Re: Andre Baez-Thoonen
ORB File No: 8670
Hearing held on: Thursday, April 24, 2025
Place of hearing: Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care (Via Zoom Video Conference)
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. L. Banks Members: Dr. R. Kunjukrishnan Dr. G. Nexhipi Ms. C. Murray Ms. K. Brisson
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Andre Baez-Thoonen Counsel: Mr. C. Dobson
The Person in Charge of Hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Zamprogna
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. D. Rows
REASONS FOR DECISION AND DISPOSITION
(Dated May 12, 2025)
Introduction
On October 16, 2024, Andre Baez-Thoonen was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on a charge of arson – damage to property, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (the "Criminal Code").
Mr. Baez-Thoonen is currently subject to a Detention Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”), dated February 6, 2025, detaining him at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care, St. Joseph’s Health Care London (“Southwest” or the “hospital”) with privileges up to and including living in the community of Elgin and Middlesex County in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
Pursuant to s. 672.56(2) of the Criminal Code, Southwest notified the Board, by letter dated March 6, 2025, that Mr. Baez-Thoonen’s liberty had been restricted. On February 27, 2025, Mr. Baez-Thoonen was admitted to the Southwest. Prior to this admission to hospital, Mr. Baez-Thoonen had been residing in the community of London, Ontario.
On April 24, 2025, a panel of the Board convened a virtual hearing to review the restriction of Mr. Baez-Thoonen’s liberty from February 27, 2025, to the date of the hearing pursuant to s. 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code. The Board further reviewed the Disposition of the Board dated February 6, 2025.
Mr. Baez-Thoonen was present at the virtual hearing and represented by his lawyer, Mr. Christopher Dobson, throughout.
The issue at the hearing was whether the hospital’s decision to increase the restrictions on Mr. Baez-Thoonen’s liberty was the least restrictive and least onerous intervention available in the circumstances at the time of its onset on February 27, 2025, and throughout its duration until the date of this hearing.
For the reasons outlined below, the Board finds that the restriction of Mr. Baez-Thoonen’s liberty from February 27, 2025, to present, was necessary and appropriate, and it represented the least onerous and least restrictive measure at the time it was imposed and throughout the period of restriction. Further, the Board amends the Disposition of February 6, 2025, as requested and on the consent of all parties and as set out at the conclusion of these Reasons.
Positions of the Parties
- At the outset of the hearing the parties were canvassed as to their positions. Counsel for the hospital, supported by counsel for the Attorney General and counsel for Mr. Baez-Thoonen, requested that the Board amend the Disposition of February 6, 2025, to add two additional clauses as follows:
Passes to attend a residential treatment program within the Province of Ontario for up to 90 days; and
Passes accompanied by approved person for up to seven days within Southwestern Ontario.
Counsel for the hospital and Attorney General submitted that the initial restriction of liberty commencing February 27, 2025, was necessary and appropriate; it represented the least onerous and least restrictive measure at the time it was imposed and it continued to be so. Counsel for Mr. Baez-Thoonen agreed with the position of counsel for the hospital and counsel for the Attorney General.
Therefore, there was a joint position on all issues.
Index Offence
- The circumstances giving rise to the Index Offence are set out in detail in the Hospital Report dated January 9, 2025, and are summarized as follows:
On November 27, 2021, Mr. Baez-Thoonen contacted a mental health crisis line and admitted to starting a fire in his apartment. Emergency services were dispatched and Mr. Baez-Thoonen was found hiding in a shed behind the house. The police officers had concerns for the mental health of Mr. Baez-Thoonen. He was apprehended under the Mental Health Act. He was charged with arson with an estimated property damage of the residence of $100,000.
Reasons for Restriction of Liberty
The Restriction of Liberty (“ROL”) Notice Letter dated March 6, 2025, provides the rationale for the initial restriction of liberty. This Notice Letter stated that prior to admission to hospital, Mr. Baez-Thoonen had been residing in London, Ontario. He was ordered to the care of Southwest by the ORB following his initial ORB hearing on January 28, 2025. During Mr. Baez-Thoonen’s initial intake appointment on February 27, 2025, with the forensic outreach team, he stated that he was non-compliant with medication, had significant stress to the point of considering hospitalization, and was experiencing suicidal ideation. He was engaging in substance use and expressing violent ideation with a perception that “I have to hurt others to feel fine.”
Given Mr. Baez-Thoonen’s presentation, the hospital admitted him to the hospital for assessment on the B1 Rehabilitation Unit where he underwent a period of assessment and stabilization.
Evidence at the Hearing
The Board also had available to it the Hospital Report dated January 9, 2025 (Exhibit 1), and a ROL Report dated April 3, 2025 (Exhibit 2). Details of the reasons for the restriction of liberty were addressed in the oral testimony of Dr. Ajay Prakash who had been Mr. Baez-Thoonen’s attending psychiatrist until March 26, 2025, when Dr. Mokhber assumed care.
Mr. Baez-Thoonen has a diagnosis of Schizophrenia.
The ROL Report states that after his initial hearing on January 28, 2025, Mr. Baez-Thoonen informed his community psychiatrist, Dr. Richard, that he had been non-compliant with his Invega for a few days. On February 4, 2025, he then informed Dr. Richard he was also non-compliant with his Wellbutrin. On February 27, 2025, while living in the community, Mr. Baez-Thoonen’s outpatient intake meeting took place. He endorsed several topics of concern including violent ideation, substance use, non-compliance with medication, suicidal ideation, and significant stress to the point of considering hospitalization. Therefore, he was admitted to Southwest to the B1 Rehabilitation Unit to undergo a period of assessment and stabilization.
On admission, Mr. Baez-Thoonen confirmed that he had been using cannabis. He also reported using caffeine pills, consuming energy drinks, and drinking alcohol to the point of intoxication.
On February 28, 2025, the day after Mr. Baez-Thoonen’s admission to hospital, he stated that he would be tempted to hurt other people if he was not in the hospital. He wanted to hit specific individuals with a hammer if given the opportunity to hurt them, though at the time he did not endorse a plan to harm them. He also stated that if he had a gun, he would attempt to hurt them.
On March 7, 2025, Mr. Baez-Thoonen was granted privilege level 1, that allowed him privileges on hospital grounds for 30 minutes three times per day, indirectly supervised.
Mr. Baez-Thoonen has declined olanzapine since admission. His capacity to consent to psychiatric medications was assessed. He was unable to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of adhering to medication to treat his illness or a decision to decline medication. Therefore, he was deemed incapable of consenting to treatment related to his mental illness. On March 11, 2025, the Consent and Capacity Board (“CCB”) upheld the finding of incapacity. Medications have not been initiated while awaiting confirmation that he will not be challenging the CCB finding at the Superior Court of Justice.
On March 26, 2025, Mr. Baez-Thoonen was transferred to the Treatment Unit South B2, which is able to support the treatment goals. His privileges were reduced to level 0 upon his transfer to this unit, which is standard protocol.
Mr. Baez-Thoonen currently has level 1 privileges, which provides an opportunity for him to attend on and off unit programming including leisure programs such as gym and gardening. The bulk of his treatment goals (medications, addictions counselling and trauma counselling) have not yet been pursued.
Mr. Baez-Thoonen has not yet started taking medication because he expressed an interest in appealing the finding of the Consent and Capacity Board, which upheld his incapacity to consent to treatment. Mr. Baez-Thoonen met with the patient advocate in this regard, however, no other steps have been taken toward filing an appeal. Therefore, Dr. Prakash opines that sufficient time has passed and the hospital should now approach the potential substitute decision maker, Mr. Baez-Thoonen’s father, to consent to a medication regimen.
Mr. Baez-Thoonen has a potential history of trauma. Therefore, a referral has been made to a psychologist in the hospital for trauma counselling. In addition, Mr. Baez-Thoonen will require addictions counselling.
Dr. Prakash testified that he believes it is appropriate for Mr. Baez-Thoonen to attend a residential treatment program within the next year.
Dr. Prakash stated that when the current Disposition was crafted, Mr. Baez-Thoonen was living in the community. The initial assessment was not set up with an intention of keeping him in hospital. Because hospitalization was found to be necessary during the initial assessment, the Disposition is lacking a clause for seven day passes and clause for Mr. Baez-Thoonen to attend a residential treatment program. A clause will be needed to allow him to eventually transition back to the community.
A residential treatment program has not yet been identified. The hospital’s plan is to engage Mr. Baez-Thoonen in the hospital-based concurrent disorders programs first and then determine the best residential treatment program for Mr. Baez-Thoonen’s needs.
Dr. Prakash confirmed that Mr. Baez-Thoonen continues to be a significant threat for the reasons set out in the Reasons for Disposition dated February 6, 2025. Dr. Prakash further confirmed that he agreed with clauses 90 to 100 of those Reasons, which set out the reasons for the various terms of the current Disposition.
It is suspected that Mr. Baez-Thoonen continues to be clinically psychotic.
Mr. Baez-Thoonen’s father will be going through the process to become an Approved Person. Mr. Baez-Thoonen’s father is currently seeking appropriate accommodations suitable for Mr. Baez-Thoonen and his girlfriend.
No other evidence was called.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties reiterated their joint position.
Analysis and Conclusion
The Board finds that a significant increase in the restriction on Mr. Baez-Thoonen’s liberty has taken place, pursuant to the factors set out in the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in R v MLC (2010 ONCA 843), as well as Regina v Campbell (2018 ONCA 141). He was admitted to hospital after having been living independently in the community. This was a significant departure from his liberty norm to which he had become accustomed.
The Board accepts Dr. Prakash’s testimony, and the joint position, that the restriction of liberty was necessary and appropriate for the safety of the public and it represented the least onerous and least restrictive measure at the time it was imposed and it continues to be so.
Mr. Baez-Thoonen clearly was experiencing symptoms of his mental illness at the time of his admission. He endorsed violent ideation and had considered the need for hospitalization. When Mr. Baez-Thoonen was encouraged to view the admission as a time for support, he stated, “it’s inevitable I will hurt someone…I just think that I have to hurt others to make me feel good.”
Mr. Baez-Thoonen was noncompliant with medications in the community. He is currently assessed as incapable to consent to treatment. A substitute decision maker will be designated, hopefully, in the very near future. Regarding his risk of violence, he thought nothing would happen if he discontinued his medications. He does not agree with the diagnosis of schizophrenia and believes, “I just think I have a drug problem.” His insight is underdeveloped across all relevant domains.
Mr. Baez-Thoonen was using substances prior to the time of his admission. He will require a psychological counselling in this regard.
Mr. Baez-Thoonen is not complying with the recommendation that he take medications for his illness. It will be necessary to commence a medication regimen and is part of the treatment goals.
Considering all the circumstances, the Board finds that the significant restriction of Mr. Baez-Thoonen’s liberty from February 27, 2025, to present was necessary and appropriate for the safety of the public. Further, it was the least onerous and least restrictive measure at the time it was imposed and continues to be so.
The Board finds that it is reasonable to add the clauses that were requested on the consent of all parties, specifically clauses to include seven day passes within Southwestern Ontario and passes to attend a residential treatment program within the Province of Ontario for up to 90 days. When the current Disposition was made Mr. Baez-Thoonen had been living in the community awaiting his NCR finding. At Mr. Baez-Thoonen’s initial hearing, it was anticipated that he would be appropriate for community living. These clauses augment the Disposition now that Mr. Baez-Thoonen is detained in hospital. The Board accepts the evidence of Dr. Prakash that these clauses will allow Mr. Baez-Thoonen to reintegrate into community living.
The Board would like to commend Mr. Baez-Thoonen for his cooperation with the admission to hospital and we wish him the best.
DATED this 12th day of May 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Christine Murray Legal Member
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board