Ontario Review Board
Re: Neil Williams
ORB File No: 6634
Hearing held on: Friday, March 28, 2025
Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
Pursuant to: Section 672.81 (1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. L. Banks
Members: Dr. P. Prendergast Dr. L. O. Lightfoot Ms. M. Labrosse Mr. A. Bouvier
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Counsel: Ms. M. Savard
The person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. R. McMaster
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. C. Waite
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated May 6, 2025)
Introduction:
On October 28, 2014, Neil Williams was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on a charge of second-degree murder, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada.
Mr. Williams is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “ORB” or the “Board”), dated December 27, 2023, discharging subject to a variety of terms and conditions including that he report to the person in charge of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (“CAMH” or the “hospital”), or to his/her designate, not less than once per month.
On March 28, 2025, a panel of the ORB convened to review Ms. Williams’ current Disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Williams was present at the hearing and represented by his counsel, Ms. M. Savard.
The issues to be considered at this hearing are whether Mr. Williams is a significant threat to public safety as now defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and, if he is found to be a significant threat to the community, the determination of the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances bearing in mind the factors enunciated in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
For the reasons set out below, the Board finds that Mr. Williams no longer meets the threshold of posing a significant threat to the safety of the public and accordingly, he must be absolutely discharged.
Index Offence:
- The circumstances giving rise to the index offence are abstracted from the Hospital Report to the ORB dated March 9, 2025 (the “Hospital Report”), as follows:
“On November 25, 2013 Neil Williams was arrested and charged with Second Degree Murder. He is alleged to have killed his mother. At approximately 3:17pm on November 25, 2013 Neil Williams called 9-1-1. He told the 9-1-1 dispatcher that he had stabbed his mother in the chest because he “thought she was a zombie”. Shortly thereafter, the police arrived at the home. Neil Williams was found by his mother’s side attempting to perform CPR. Janet Williams was pronounced dead at the hospital.
Mr. Williams is reported to have stated that: He was at home with his mother and father that morning. He was feeling unwell and vomited. He was unable to take his medication for his bipolar disorder because he was feeling sick. He started to get paranoid thoughts. It felt as though someone was after him. This feeling went away but returned after his father had left for work. He then got strange thoughts and paranoia about his mother. He remembered getting a knife. His memory got blurry after he got the knife. He vaguely remembered stabbing his mother. After he stabbed his mother the paranoid feelings went away and he felt dread.”
Personal Background:
The Hospital Report sets out Mr. Williams’ background and course in hospital need not be repeated here in detail. Briefly stated, Mr. Williams is 55-years old. He is single and has no children. Prior to the index offence he was living together with his parents in a house in Toronto. He was unemployed and financially supported by them.
Mr. Williams’ parents separated when he was 12 years old and he continued to live with his mother in the family home and would see his father a few times each week. His father provided financial support to the family. Some years later his father moved back into the family home in a platonic arrangement. All parties got along well together.
Mr. Williams’ mother, the victim of the index offence, was trained as a lawyer. She was not formally employed outside the family home after Mr. Williams’ birth. When Mr. Williams was in his early 20’s, she resumed employment. Mr. Williams describes having had a positive relationship with his mother.
Mr. Williams was a successful student and he completed high school and went on to earn a Bachelor of Arts degree. During his studies he experienced depression and attempted suicide. Throughout this period, his parents were extremely supportive, and Mr. Williams remained connected to his mother throughout university.
Mr. Williams subsequently earned a Master’s degree and embarked upon a PhD program. However, this was not successful as he felt isolated in the program. In the fall of 2012, he left the PhD program and planned to work in the business field, assuming that he would eventually take a position in his father’s investment business.
Psychiatric History:
Mr. Williams experienced his first psychiatric referral in the fall of 2006, after his suicide attempt. In May, 2007 he was admitted to hospital and was described as having paranoid ideation. Mr. Williams was seen for outpatient psychiatric care from 2007 to 2013. During this time, no psychotic symptoms were observed and Mr. Williams was described as suffering from bipolar affective disorder, with good insight into his illness and medication compliance.
Following his NCR finding on Oct. 28, 2014, Mr. Williams was detained at CAMH. At his initial ORB hearing, Mr. Williams was ordered detained in hospital under a Hybrid Detention Order. He was transferred to a Secure Forensic unit in January 2015 and subsequently to a General Forensic unit in June 2015. On November 20, 2015, Mr. Williams was transferred from a General Forensic unit to a Secure Forensic unit following an act of psychosis-motivated aggression. Mr. Williams had armed himself with a knife and lunged aggressively at staff member during a cooking class. A Code White was called. Mr. Williams exited the kitchen with the cleaver in his hand and accessed the hospital grounds before he was disarmed and returned to the unit.
In June of 2019, Mr. Williams was discharged from the hospital to CMHA-THRP2 housing. This is a 24-hour high support transitional housing program located near the CAMH hospital grounds. On December 13, 2021, Mr. Williams received a Conditional Discharge and was required to report not less than once per week. He continued to reside at THRP2 until May of 2023, when he moved to an independent apartment in the Yorkville area of Toronto where he lives today.
Current Diagnosis:
- Mr. Williams is currently diagnosed as suffering from Schizophrenia.
Positions of the Parties:
At the commencement of the hearing, all parties were canvassed as to their recommendations to the Board.
Dr. McMaster advised of the hospital’s recommendation of an Absolute Discharge.
Counsel for the Attorney General indicated that she wished to hear the evidence before making a recommendation. At the conclusion of the evidence, Ms. Culp indicated her support of the Absolute Discharge.
Counsel for Mr. Williams indicated that her client was seeking an Absolute Discharge.
In closing submissions, the parties jointly recommended that Mr. Williams be. Granted an Absolute Discharge.
Evidence at the Hearing:
The Board received documentary evidence in the form of the Hospital Report, and a victim impact statement of Mr. E. Williams. In addition, the Board heard oral evidence from Dr. R. McMaster, Mr. Williams’ out-patient psychiatrist since approximately June 2019. Dr. McMaster endorsed the contents of the Hospital Report.
Dr. McMaster stated that Mr. Williams has had an “excellent” year in review. He has successfully maintained his independent apartment, has remained compliant with his oral antipsychotic medication, Clozapine, which he administers independently, he has abstained from substance and alcohol use, he has not engaged in any incidents of violence, has maintained a significant volunteer position in the community. Mr. Williams has also engaged in pro-social activities, has not posed as a management concern and not required any hospital readmissions. He is responsive and cooperative with the treatment team in all interactions.
Mr. Williams is assessed as capable to consent to his psychiatric treatment and he is fully independent in self-administering his medication of Clozapine at 400 mg. He consistently denies any violent or suicidal ideation and Dr. McMaster testified that that there has been no evidence that he experiences delusions, hallucinations, or any paranoia for many years since the introduction of Clozapine. The symptoms of his major mental illness appear to be in full remission and his mental state has remained stable over the past reporting year. Dr. McMaster stated that Mr. Williams appears quite capable of accessing his internal state and he has been forthcoming about his internal thoughts with the FOP team.
Dr. McMaster described Mr. Williams’ insight as “excellent” with regard to his need for medication and the importance of taking it consistently. He clearly acknowledges that he suffers from Schizophrenia and that he would be likely to relapse if he were to stop taking his medication. Mr. Williams consistently states that he would be agreeable to returning to hospital if there was a change to his mental state and that his father would take him to CAMH’s emergency department if he noticed a change in his presentation.
Mr. Williams is also independent in managing his own finances, meals and transportation.
He has continued to be followed in the community by the Forensic Outpatient Program (“FOP”) and given the positive rapport he has with team members and his reliability in attending appointments, the frequency of his reporting obligation was reduced to once monthly over the past reporting year. Mr. Williams has attended all FOP appointments reliably, including attendance for his Clozapine bloodwork.
The Hospital Report indicates that Mr. Williams attends church approximately bi-weekly. He has developed some social friendships from his church involvement. Mr. Williams also continues to attend social activities, such as concerts, and he has volunteered at church outreach programs.
Mr. Williams also volunteers at IBK Capital, his father’s workplace, on a near full-time basis. He assists in analyzing mining companies and he recently attended a mining conference which he enjoyed. His long-term goal is to complete his MBA; however, he last attended university in 2012 when he left his PhD program. In the meantime, he reports that he feels a strong sense of support from his colleagues at IBK Capital. Members of that company are well-aware of Mr. Williams’ index offence and his tenure under the ORB.
Dr. McMaster stated that all of Mr. Williams’ social and volunteer engagements are protective factors with regard to his risk profile. At last year’s ORB annual hearing, it was noted that if Mr. Williams were to overcommit in his volunteer and social commitments, he would be likely to experience stressors. Dr. McMaster stated that Mr. Williams is currently extremely mindful of his volunteer and social commitments but he continues to prioritize his mental health needs and not over-commit himself.
Last year’s ORB Reasons for Disposition refer to the Hospital Report which indicated that: “Mr. Williams’ index offence was catastrophic and occurred while he was actively psychotic. His re-offence in 2015 revealed that his overt symptoms of psychosis (persecutory delusional thinking) may not become apparent until its abrupt manifestation in violent behaviour.” In response to questions posed by a panel member, Dr. McMaster stated that with the continued passage of time, Mr. Williams has continued to present with prolonged mental stability with an absence of incidents of concern. Dr. McMaster noted that since the initiation of Mr. Williams’ treatment with Clozapine, no signs of decompensation have been observed. As well, the doctor commented that Mr. Williams has many protective factors as well as excellent insight across all domains. The doctor testified that Mr. Williams’ risk of relapse is extremely low. The doctor described that likelihood of relapse as “almost “miniscule”. Dr. McMaster noted Mr. Willams’ extremely low PCL-R, indicative of essentially no characterological traits of concern.
The Hospital Report indicates that Mr. Williams’ historical risk factors include:
-his mental illness (schizophrenia) with onset in his early twenties;
-his severe physical violence when unwell, as characterized by both the index offence and his subsequent decompensation in 2015;
-problems with employment, he had not worked since leaving his PhD program in 2012 (although more recently has been volunteering at his father’s workplace);
-his long-standing difficulties with relationships, both platonic and intimate – this has been a major area of improvement; and
-problems with treatment response with his clinical course has been complicated by rapid destabilization in response to small medication changes and high sensitivity to side-effects.
- The Hospital Report indicates that there are currently no major areas of clinical concern. However, the Re-Offence Scenario indicates that: “If Mr. Williams is to re—of and, it would likely occur in the context of active psychosis, likely exacerbated by exposure to D stabilizers and psycho social stressors. Mr. Williams’ history of violence flows from the active symptoms of his major mental illness (schizophrenia). In the context of acute psychosis, he has exhibited serious paranoia driven violence, as characterized by both the index offence and subsequent unprovoked attempted assault on staff in November 2015. Mr. Williams has been stable since he started causing pain. He has improved upon his ability to monitor changes in his internal state.
Should Mr. Williams mental state decompensate, persons in his physical proximity would be at greatest risk of violence, including care providers and family members. When unwell in the past, he has had difficulty recognizing and disclosing symptoms of psychosis. His ability to recognize his internal state has improved, especially following the initiation of clothes of pain. It is the team’s opinion that the likelihood of reoffending is low.”
Mr. Williams’ father is, and has been, a constant source of support for him and they see each other frequently and communicate daily. Mr. Williams Sr. attended the hearing and read into the evidence his Victim Impact Statement, which was also entered as an Exhibit. Mr. Williams Sr. stated that his son is managing very well in his independent apartment and that he is flourishing in his work environment where his business colleagues are well aware of his son’s mental health history and his ongoing oversight by the ORB. Mr. William’s Sr. advised that his son has resumed studies and courses in German at the Goethe Institute and has completed four in-person French courses at Alliance Française as well as in-person investment courses at the University of Toronto. He is an active participant in many involvements in his church community. His father stated that he sees his son several times weekly and is very proud and supportive of him. Mr. Williams Sr. advised that his son is prospering in all aspects of his life.
Dr. McMaster testified that if granted an Absolute Discharge, the FOP team will continue to follow him until he fully connected with the hospital’s non-forensic case management team, the Downtown East Clinic. Mr. Williams has consistently stated that he is committed to working with the treatment team and plans on continuing with mental health supports. In Dr. McMaster’s opinion, the Mental Health Act is sufficient to address Mr. Williams’ particular risk factors.
No further evidence was called by the parties.
Analysis and Reasons:
The Board is unanimous in finding that Mr. Williams no longer meets the threshold of posing a significant threat to the safety of the public. We note that this position was not contested by any of the parties. In coming to this conclusion, we have relied upon the documentary evidence and the expert testimony of Dr. McMaster, particularly regarding Mr. Williams’ course over the past several reporting years. As well, the panel carefully considered the decision of the Supreme Court in Winko v. British Columbia. In that case, the Court identified a significant risk as a "real risk of physical or psychological harm to members of the public that is serious in the sense of going beyond the merely trivial or annoying. The conduct giving rise to the harm must be criminal in nature". There must be a positive finding by the Board of a significant risk to the safety of the public to engage the provisions of the Criminal Code and to support restrictions on an NCR accused’s liberty. Something else, for example, uncertainty, cannot suffice. If the Board cannot resolve the question of whether or not the NCR accused constitutes a significant threat to public safety, it must grant the accused an Absolute Discharge.
In Winko, the Supreme Court also outlined that in coming to a conclusion on the issue of significant risk, a Review Board should closely examine a range of evidence including the circumstances of the original offence, the past and expected course of the accused's treatment, the present state of the NCR accused's medical condition and the NCR accused's own plans for the future, the support services existing for the NCR accused in the community and, perhaps most importantly, the recommendations provided by experts who have examined the NCR accused.
The evidence before us outlined the sustained progress that Mr. Williams has continued to make over the past several years. He has been residing successfully in the community since June 2019 with no hospital readmissions. He currently lives in stable independent housing and there have been no reported incidents of concern since his discharge.
Mr. Williams has not engaged in any violence or assaultive behaviour and he attends all of his scheduled appointments with the FOPS team without issue.
To his credit, Mr. Williams is insightful regarding the symptoms of his illness, its early warning signs, and the importance of medication compliance in perpetuity. He is internally motivated not to fall back into psychiatric illness and realizes that he must remain compliant with his treatment and abstinent of substances of abuse in order to avert a recurrence of his illness.
The symptoms of Mr. Williams’ mental illness have been in sustained and complete remission for many years and he remains independently compliant under his own consent as he is assessed as treatment capable. He does not present with any overt symptoms of psychosis or mood disturbance.
Mr. Williams’ UDS results have all returned negative for substances of abuse and he has engaged appropriately with his treatment team and is an active participant in pro-social endeavors including full-time employment. Mr. Williams has complied with all of the terms in his ORB Disposition. These are all indicators of his positive trajectory in terms of full community re-integration absent an ORB Disposition.
Mr. Williams has committed to continuing to engage in mental health follow-up and his care will be transitioned to a non-forensic team once he receives an Absolute Discharge. Dr. McMaster has expressed the FOP’s willingness to bridge care while Mr. Williams is being transitioned to a civil treatment team.
Dr. McMaster is confident that Mr. Williams’ risk will be sufficiently mitigated by many protective factors. These include: his well-developed insight, his adherence to prescribed medication, his engagement in a variety of pro-social community endeavours, stable housing, and his network of family members and friends who are positive social supports. Given these many protective factors, the Board concurs with the recommendation of the treatment team and agrees that Mr. Williams’ risk can be sufficiently managed in the community absent an order of the ORB.
In view of the foregoing, this Board finds that Mr. Williams no longer meets the threshold of significant risk to the safety of the public and we order that he be absolutely discharged. The Board congratulates Mr. Williams, his father, Dr. McMaster and the treatment team and wishes Mr. Williams continued success in the future.
In making this Disposition, the Board has reviewed the provisions of s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code and has carefully considered the need to protect the public from dangerous persons, the mental condition of Mr. Williams, his reintegration into society and his other needs.
DATED this 6^th^ day of May, 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. L. Banks Alternate Chairperson
__________________
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board