Re Wayne Wilcox, 2025 CanLII 45812

Ontario Review Board

Re: Wayne Wilcox

ORB File No: 8459

Hearing held on: Thursday, April 3, 2025

Place of hearing: Brockville Mental Health Centre

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

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Ms. T. Mann

Members: Dr. R. Kunjukrishnan Dr. A. Gibas Ms. M. den Haan Mr. M. Hajek

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Wayne Wilcox Counsel: Mr. D. Howard

The Person in charge of Hospital: Representative: Dr. A. Adiele

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. K. Schultz

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated May 12, 2025)

Introduction

1. On January 10, 2024, the accused, Wayne Wilcox, was found not criminally responsible (“NCR”) on Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”) charges of repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or anyone known to them, and engaging in threatening conduct directed at the other person or any member of their family.¹

2. Mr. Wilcox is currently subject to a disposition dated April 18, 2024, detaining him at Brockville Mental Health Centre (“BMHC” or “the Hospital”) with a number of privileges including the ability to live in a 24-hour supervised residence in the catchment area of Brockville or Ottawa if approved by the person in charge.

3. On April 3, 2025, the Ontario Review Board (“ORB”) convened a hearing to conduct the annual review of Mr. Wilcox’s current Disposition. Mr. Wilcox was present at the hearing and represented by his lawyer, Mr. D. Howard.

Position of the Parties

4. At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed regarding their respective without prejudice recommendations to the Board. The Hospital and Attorney General were joined in recommending that the panel find Mr. Wilcox poses a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary, appropriate, least onerous and least restrictive disposition was that he be subject to a detention disposition placing him at BMHC on the same terms and conditions as are currently in place. Mr. Howard advised Mr. Wilcox would like to be released from the Hospital by means of an absolute discharge.

Index Offence

5. The following description of the index offences is taken from last year’s Reasons for Disposition, as follows:

On May 14th, 2022, Mr. Wilcox entered into an agreement to abide by release conditions that included not being within 250 meters of where the victim, Thomas Russell lived (120 Beech St.). On July 20th, 2023, Mr. Wilcox called the Ottawa Police Service (OPS) to attend 120 Beech St. for a complaint regarding Thomas causing a disturbance towards him. When the police arrived, this complaint was determined to be unfounded. Thomas approached police on their arrival to advise that he had seen and spoken to Mr. Wilcox within 250 meters of where Thomas lived.

On June 20, 2023, Mr. Wilcox entered into a conditional sentence order with the Ontario Court of Justice for the criminal charges of Assault with a Weapon and Uttering Threats. He was sentenced to a five-month imprisonment and the order permitted him to serve the jail sentence in the community as long as he obeyed all conditions of the order. The victim was Thomas Russell, Mr. Wilcox's neighbor who resided on the same floor of the apartment in adjacent units.

Between July 8 and 9, 2023, the victim discovered writing across his apartment door, which included the following: “shut up”, “fagit”, “nut fuck”, “baby killer”, and “diddler”. In addition, Thomas found notes slid under his apartment door. The notes included language that Mister Wilcox had previously used against the victim, such as calling the victim a “nut fuck”; this was also written on his door. In addition, one of the notes mentioned, “Drop all charges against me, I did not do anything wrong.”

On July 10th, 2023, Thomas sat at the front of his residence when Mr. Wilcox approached him. He asked Mr. Wilcox why he wrote on his door. Mr. Wilcox screamed at and berated the victim for several minutes. Mr. Wilcox stated, “You're going to jail and somebody is going to fix you”. Mr. Wilcox continued to scream at the victim while calling him names like “baby killer” and “faggot.”

Thomas told Mr. Wilcox to leave him alone yet he continued to scream at him. The victim eventually walked inside the apartment building to get away from Mr. Wilcox who continued to berate him as he left the area. Due to Mr. Wilcox's actions, Thomas was extremely concerned for his safety. He has slept inside his car and left Ottawa to stay with friends at times due to his concern for the overall behavior displayed by Mr. Wilcox.

Furthermore, earlier that day, Mr. Wilcox met his probation officer Deena Zand Vakili for a meeting. While reviewing Mr. Wilcox's conditions, Mr. Wilcox made several comments which were directed at Thomas including: “He's harassing me,” “if he keeps it up he's going to get pounded again,” “He's being a Class A shit disturber,” “He's petrified of me,” and “He's going down fast.”

Current Diagnoses

6. Mr. Wilcox is currently diagnosed with Delusional Disorder and Neurodevelopmental Disorder (Unspecified).

Background

7. The Hospital Report dated March 04, 2025, and filed as Exhibit 1 at the hearing, provides information concerning Mr. Wilcox’s personal and mental health history, details of the circumstances leading up to the Index Offence and his course following his having been found NCR and subsequent admission to hospital. Given that this Hospital Report was made an Exhibit in this hearing, it is not necessary to reproduce in detail the information contained in it here but the following background information is provided for context to the Board’s decision.

8. Mr. Wilcox is a 59 year old man who provides a personal history that is not in accordance with other collateral information available to the treatment team. According to the Hospital Report, Mr. Wilcox was born in Mississauga to a factory worker father and homemaker mother who appear to have provided him with a loving home. His father passed away in 2014 and his mother now lives in a nursing home with a diagnosis of dementia. Mr. Wilcox was diagnosed with a developmental disability before he was four years of age and his parents then pursued a number of services to assist Mr. Wilcox. He resided with his parents until he was in his mid-40s and then resided independently in Ottawa until May 2022 when he entered the shelter system pursuant to court ordered-release conditions, ultimately ending up homeless. Mr. Wilcox has an older brother who previously assisted Mr. Wilcox with his finances and provided other supports, but Mr. Wilcox distanced himself from him around 2019, due to frustration and anger around the way his brother was managing his finances. Mr. Wilcox has a nephew to whom he was once very close.

9. Mr. Wilcox attended school but did not succeed in the regular curriculum and required special classes for extra support. Mr. Wilcox was bullied at times and also seems to have bullied others. He completed high school in a special school for developmentally delayed children in the Peel region.

10. Mr. Wilcox reports an extensive employment history in numerous roles, including as an underwater welder but this history does not accord with collateral information obtained. Mr. Wilcox has instead had a limited employment history consisting of physical labour jobs which did not last beyond a few weeks on each occasion.

11. Mr. Wilcox has been diagnosed with several physical diseases and conditions including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), disseminated eczema, psoriasis and elevated lipid levels. He has had bilateral cataracts surgically removed. Mr. Wilcox has reported a history of multiple heart attacks but various medical investigations have not confirmed this.

12. Mr. Wilcox has a significant criminal record as is noted on page 14 of the Hospital Report, with a history of convictions on serious charges such as sexual assault resulting in periods of incarceration, as well as other charges that did not result in convictions.

13. Mr. Wilcox self-reports having no psychiatric history but as detailed in the Hospital Report, he does have a psychiatric history starting as a child. At eight years of age, he was admitted to The Hospital for Sick Children [Behavioural Science Unit] at his parent’s request due to constant tantrums and emotional lability. His discharge diagnosis was “behaviour disorder of childhood”. Collateral information from Mr. Wilcox’s family indicates he was admitted as a child to Thistledown Regional Centre, a child and youth mental health centre, due to violent outbursts.

14. Hospital records indicate that as an adult, Mr. Wilcox has been transported to hospital by police on several occasions at the request of his parents because of their and others’ fear and concern about his thoughts (paranoid, persecutory, grandiose, bizarre) and aggressive behaviours, including damaging property. In 2008 after one of these incidents and subsequent release from the William Osler Health Centre (“WOHC”) in Etobicoke, his diagnosis at discharge was “personality disorder.” In August 2012 he was admitted to WOHC again, under a Form 1, due to wanting to harm four neighbours who had been bothering him. His discharge diagnosis at that time was “schizophrenia.”

15. After Mr. Wilcox’s father died in 2014, his older brother moved Mr. Wilcox and their mother to Ottawa to be closer to him. The move to Ottawa proved very challenging for Mr. Wilcox but he remained on his medications and stable.

16. At p. 6 of the Hospital Report, there is a reference to Mr. Wilcox having functioned in the community for many years on medication. Mr. Wilcox’s nephew reported that when well and taking his medication, Mr. Wilcox is able to manage living independently with support to ensure his bills are paid on time. According to Mr. Wilcox’s brother and nephew, Mr. Wilcox was not accepting of his diagnosis of Schizophrenia but was open to taking medications if it was framed they were to support him with anxiety and anger issues. When taking medication, Mr. Wilcox is reportedly in control of his feelings, with no violent ideation and also he is respectful of police.

17. Around 2020, Mr. Wilcox’s psychiatric medication (olanzapine) was reduced, or possibly there was poor compliance, following which he became unwell, demonstrating increased aggression and violent ideation. He was unable to control his emotions, primarily anger, and was reportedly “nasty with family on the phone”. In 2022, Mr. Wilcox’s nephew tried to get him to a walk-in clinic to have his medications reinstated to the proper dose, but Mr. Wilcox was not agreeable.

18. At the time of the index offences, Mr. Wilcox did not have any community mental health supports or a family doctor. There was no reported substance use (p. 17 of the Hospital Report, referencing the NCR report) but Mr. Wilcox later admitted to having used alcohol and “weed”.

19. Notably, there is a debate in the history as to whether Mr. Wilcox’s presentation is more consistent with a diagnosis of Schizophrenia or Delusional Disorder.

Course Under the Board’s Jurisdiction from the Hospital Report

1. Following the Index Offences in 2023, Mr. Wilcox was transferred to the Royal Ottawa Health Centre under a Treatment Order. His thoughts contained persecutory and grandiose delusions. Medications such as a long-acting form of paliperidone and short acting injectable lorazepam were administered and over several months he was less agitated but expressed on-going delusional ideation. For further information leading to the most recent disposition order please see the Hospital Report commencing on page 18.
2. During the period of this review, Mr. Wilcox has had a mixed year. His physical health has been relatively stable, and he has performed most activities of daily living, such as dressing appropriately, independently. He interacts minimally with peers and staff. He has had limited contact with family, but his nephew did visit in January 2025. Arrangements for Mr. Wilcox to visit with his mother are being considered.
3. Some behaviour work has been done with Mr. Wilcox in an effort to ensure he wears shoes in public places. In addition, there are future plans to determine if he might be a candidate for assistance from Developmental Services Ontario. Cognitive and functional assessments are planned to support such a referral. There is a real question as to whether Mr. Wilcox will co-operate with such assessments.
4. Mr. Wilcox continues to lack insight into his mental illness and the need for medication. He does not believe he is mentally unwell or in need of treatment. He is not capable for the purpose of consent to treatment with psychiatric medication. Despite their strained relationship, his older brother agreed to be Mr. Wilcox’s substitute decision-maker (SDM) for treatment. Mr. Wilcox is not capable with respect to finances and the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) is involved.
5. After admission to the Assessment and Stabilization Unit at BMHC and due to behavioural issues and threats, on June 13, 2024 he was placed in a Locked Seclusion Room (“LSR”) until June 17, 2024. He was then returned to the LSR on June 20th and remained until July 27th. On August 30, 2024, while in seclusion, he had an unwitnessed fall but did not sustain any fractures. He currently resides on the B4-South unit and is visible on the unit, spending time in the lounge watching television with peers but rarely interacting with them.
6. As noted on page 29 of the Hospital Report, several significant behavioural incidents have been documented over the course of the review period including throwing scalding water at a peer’s face (July 7, 2024 – resulting in his being charged with assault with a weapon), verbally escalating with insults and threats to a peer and then throwing dining room tables and chairs (August 25, 2024) and throwing his medication cup and flipping a chair (February 23, 2025). He is described at p. 28 of the Hospital Report as expressing disdain for other patients and using profanity when referring to staff or peers. When agitated, he is rude, demanding, dismissive, and verbally abusive/threatening. Although he does not have any privileges currently, he is allowed to access the secure yard, with staff supervision, for fresh air.
7. On the other hand, Mr. Wilcox has several strengths, including some responsiveness to behavioural interventions such as the incentive program encouraging him to wear shoes, recent positive contact with his nephew as a potential source of prosocial support and connection that could be developed and preserved functioning in activities of daily living. Added to this is his history of having maintained some stability in the community when appropriately medicated, which suggests he might have the potential to achieve this again.

Evidence at the Hearing

1. The Board had available to it information contained in the Hearing Documents as well as the Hospital Report dated March 4, 2025. The Board also had the benefit of the oral evidence of Mr. Wilcox’s attending forensic psychiatrist, Dr. A. Adiele, who endorsed the contents of the Hospital Report, including the various analyses of significant threat contained within it and recommendations as to the necessary and appropriate disposition.
2. In his oral evidence, Dr. Adiele focused on Mr. Wilcox’s current presentation, which has remained largely unchanged since being admitted to BMHC in June 2024, along with his lack of insight into his diagnosis, need for treatment and risk factors for violence. Dr. Adiele’s evidence was that Mr. Wilcox continues to regularly display irritation and anger toward peers and staff, citing as an example the throwing of scalding water that caused scarring of the victim and resulted in a criminal charge being laid against Mr. Wilcox, in addition to other examples of Mr. Wilcox being “highly temperamental”.
3. Dr. Adiele indicated that Mr. Wilcox has not been consistently cooperative with psychiatric medication. Initially he refused to take medication and then, grudgingly, accepted it. Mr. Wilcox has now received a number of doses of injectable antipsychotic medication (paliperidone) but to no effect thus far except, possibly, a very slight decrease in the frequency of aggressive outbursts.
4. Dr. Adiele plans to increase Mr. Wilcox’s olanzapine but notes that it is a battle with Mr. Wilcox each time something new is started. Dr. Adiele was of the view that Mr. Wilcox had not made any progress whatsoever during the time he has been at BMHC. The doctor was unable to provide any estimate of time for when Mr. Wilcox might be able to move to a rehabilitation unit. First, Mr. Wilcox must begin to accept that he does not have to make threats to get his points across.
5. In response to questions from Mr. Schultz for the Attorney General, Dr. Adiele confirmed that given Mr. Wilcox’s reluctance to adhere to a medication regimen even within the highly structured setting of the Hospital, he would be unlikely to do so if he were to be granted an absolute discharge.
6. In response to questions from Mr. Howard, Dr. Adiele confirmed that no updated assessments have been completed, due to challenges in working with Mr. Wilcox, who is resistive to all forms of assessment, including blood tests, as well as the lack of a psychologist for a time at BMHC.
7. With respect to Mr. Wilcox’s current diagnoses, Dr. Adiele confirmed his opinion that Delusional Disorder would account for the clinical factors currently seen more so than some previous diagnoses such as schizophrenia.
8. It was acknowledged that at one time it appeared that Mr. Wilcox had been able to live independently and was doing well in the community, but this was prior to his move to the home where the index offences occurred. Dr. Adiele was unable to say what might have triggered Mr. Wilcox’s marked decline.
9. Some of the Board’s questions focused on the impasse with Mr. Wilcox’s progress and whether further investigations into pain and mood treatments might be pursued. It was also queried whether Mr. Wilcox’s presentation might be the product of an organic psychosis.
10. Although Mr. Wilcox did not give formal oral evidence on his own behalf, he advised the Board on his own initiative that he is not mentally ill and expressed his view that the Hospital’s version of events occurring over the past year did not accord with his own recollection and perspective. Among other things, he indicated that he had lived on his own, minded his own business, didn’t bother others and that he wanted to use marijuana for pain management. Mr. Wilcox was highly critical of Dr. Adiele, making clear his evident disdain for him, but also illustrating the difficulty Dr. Adiele was experiencing in trying to work with him.
11. Mr. Schultz advised the Board that settlement discussions regarding Mr. Wilcox’s criminal charge of assault with a weapon resulting from the scalding incident were ongoing, and that subject to judicial approval, the matter was set for resolution with a week or so. The resolution will involve Mr. Wilcox being found guilty and thereby becoming a dual status offender but being returned to BMHC as opposed to being incarcerated. Mr. Schultz indicated that the complainant’s face is expected to be scarred for life. In response to this, Mr. Wilcox interjected that he poured water on her to get her to “shut the fuck up”, and further that “it worked”.
12. At the conclusion of the evidence, the parties were again canvassed and each maintained their initial positions.

Analyses and Conclusions

1. Having heard and considered all of the evidence and the submissions of the parties, the Board accepts the recommendation of the Hospital and the Attorney General that Mr. Wilcox be found to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board has no hesitation in coming to the same independent conclusion. The evidence before the panel wholly supports a finding that Mr. Wilcox’s current constellation of symptoms and behaviours are such that he represents a significant threat to the safety of the public. In this regard, the Board accepts in their entirety and relies upon the various clinical risk assessments contained at pages 31-39 of the Hospital Report and the uncontradicted expert evidence of Dr. Adiele.
2. Mr. Wilcox’s risk to public safety flows from his long history of major mental illness (Delusional Disorder) and history of physical and verbal aggression towards others. Mr. Wilcox is emotionally volatile which manifests as angry outbursts, and aggressive language and actions directed at staff and co-patients. He is impulsive and unpredictable. The scalding incident in July 2024 speaks amply to the risk he poses to others.
3. Mr. Wilcox continues to lack insight into his mental illness and neurodevelopmental disorder, need for treatment and risk to re-offend violently. His lack of insight across all three spheres is profound. Importantly, he also lacks insight into the extent to which his mental and physical illnesses have compromised his ability to live independently. He has a history of non-adherence to treatment and follow-up in the community. He has been physically assaultive and verbally aggressive over the year in review and has not shown marked improvement in terms of being less reactive, more stable and able to obtain and maintain off-ward privileges. His response to treatment with injectable antipsychotic medication has not resulted in any significant change to his thinking or behaviours.
4. Turning to a consideration of the appropriate disposition order: Even within the highly structured and supervised milieu of the Hospital, Mr. Wilcox requires an intense amount of support to remain adherent to his medication. His ongoing aggressive behaviour towards staff, some of which was on display during the hearing itself (particularly directed to Dr. Adiele) portends a high potential for future violent acts which would, given Mr. Wilcox’s history, likely be serious and criminal in nature.
5. The Board has no hesitation in finding that if allowed to leave the Hospital, whether by means of an absolute discharge or through transfer to a less structured and secure setting, Mr. Wilcox would quickly fall away from treatment and stop taking medication. In his sub-optimally treated state, there is a serious risk he could act out exactly as he did at the time of the index offence and early in his admission to BMHC. The Board finds that currently Mr. Wilcox remains in need of a high level of support and supervision that can only be provided by a structured and secure environment where his psychiatric and medical needs can be proactively managed, ensuring the safety of others and himself. The Board finds that the least onerous, least restrictive, necessary and appropriate disposition is a detention disposition, on the same terms and conditions as are currently in place.
6. From the Board’s perspective, Mr. Wilcox has made some slight positive progress. At his initial hearing in 2024, Mr. Wilcox was brought to the hearing room by two security officers from the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre wherein he interrupted, made threats, and indicated he had no interest in being there. Upon being advised by the Alternate Chair that if he were going to continue to interrupt the proceedings, he would be removed from the hearing room, Mr. Wilcox stood up and said he was not going to be quiet and left with the correctional offices. At that time, the Board made a ruling pursuant to Section 672.5(10)(b) of the Criminal Code as it was clearly a situation where it would not be feasible to continue with the hearing in Mr. Wilcox’s presence. This year, although he interjected several times in the hearing to make certain points, with use of profanity and colourful language, he was able to sit through what was for him a challenging process. He listened attentively for the most part and showed himself to be directable in that he was responsive to the Alternate Chair’s requests to remain patient and to do his best to refrain from commenting.
7. In terms of next steps, the Board urges Mr. Wilcox to do his best to take his medications and to try to cooperate with his treatment team, even if he finds it difficult. The treatment team is urged do its best to work with Mr. Wilcox to optimise his medication and to continue to encourage him to participate in planned assessments. Hopefully, with the benefit of time, treatment and residing within a structured environment, his aggression will remit, and he will find himself more inclined to participate in therapeutic activities and groups.
8. It is also hoped that any additional information gleaned from the various assessments that are pending can be used to modify Mr. Wilcox’s treatment plan so that his anger, irritability and concerning behaviours can be more effectively managed. In the meantime, it must be understood that in his current state, Mr. Wilcox presents an acute risk of physical or psychological harm to others, including co-patients and staff.
9. If, despite treatment, Mr. Wilcox’s progress continues to be stalled, the Board invites the Hospital to consider seeking a medication review, perhaps through the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH). This could include whether the pain of which Mr. Wilcox complained during the hearing is being effectively managed. In addition, given Mr. Wilcox’s evident hostility toward Dr. Adiele, and overall lack of progress, next year’s panel of the Board may wish to explore whether a treatment impasse exists and if so, how that might be addressed.

Comments on Restriction of Liberty Notices

1. The panel wishes to note its concern regarding the fact that Mr. Wilcox was placed in locked seclusion for a period well in excess of seven days without the requisite notice of a significant increase in the restrictions on his liberty being provided to the Board.
2. The Board’s ongoing jurisdiction and oversight of the use of seclusion while an accused is in Hospital was recently reviewed in Warner (Re), 2025 CanLII 15875 (ON RB) where Chairperson Dambrot found:

…when a forensic hospital places an NCR accused detained in its custody into locked seclusion, it does so pursuant to authority delegated to the person in charge by the Board, and the jurisdiction of the Board extends to reviewing such a decision at an ROL hearing if it continues for more than seven days. I am further of the view that when a hospital places an NCR accused in seclusion, whether for safety or treatment reasons or for any other reason for more than seven days, the hospital is obliged, except in very rare circumstances, to give notice of the restriction on liberty to the Board [emphasis supplied]. The Board is then obliged to hold an ROL hearing and review the Hospital’s decision. The only exception is the rare and [sic] circumstance where seclusion does not deviate significantly from the accused’s liberty norm.

3. Notice to the Board of a seclusion in excess of seven days facilitates and promotes the efficacy of the Board’s oversight role, while the subsequent ROL hearing protects Mr. Wilcox’s Charter rights.
4. Dr. Adiele in his evidence justified the lack of notice first, on the basis that the seclusion was a form of treatment and as such there was no obligation to notify the Board and, second, that there was no practical difference between Mr. Wilcox being detained within the Assessment and Stabilization Unit (which is a “locked” unit) or in a locked room within that unit. This panel of the Board disagrees.
5. Upon being asked some probing questions by members of the panel, Dr. Adiele eventually admitted that Mr. Wilcox was in fact placed in a locked room – a different room from that in which he normally resided – and not permitted to move freely about the unit from June 20, 2024 to July 27, 2024.
6. On the facts before it, and in the particular circumstances of this case, this panel finds the seclusion of Mr. Wilcox did deviate significantly from his liberty norm and that no rare or exceptional reasons justifying the Hospital’s failure to notify the Board existed.
7. In failing to advise the Board as to the restriction, whether by way of what has come to be known as a “Campell letter” or formal written notice pursuant to Section 672.56(2) of the Criminal Code, the Hospital deprived Mr. Wilcox of the benefit of a review of the Hospital’s decision and in so doing, interfered with the Board’s ability to fulfill its primary purpose of protecting the public while also safeguarding the liberty of an NCR accused “to the maximum extent possible“ within the fence posts staked by public safety.²
8. This panel goes further: any doubt as to whether placing an NCR accused in locked seclusion for a period in excess of seven days constitutes a “significant increase” in the restrictions on an accused’s liberty ought properly to be resolved in favour of notifying the Board (see Campbell (Re), 2018 ONCA 140, at para 55).
9. More generally, the panel encourages the Hospital to review its policies and procedures in this regard and also to do so specifically as it relates to Mr. Wilcox’s civil liberties going forward.
10. In making this Disposition, the Board has considered the criteria set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, which are the safety of the public as the paramount consideration, the mental condition of the accused, the reintegration of the accused into society and the other needs of the accused.

DATED this 12th day of May 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

Ms. T. Mann

Alternate Chairperson

__________________

Office of the Registrar

Ontario Review Board

Footnotes

1. 1There is a disconnect between the index offences as described in (a) the Disposition dated April 18. 2024, (b) the Reasons for Disposition dated May 13, 2024 and (c) the Hospital Report dated March 4, 2025. The Board asks the parties to work together to resolve these issues in time for the next annual review. The differences were not germane to the Board’s analysis or determination of the issues before it.
2. 2See Warner (Re), 2025 CanLII 15875 (ON RB) for discussions, analysis and citations.