Ontario Review Board
Re: Doris Caribou
ORB File No: 8707
Hearing held on: Wednesday, April 9, 2025
Place of Hearing: Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care
Pursuant to: Sections 672.47(1) and 672.48(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. R. Bigelow
Members: Ms. S. Clapp
Dr. S. Swaminath
Dr. M. Green
Ms. C. Plyley
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Doris Caribou
Counsel: Mr. C. Dobson
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Zamprogna
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. D. Rows
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated May 5, 2025)
Introduction
On January 15, 2025, Doris Caribou was found unfit to stand trial on a charge of aggravated assault contrary to the Criminal Code. The court did not make a disposition and referred the matter to the Ontario Review Board (the Board) to do so.
On April 9, 2025 the Board convened Ms. Caribou’s initial hearing at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care (the Hospital) to determine whether she continued to be unfit to stand trial and if so what was the necessary and appropriate disposition that was also the least onerous and least restrictive. . Ms. Caribou was not present at the hearing. Counsel for Ms. Caribou advised that she was refusing to attend the hearing and that in his opinion she would in any event be unable to participate in the hearing given her cognitive difficulties and he was requesting that Board proceed with the hearing in her absence pursuant to section 675.4 (10) of the Criminal Code. The Chair requested that Dr. Mokhber provide the panel with information with respect to Ms. Caribou’s cognitive difficulties and her understanding of the issues to be determined at the hearing and the importance of her attending the hearing. She. stated that she was of the opinion that Ms. Caribou did not comprehend the significance of the hearing and her refusal to attend should not be considered as being oppositional but rather due to her inability to understand the purpose of the hearing. In her opinion Ms. Caribou would not be able to understand the proceedings or participate.
Neither counsel for the Hospital nor counsel for the Attorney General opposed proceeding with the hearing in her absence. In the circumstances the panel deemed that it was appropriate to proceed with the hearing in Ms. Caribou’s absence.
Positions of the Parties
At the commencement of the hearing the parties were requested to provide their initial without prejudice positions with respect to the issues before the Board. Counsel for the Hospital advised that it was the hospital’s position that Ms. Caribou continued to be unfit to stand trial and was likely permanently unfit and that the necessary and appropriate disposition was a conditional discharge on the terms set out in the hospital report at page 21 with an additional term prohibiting possession of weapons.
Counsel for the Attorney General supported the Hospital position and recommended that a further term be added prohibiting contact with the victim of the index Offence without his consent. Counsel for Ms. Caribou supported the Hospital recommendation and did not oppose the additional term recommended by counsel for the Attorney General.
Evidence at the hearing
- The evidence at the hearing consisted of the record before the court at the time of Ms. Caribou’s fitness hearing, a transcript of those proceedings and a Hospital Report dated March 17, 2025. Dr. N. Mokhber also gave oral evidence.
Findings
- For the Reasons that follow, the Board finds that Ms. Caribou continues to be unfit to stand trial and that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a discharge on conditions with terms as jointly recommended by the parties.
Alleged Index Offence
- The circumstances surrounding the alleged index offence as summarized in the Hospital Report are as follows:
The victim and the accused are both known to each other as they are friends. I
On Thursday March 9, 2023 BOS and the accused were within the accused's apartment located at 323-202 McNay Street in the City of London. The two were socializing, and consuming alcoholic beverages.
At approximately 10:00 p.m. while BOS was seated in a recliner chair within the living room, the accused asked BOS if there was any more beer to which BOS replied "no".
he accused proceeded to check the refrigerator and confirmed that BOS was correct and there was no longer any beer. This enraged the accused who obtained a paring knife, and approached BOS from behind, as he was seated, and swung the knife toward him in a stabbing motion. The accused attempted to stab BOS four times. BOS deflected two of the four attempts but suffered a stab wound to the chest, as well as a stab wound in the left elbow which he sustained trying to block her attack.
BOS began bleeding from the chest, and at approximately 10:54 p.m. contacted the London Police Service, and Emergency Medical Services for assistance.
At 10:57 p.m. several Police Officers responded in priority fashion (lights and sirens).
Upon arrival Police made entry to check the welfare of the occupants. BOS and the accused were located within the unit. BOS was escorted out of the unit and into the hallway where Police observed a puncture wound to the center of his chest. He advised Constable HEWITT that the accused had stabbed him.
Constable HEWITT provided this information to Officer's speaking with the accused. PC HEWITT seized a green handled paring knife covered in blood from a table in the living room of the residence.
BOS was transported to Victoria Hospital by Emergency Medical Services to be treated for his injuries.
BOS's injuries were considered serious, but not life threatening.
From the CT scan it was discovered that the knife punctured BOS's chest cavity and hit his right lung.
Background Information Regarding the Accused
Ms. Caribou is currently 68 years of age and was born in Manitoba where she grew up with nine siblings. She attended a residential school until grade 8 but did not continue her education past that level. Although she is unable to provide specifics, it appears that she was the victim of physical and sexual abuse.
She advises that she has a history of working in part-time jobs over the years but hasn’t worked since 1993. She is supported by disability benefits managed by the office of the Public Guardian and Trustee but was unable to provide details as to what led to this. Prior to the alleged index offence she was living in a rental apartment in London and received help with her daily activities including grocery shopping from community services staff.
Subsequent to the alleged index offence Ms. Caribou moved into Henley Place, a long-term care facility in London Ontario where she has now resided for 16 months.
Substance Use History
- Ms. Caribou has a history of substance abuse which decreased from daily to every couple of weeks according to health records. She states that she “drank before” but could not provide specifics. She was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the alleged index offence.
Legal History
- Ms. Caribou has the following criminal record:
Winnipeg, Manitoba
Theft Under $200
Conditional Discharge for 6 months
1983-05-05
Winnipeg, Manitoba
Theft Under $200
Absolute Discharge
1987-09-18
Winnipeg, Manitoba
Fraud Sec 338 CC (1)
Fail to Comply with Recognizance Sec 133 (3) CC
Suspended sentence & probation 6 months
$100 I-D 10 days
1991-10-02
Winnipeg, Manitoba
Contempt of court
Time spent in custody (3 days)
2004-09-07
Stratford, Ontario
Assault sec 266 CC
Uttering Threats Sec 264.1 (1)(A)
Suspended sentence & probation 2 years & discretionary prohibition order for 10 years on each charge conc
2014-04-10
Stratford, Ontario
Assault with a Weapon Sec 267 (a) CC
1 day & probation 12 months (pre-sentence custody 15 days)
Medical History
- Information with respect to Ms. Caribou’s medical history is limited largely due to her cognitive difficulties.
Current Diagnosis
- Mr. Caribou’s current diagnoses are:
Neurocognitive Disorder (Korsakoff's Dementia)
Query Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
- Korsakoff's Dementia is a neurocognitive type dementia with the features of severe memory problems, registering information and recalling information resulting from thiamine deficiency often observed in individuals who use alcohol.
Evidence of Dr. Mokhber
Dr. Mokhber indicated that she had assessed Ms. Caribou and that she had reviewed and adopted the contents of the Hospital report. During her approximately five hour assessment she noted that it was difficult to keep Ms. Caribou on track and that multiple redirections were required in order to do so. It was hard to keep her on track at first but as time went on she became more comfortable and open. She discussed with Ms. Caribou what she had experienced and Ms. Caribou advised that she had been raped multiple times.
Dr. Mokhber stated that Ms. Caribou did not suffer from any major psychiatric or personality disorders. She had been prescribed antidepressants to assist her with anxiety.
Dr. Mokhber stated that the main effect of Korsakoff’s Dementia was on executive functioning and memory impacting on her attention, concentration and decision-making process. Ms. Caribou continues to be unfit to stand trial as she cannot remember, process, or learn information in a meaningful way and is likely permanently unfit. The effects of her illness are irreversible.
Dr. Mokhber stated that Ms. Caribou receives all the support that she needs at the current long-term care (LTC) residence and in her opinion she does not constitute a significant threat to the safety of the public if she remains there. She also stated that Mr. Caribou does not have access to alcohol at the LTC residence and she has not expressed a desire to drink since being there.
In response to questions from counsel for Ms. Caribou, Dr. Mokhber stated that although Ms. Caribou can recall information received within minutes she has great difficulty remembering information received hours or days previously. She also is unable to process information in a meaningful way.
In response to questions from panel members, Dr. Mokhber indicated that the go therapeutic treatment for PTSD the treatment team would attempt to optimize which would be of assistance dealing with it.
Analysis and Conclusion, Fitness to Stand Trial:
- Although the issue of fitness was not contested at the hearing, the Board nevertheless makes an independent finding that Ms. Caribou continues to be unfit to stand trial and is likely permanently unfit. Although she is able to answer some of the Taylor type witness questions, she is unable to participate meaningfully in interviews and would be unable to communicate with counsel in any meaningful way.
Analysis and Conclusion, Necessary and Appropriate Disposition:
- The Board finds that the evidence also amply supports the joint submission that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a conditional discharge on the terms as jointly recommended by the parties including continued residence at her current home, a weapons prohibition, and a no-contact order with the victim (with his revocable consent) of the alleged index offence. Ms. Caribou is currently housed in a facility which meets her needs and where she is content, and which also provides the required supervision. Evidence supports a finding that if issues arise with respect to Ms. Caribou’s behaviour, the provisions of the Mental Health Act would be sufficient to manage it.
DATED this 5^th^ day of May 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Robert Bigelow
Alternate Chairperson
____________________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board