Ontario Review Board
Re: Duke Godfrey
ORB File No: 6113
Hearing held on: Friday, March 14, 2025
Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health 1001 Queen Street West, Toronto
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. S. Clapp Members: Dr. R. Sheppard Dr. S. Lessard Mr. D. Sandor Mr. J. Cyr
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Duke Godfrey Counsel: Mr. D. Brodsky
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Szabo
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. J. Tupper
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated May 6, 2025)
Introduction:
On April 19, 2012, Duke Godfrey was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on charges of assault with a weapon, assault, and failure to comply with probation order, all contrary to the Criminal Code. He is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB” or the “Board”) dated December 21, 2023, whereby he is detained at the Forensic Service of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (“CAMH” or the “hospital”) with privileges up to and including community living in the Greater Toronto Area in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
On March 14, 2025, a panel of the Board convened at CAMH to conduct Mr. Godfrey’s annual review pursuant to section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Godfrey attended the hearing and was represented by counsel.
The Hospital Report dated November 26, 2024, was marked as Exhibit 1 at the hearing. Counsel for the Attorney General provided a CPIC Report dated November 28, 2023, which was marked as Exhibit 2. In addition to the documentary evidence, Mr. Godfrey’s attending psychiatrist, Dr. A. Simpson, gave evidence.
The issues to be decided at the hearing were whether Mr. Godfrey continues to meet the test of posing a significant threat to the safety of the public and if so, what is the necessary and appropriate Disposition, bearing in mind the four factors in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
Position of the Parties:
- At the outset of the hearing, the parties were asked for their initial without prejudice positions. On behalf of the hospital, Ms. Szabo took the position that Mr. Godfrey remained a significant threat to the safety of the public and there should be no change to the current Detention Order Disposition. Mr. Tupper supported the hospital’s position on behalf of the Attorney General. Mr. Brodsky stated that his client also agreed with the hospital’s position. The panel therefore had a joint recommendation before it.
Findings:
- For the reasons that follow, the panel found that Mr. Godfrey continues to pose a significant threat to public safety. The panel concluded that the necessary and appropriate Disposition, which is also the least onerous and least restrictive in the circumstances, is a continuation of the existing Detention Order.
Index Offences:
- The circumstances giving rise to the index offences are summarized in the Board’s Reasons for Disposition dated January 18, 2024, as follows (at paragraphs 3-6):
“On August 9, 2011, Mr. Godfrey confronted a man on the street and asked him “Do you love me?” The man replied that he “loved everybody”. Mr. Godfrey demanded the man kiss him and when the man refused, he pulled out a 12-inch knife and threatened the man with it. The man fled.
Mr. Godfrey then approached a second man and when he did not get the response he wanted, pushed the man against a wall, showed him the knife and demanded that the man tell Mr. Godrey he loved him. The man complied and then left.
Mr. Godfrey then entered a convenience store. He demanded cigarettes while waving his knife. After he was given a cigarette, he left the store.
Mr. Godfrey had stopped taking his medications in the weeks before the index offences. He was also using cannabis daily.”
- At the time of index offences, Mr. Godfrey reported that he had been using substances (cannabis and crack cocaine), was hearing voices, and was carrying a knife to protect himself.
Background:
Mr. Godfrey’s personal background and history are set out in detail in the Hospital Report and will not be repeated here. Briefly summarized, Mr. Godfrey is a 40-year-old single man who came to Canada from Jamaica when he was six years old. He was raised by his aunt, who continues to be his primary social support. Mr. Godfrey graduated from high school and worked at various apprenticeship programs and jobs. He also attended some college courses.
Mr. Godfrey began to use cannabis at age 14. He began to use crack cocaine in August 2011.
Criminal History:
- Mr. Godfrey’s criminal record was submitted at the hearing (Exhibit 2). It shows that Mr. Godfrey was convicted of assault with intent to resist arrest in 2006, and assault with a weapon in 2008. He received suspended sentences and probation as a result of these convictions. The Hospital Report stated that the assault with a weapon conviction related to Mr. Godfrey stabbing the superintendent of his building in the arm.
Psychiatric History:
The Hospital Report details Mr. Godfrey’s history of mental illness and contacts with mental health services. In summary, his aunt began noticing changes in Mr. Godfrey in 2002, and he had his first hospital admission in September 2005. Mr. Godfrey was described as being in a “psychotic state” and was treated with antipsychotic medication. He was hospitalized again in January 2006 on a Form 48 (Assessment of Fitness to Stand Trial) following his arrest on the charge of assault with intent to resist arrest. He was guarded and suspicious and endorsed unusual beliefs, auditory hallucinations, and paranoid thinking. He was treated with antipsychotic medication and returned to court as fit to stand trial. Mr. Godfrey was followed in the community after this and there were concerns about his cannabis use and the emergence of psychotic symptoms.
Mr. Godfrey discontinued his medications approximately two weeks prior to the index offences and had been using two joints of cannabis daily. He had been referred for treatment for his substance dependence but he was ambivalent about getting help.
Mr. Godfrey’s variable course under the Board’s jurisdiction was described succinctly in the Board’s Reasons for Disposition dated January 18, 2024 as follows (at paragraph 11):
“Under the jurisdiction of the Board, Mr. Godfrey has had periods of mental stability (roughly 2012-2016 and 2018-2019) when he has been adherent to medications and abstinent from substances. He has lived independently, while working or going to school, subject to a conditional discharge. Mr. Godfrey has also had periods of decompensation (roughly 2016-2018 and 2019-2022) requiring lengthy hospitalization, during which his insight into his need for medications and the benefits of abstinence withered, he became volatile, and he engaged in dangerous behaviours, necessitating detention orders.”
Most recently, Mr. Godfrey was discharged to 24-hour supported and supervised housing in the community in December 2022. His medication is supervised and his meals are provided. He did very well in the community for some time, working as a courier regularly, maintaining abstinence from substances, and pursuing a full-time plumbing course at George Brown College.
Mr. Godfrey’s current diagnoses are Schizophrenia and Substance Abuse Disorder.
Mr. Godfrey is capable with respect to treatment decisions.
Evidence at the Hearing:
The Hospital Report stated that the last reporting year began well with Mr. Godfrey completing his studies at George Brown College and commencing a plumbing apprenticeship. Unfortunately, Mr. Godfrey experienced a series of stressors in his work and housing which culminated in an admission to hospital from July 26, 2024, to September 18, 2024. Mr. Godfrey’s course in hospital was described as “reasonably smooth” and his condition was stabilized. While in hospital, Mr. Godfrey reported that he had been hearing voices continuously and had been concealing these symptoms for many years as he wanted to progress through the system. Mr. Godfrey also reported that the injection was marking his skin, so his medication was changed from injectable to oral form (olanzapine 15 mg at night). Mr. Godfrey returned to his apartment in the community on September 18, 2024. He recommenced work as a courier in October 2024.
The Board held a restriction of liberty hearing in October 2024 and concluded that the hospitalization was warranted.
Dr. Simpson testified that things went well after Mr. Godfrey’s discharge back to the community in September 2024 up until mid-February of this year. Mr. Godfrey continued to work as a courier two to four days a week and managed to clear some of his debts. Although there were some tensions at his housing, including how intrusive the supervision can be and some drug use by co-residents, Mr. Godfrey managed well. His family support also remained consistent.
Approximately three weeks prior to the hearing, Dr. Simpson let Mr. Godfrey know that the treatment team would be recommending a continuation of the Detention Order as opposed to a Conditional Discharge for the upcoming year (as a result of the recent need for hospitalization). Dr. Simpson testified that this was disappointing for Mr. Godfrey and led to feelings of frustration and sadness. The staff at Mr. Godfrey’s housing subsequently noticed a change in his presentation, and by the first week of March there was an escalation in concerning behaviours. Mr. Godfrey refused to take his oral medication, used cannabis, and did not return to his apartment. A Form 49 was issued and Mr. Godfrey was taken by police to CAMH on March 4, 2025. Mr. Godfrey was kept overnight and was reviewed by the outpatient team. There was no relapse of his psychotic symptoms, and Mr. Godfrey agreed to go back on his medications. He continued to meet with his case manager and Dr. Simpson after he went back to his apartment.
Mr. Godfrey tested positive for cannabis on March 5, 6 and 11, 2025. Dr. Simpson stated that Mr. Godfrey would like the team to consider whether using cannabis will ever be safe for him. He associates cannabis with relaxation and creativity (related to music production) but does not associate it with becoming unwell or increasing his propensity to develop psychotic symptoms. Dr. Simpson stated that the treatment team will work with Mr. Godfrey and the addictions specialists going forward, and added that Mr. Godfrey was being very up front about this issue with the treatment team.
The Hospital Report included the following under the heading “Composite Assessment of Risk” (at page 39):
“Mr. Godfrey continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. His risk flows from his psychotic disorder and the risk of relapse due to substance use, stress or medication non-compliance that would very likely result in a relapse of psychotic symptoms that motivate violence in him. His index offence occurred as a result of paranoid delusions and auditory hallucinations that were likely precipitated and perpetuated by substance use and non-adherence to medications. This also resulted in his poor ability to maintain effective follow-up with his outpatient team, which could likely re-occur absent supervision and support. Even under the Board with supervision, Mr. Godfrey has relapsed on a number of occasions with a re-emergence of his psychotic symptoms and use of drugs. Relapse can be over 1-2 weeks.”
- The Hospital Report also stated the following under “Team Review of Recommendation” (at page 40) (note that the Hospital Report is dated November 26, 2024, which was after the July to September 2024 hospitalization but before the recent events described above):
“Given the need for readmission and the uncertainty regarding his ongoing experiences of psychosis we do not believe that progression to a conditional discharge is indicated at this time. Although this relapse was progressive over weeks rather than sudden as it has been in the past, his ability to trust and be open with us is of concern as he grapples with how best to seek support and continue to experience progress. In this context we feel it most wise to maintain the detention order so as to ensure we can approve the right accommodation and facilitate rapid readmission should his mental health deteriorate.”
Dr. Simpson testified that a Conditional Discharge was premature for Mr. Godfrey, and stated that Mr. Godfrey needs to demonstrate that he is coping successfully with challenges and stressors, noting that he is vulnerable to external stressors as was evidenced this reporting year. Dr. Simpson also testified that while Mr. Godfrey has good insight overall, it is not as robust in the areas of drug use and coping, and relapses are difficult for him. His past history includes relapses in the community where there were some significant symptoms of paranoia, and this needs to be managed better.
Although there were some tensions with housing, Dr. Simpson stated that Mr. Godfrey is happy with his apartment and has no plan to move in the near future. However, Dr. Simpson felt that a Detention Order was necessary in order to continue to be able to approve any housing for Mr. Godfrey going forward. Dr. Simpson also stated that the Mental Health Act would be insufficient to bring Mr. Godfrey to hospital because of the rapidity of his relapses and his difficulty identifying his symptoms of relapse. Dr. Simpson described Mr. Godfrey’s illness as “brittle.”
The current Disposition included a reporting provision of “not less than once every two weeks” (clause 4(d)). The recommendation for this year, as outlined in the quote above, stated that reporting should occur once per week. Dr. Simpson was asked about this discrepancy and he stated that practically the team has been meeting with Mr. Godfrey weekly (with some flexibility given his work schedule) and that needs to continue. However, Dr. Simpson acknowledged that the reporting requirement of not less than once every two weeks allows for weekly reporting, and he did not think the Disposition needed to become more restrictive given the quality of Mr. Godfrey’s relationship with the treatment team and his level of responsibility.
Analysis and Conclusion:
Based on the Hospital Report and the evidence of Dr. Simpson, the panel found that Mr. Godfrey continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. Mr. Godfrey’s risk flows from his psychotic disorder and the risk of relapse due to substance use, medication noncompliance, or external stressors. A relapse of his psychotic symptoms can be quite rapid, and is likely to result in harm to others as it has in the past. Historically, even while under the supervision of the Board, Mr. Godfrey has relapsed on a number of occasions with a re-emergence of his psychotic symptoms and use of substances, which led to aggressive and dangerous behaviours.
The evidence demonstrated that Mr. Godfrey’s illness is brittle, and he is particularly vulnerable to external stressors. This has resulted in a lengthy and variable tenure under the Board. He has had periods of wellness where he has pursued employment and education and was granted Conditional Discharges. He has had other periods of time when his mental state decompensated requiring admissions to hospital and Detention Orders. Last year’s Reasons for Disposition dated January 18, 2024, stated that Dr. Simpson described the Detention Order as a “safety net” to allow for early intervention and to stop Mr. Godfrey from losing gains he had made if things started to go badly for him (at paragraph 20). This safety net was utilized twice during this most recent reporting year when Mr. Godfrey experienced stressors, showed signs of decompensation, and was brought to the hospital. This safety net also allowed Mr. Godfrey to be stabilized before his psychotic symptoms significantly affected his functioning, and protected the public.
The panel found that a continuation of the existing Detention Order is the necessary and appropriate Disposition, and accepted the recommendation of the treatment team and the joint submission of the parties. Mr. Godfrey had a challenging year with a very recent period of destabilization. The Detention Order is required until a longer period of stability has been established in order to protect the public and ensure Mr. Godfrey’s stability in the community. Mr. Godfrey is motivated to continue working on his ability to cope with stressors and manage his life, and he has a strong therapeutic alliance with the treatment team. He is encouraged to continue working with the team in order to pursue and ultimately achieve his life goals and longer-term stability.
Finally, the panel agreed with Dr. Simpson’s position that the reporting requirement in the Disposition did not need to be changed. The current reporting requirement of not less than once every two weeks allows for reporting once a week, and Mr. Godfrey was already doing this. It was not necessary or appropriate to place an increased restriction on Mr. Godfrey or the treatment team at this time.
DATED this 6^th^ day of May, 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. S. Clapp Alternate Chairperson
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board