufficiency of the information. There was opportunity at the hearing for Mr. Difiore to provide further information about his purported work in the U.S., but he did not avail himself of that opportunity.
More specifically, the psychiatric member of the Panel, Dr. Lessard, has elaborated the following clinical rationale for opposing the inclusion of the requested travel passes at this time, which is adopted unanimously by this Panel:
(a) The Lack of Established Clinical Relationship & Longitudinal Assessment
Mr. Difiore has only undergone a single psychiatric assessment with Dr. Gojer, and no therapeutic alliance has been formed. Without longitudinal care, there is insufficient evidence to confirm his clinical stability or ability to adhere to follow-up recommendations especially while abroad.
(b) Ongoing Substance Use & Risk of Relapse
Mr. Difiore has a history of stimulant use. Dr. Gojer identifies amphetamine and cocaine use (now in remission) as a key risk factor in Mr. Difiore’s 2023 psychotic episode, which has since been diagnosed as schizophrenia.
Despite recommendations for abstinence, the evidence is that Mr. DiFiore persists in using THC, which Dr. Gojer confirms it could exacerbate his psychotic symptoms.
(c) Maladaptive Coping Mechanisms
Dr. Gojer’s report notes that Mr. DiFiore has historically relied on substances to manage distress. Given his untreated schizophrenia, the stressors of international travel, including potential time zone changes, unfamiliar environments, and potential occupational demands, could heighten his vulnerability to relapse.
(d) Lack of Insight into Illness & Treatment Non-Adherence
Mr. Difiore demonstrates no insight into his mental illness, impairing his ability to recognize symptoms or seek help if decompensation occurs. Dr. Gojer cautioned that self-reported measures (e.g., MMSE part where Mr. Difiore needs to report his symptoms) may be unreliable due to this deficit.
Mr. Difiore has so far refused recommended pharmacological treatment, further complicating risk management and increasing the likelihood of psychiatric destabilization abroad.
(e) Unverified Employment & Financial Stability Concerns
The proposed job in the U.S. involves cash payments, raising concerns about transparency and nature of his work. It was also suggested that Mr. Difiore uses air travel to travel to the U.S. though no credible documentation has been provided to verify travel and employment conditions, supervision, or workplace accommodations (if any).
The Board has no evidence regarding the nature of his work, its emotional demands, or whether stressors in this role could precipitate relapse.
(f) Public Safety Considerations
While rehabilitation and social reintegration are critical recovery goals, public safety must remain the paramount consideration. Given Mr. Difiore’s unresolved psychosis risk factors (ongoing THC use, lack of treatment), the absence of insight or self-monitoring capacity, more information is needed to better evidence his ability to manage stressors independently.
In light of these concerns, most notably Mr. Difiore’s untreated schizophrenia, substance use, poor insight, and unverified employment, international travel at this stage presents unacceptable risks to both his well-being and public safety. Should his clinical status improve with sustained treatment adherence, abstinence from substances, and demonstrated stability, reassessment may be warranted in the future.
Though we are mindful of the Board’s inquisitorial nature, the insufficiency of the evidence presented at the hearing leaves us unable to properly evaluate this request. The priority for the initial hearing was, first and foremost, to put in place a disposition that will permit Mr. Difiore and the hospital to develop a therapeutic relationship and to ensure that proper risk management is elaborated and put in place.
Should the parties wish to further address this issue before the Board, they may request an Early Review Hearing, where the necessary information and evidence can be presented to support the request for the travel passes.
With respect to the reporting requirements of the disposition, the panel finds that the frequency needs to be increased, and that it is necessary and appropriate that reporting be not less than once every two weeks, to ensure more oversight over the term of the disposition.
We have taken into consideration the factors at section 672.54 of the Criminal Code of Canada, namely the protection of the public, which is the paramount consideration, the mental condition of the accused, his reintegration into society and his other needs in coming to the unanimous finding that a detention order, with permission to reside in the community in approved accommodation is the necessary and appropriate and least onerous and least restrictive disposition at this time, along with the following conditions:
i. hospital and grounds privileges, escorted by staff;
ii. hospital and grounds privileges, accompanied by staff or a person approved by the person in charge;
iii. hospital and grounds privileges, indirectly supervised;
iv. to enter the community of Eastern Ontario within 250 kilometres of the hospital, escorted by staff;
v. to enter the community of Eastern Ontario within 250 kilometres of the hospital, accompanied by staff or a person approved by the person in charge;
vi. to enter the community of Eastern Ontario within 250 kilometres of the hospital, indirectly supervised;
vii. to live in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge;
viii. abstain absolutely from the non-medical use of alcohol or drugs or any other intoxicant;
ix. submit samples of their urine and/or breath to the person in charge of the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre or their designate, for the purpose of analyzing whether the accused has ingested alcohol, drugs or any other intoxicant;
x. refrain from contact or communication, direct or indirect, with Michelle Bozak by any physical, electronic or other means, except with her written revocable consent or pursuant to a Family Court Order made after the date of the Disposition;
xi. not to attend within 200 metres of any place where Michelle Bozak is known to live, work or frequent, except for purposes of picking up or dropping off your children at pre-arranged parenting times, in which case you shall not approach within 10 metres of Michelle Bozak, or pursuant to a Family Court Order made after the date of the Disposition; and
xii. when living in the community, report to the person in charge of the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre or their designate not less than once every two weeks.
DATED this 2nd day of May 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. M. Labrosse
Alternate Chairperson
____________________________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board