David Thomas Scott (Re), 2025 CanLII 42609

Ontario Review Board

Re: David Thomas Scott

ORB File No: 1114/1746

Hearing held on: Wednesday, April 2, 2025

Place of hearing: Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care 500 Church Street, Penetanguishene

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

Before: Alternate Chairperson: Mr. M.D. Segal Members: Dr. K. Hand Dr. G. Kerry Ms. M. Chamberlain Mr. J. Cyr

Parties Appearing: Accused: David T. Scott Counsel: Mr. A. McIver

The person in charge of hospital: Representative: Ms. T. Newman

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. D. Chronopoulos (via Zoom)

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated May 6, 2025)

Introduction

1David Thomas Scott was on December 20, 1988, found not guilty by reason of insanity on a charge that he did on November 12, 1987, commit a sexual assault and threaten to use a weapon, to wit a knife. On December 20, 1988, he was convicted of sexual assault causing bodily harm, contrary to the Criminal Code. On December 15, 1993, the Court of Appeal set aside the conviction and substituted a finding that Mr. Scott was not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

2Mr. Scott is currently on a Detention Order with privileges up to and including hospital grounds privileges, beyond the secure perimeter, escorted by staff.

3On April 2, 2025, Mr. Scott’s annual hearing before the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”) was held at the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care (“hospital”). Mr. Scott, as is his custom, was not present. He was represented by his counsel, Mr. A. McIver, who had instructions. The Board made an order permitting the hearing to occur in Mr. Scott’s absence.

4The Board had before it as Exhibit 1, a Hospital Report dated February 25, 2025. In preliminary positions, all parties agreed that significant threat was present and that the current Disposition was the most appropriate Disposition.

5Dr. J. Van Impe, the patient’s psychiatrist, testified. He has known the patient for many years.

6At the outset, the Board raised the issue of adding a weapons prohibition with all the parties. On behalf of the hospital, Dr. Van Impe was surprised that a prohibition order was not already in the Disposition. Dr. Van Impe noted that Mr. Scott has access to tools as a participant in gardening and upholstery. However, a prohibition would have no impact on participation in those vocational programs. The weapons prohibition would not have an impact unless Mr. Scott was transferred to a less secure forensic facility.

7Mr. Scott’s current diagnosis is Personality Change due to Severe Head Injury. In 1974 at the age of 10 he was severely injured in a motor vehicle accident, was in and out of coma for three months and recovery from his injuries required a lengthy hospitalization. As the result of his traumatic brain injury, he had onset of frequent seizures and persistent, consistent personality changes.

8Mr. Scott profits from being in Waypoint’s structured environment. Mr. Scott takes advantage of the secure perimeter and is very involved with vocational activities. He is well known by all staff. While Mr. Scott does take antipsychotic medication, it is solely directed at treating his seizures.

9Dr. Van Impe noted that Mr. Scott remains impulsive and has poor temper control. Mr. Scott can lose his temper quite quickly; Waypoint staff know Mr. Scott very well and are skilled at de-escalating him and settling him down. Mr. Scott is not on any antipsychotic medication for mental disorder. Mr. Scott’s only regularly prescribed psychotropic medication is administered to treat is seizure disorder.

10His quality of life would be negatively impacted in a less secure setting. This is mitigated at the hospital because of how well staff know Mr. Scott.

11Mr. Scott is capable of making treatment decisions. Mr. Scott continues to decline attending his scheduled monthly clinics.

12Mr. Scott works in the greenhouse once a week in spring and summer. He attends the educational centre five days a week most of the year, surfing appropriate material on the internet.

13His privileged level is now C5, the highest level. He wants to write a book.

14There has been no sign of sexual deviance. He is on an all-male unit.

15While Mr. Scott can lose his temper quite quickly, staff are skilled at settling him down. The “risk of explosion” behaviour remains.

16In final submissions, the hospital was not opposed to a weapons prohibition but was not sure of the relevance unless the patient was transferred. Crown counsel was supportive of the prohibition. Mr. Scott’s counsel did not see the need for one.

Analysis & Conclusion

17Significant threat to public safety was conceded. It is made out based on all the evidence, including the Hospital Report. One issue that the panel considered was the absence of a weapons prohibition. Dr. Van Impe had assumed it was in the Disposition. The index offences speak to a concern regarding weapons. It may be that it was overlooked at an earlier point in time. We heard evidence including that the presence of a prohibition would have no impact on Mr. Scott's vocational endeavours. The inclusion of a prohibition would make sense if Mr. Scott was transferred to a less secure hospital, but he has no interest in such a transfer. It is possible Mr. Scott could change his mind in future. Mr. Scott is aging, and has some physical conditions that may require admission to a general hospital. In such a case, the prohibition may also be useful to advise the authorities on his admission. As such, a weapons prohibition will be added to Mr. Scott’s Disposition. We commend Mr. Scott for participating in various vocational endeavours. We wish Mr. Scott well in the upcoming year.