Ontario Review Board
Re: Leslie H. Dennis
ORB File No: 5419
Hearing held on: Thursday, March 13, 2025
Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction & 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: Leslie H. Dennis Counsel: Ms. S. Dubb
The Person in charge of Hospital: Representative: Ms. A. Marshall
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. D. Brandes
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated May 14, 2025)
Introduction:
- On August 6, 2009, Mr. Leslie Dennis was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on the following charges:
- Assault with a weapon (x2)
- Assault (x2)
- Assault with intent to resist arrest
- Mischief under $5,000
- Mischief endangering life, and
- Uttering a threat to cause death or bodily harm.
He is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated April 11, 2024, discharging him subject to certain conditions including that of abstaining absolutely from the non-medical use of alcohol or drugs or any other intoxicant, with the exception of cannabis, and that of submitting samples for the purpose of monitoring the abstention condition mentioned.
On Mr. Dennis’ consent, that disposition also imposes a treatment clause requiring him to take medication and treatment as prescribed by his psychiatrist or as directed by the person in charge of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto.
On March 13, 2025, a panel of the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing to review that disposition pursuant to section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Dennis was present for the hearing, represented by his lawyer, Ms. Dubb.
The record for the hearing included the Notice of Hearing dated September 11, 2024, the most recent Disposition (as mentioned, dated April 11, 2024) and the Reasons for that Disposition dated April 25, 2024. On the consent of all parties, a Hospital Report, dated February 10, 2025, was entered into evidence as an exhibit.
The parties were canvassed for initial positions. All agreed that Mr. Dennis continued to represent a significant risk to the safety of the public as that term is defined in section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and as it has been further explained by the Supreme Court of Canada in Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625. They also all expressed the position that it was necessary and appropriate, having regard to the objectives set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code, for Mr. Dennis to continue to be subject to a conditional discharge, with terms and conditions identical to those found in the most recent Disposition.
For the following reasons, the Board accepts that joint submission. Following its own review of the evidence, it agrees that Mr. Dennis continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. It has also further concluded that the necessary and appropriate disposition, having regard to the primary objective of assuring the safety of the public, together with the other objectives set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code, and applying the principle of minimal intrusion, is that of a continued conditional discharge.
Evidence at the hearing
The evidence at the hearing came from two sources – the Hospital Report mentioned above, and the live testimony offered by Dr. A. Igoumenou, Mr. Dennis’ treating psychiatrist.
Turning firstly to the Hospital Report, it is cumulative in nature and includes many important particulars associated with Mr. Dennis’ personal and developmental history, his education and employment, his criminal history, and his psychiatric history. It also sets out his history of substance use, his legal history, and a summary of the index offences as cited in the most recent Reasons for Disposition as follows:
Assault, Assault with a Weapon, Threatening Death
The victim, Mr. Dennis’ mother, was 70 years old at the time of the offence. She and Mr. Dennis did not live together, but he would attend his mother’s home for food, money, or clothes.
On May 27, 2009, Mr. Dennis came over, wanting some clothes from his mother, who was in her bedroom. Mr. Dennis entered the bedroom. His mother told him that she did not have the clothes he was looking for. Mr. Dennis became upset and punched his mother three or four times in the face. He also placed his hand on her throat and tried to choke her. He then went to the kitchen and retrieved a knife. He returned to the bedroom and while holding the knife, said to his mother, “I want to kill you.” He then put the knife down and punched her several more times in her face. He left the apartment, and the police were called.
The victim had a large bruise on her forehead and lumps on the back of her head. She did not require medical attention.
Mischief Endangering Life
On May 5, 2009, the Toronto Fire Department and Department of Ambulance Services were performing their duties at 200 Wellesley Street East in the City of Toronto for an unrelated matter. Several members from the Toronto Fire Department observed beer bottles falling from an apartment balcony. One of the bottles missed a paramedic exiting his vehicle and nearly hit his head.
Police arrived on scene and spoke with witnesses who had observed the bottles being thrown from apartment #1404. One witness stated that Mr. Dennis was throwing the bottles. Police attended apartment #1404 and located Mr. Dennis. Beer bottles of the same brand and size were found inside the apartment.
Assault, Assault with a Weapon, Assault with Intent to Resist Arrest, Mischief Under
On May 3, 2009, Mr. Dennis was in the rear parking lot of 1 Danforth Avenue, the Adult Learning Center. At the southeast edge of the parking lot was the Riverdale Meadow Community Garden. The witness and her husband had come to the garden to work in it, when they observed Mr. Dennis in the parking lot. He was acting irrationally, kicking dirt around the ground. They also saw a garden hose which was normally buried underground piled up on the northwest side of the parking lot. The ground in which it had been laying was disturbed.
Toronto District School Board security was contacted to attend. The witness also observed a Toronto Police Officer doing traffic enforcement at the front entrance of the school and informed them of the situation. The officer approached Mr. Dennis and observed him acting in an irrational manner. At the same time, the Toronto District School Board security had arrived.
Mr. Dennis, upon confrontation, became agitated and swung his arms at the officers. He had a paperback book in his hand, and he took a swing at the officer with the book. The Toronto District School Board officer and the Police Officer attempted to arrest Mr. Dennis, who became very aggressive and resisted the arrest. While officers were struggling to handcuff him, all parties went to the ground. The arrest was only affected when one of the witnesses came to the officers’ assistance.
The Hospital Report explains that Mr. Dennis was born in St. Thomas, Jamaica and came to Canada when he was 13 years old. He graduated from Eastdale Collegiate Institute when he was 17 and did well in schooling. He has been described as quiet but social. Following high school, he completed a course in welding at George Brown College.
Mr. Dennis has worked several jobs since graduating. These have included working as a valet, a shipper/receiver, security guard, customer service representative and courier. His employment has been interrupted at times as a result of his use of alcohol and cannabis. Prior to coming under the Board’s jurisdiction, he was an ODSP recipient.
Mr. Dennis is the father of six children from different relationships – his youngest child was in his custody from the time she was 8 months old until 1999 when she was 7 years old. At that time, Mr. Dennis’ sister was granted “custody” of the child as he struggled with symptoms of major mental illness that included delusions and paranoia.
Mr. Dennis was first diagnosed with a mental illness when he was 39 years old. His current diagnoses are:
- Schizophrenia
- Substance Use Disorder (Cannabis, Alcohol in remission)
- Antisocial Personality Disorder.
The Hospital Report indicates that Mr. Dennis has expressed some insight into his schizophrenia and anti-social personality disorder. He also manifests continued partial insight into his need for medications. There have been ongoing difficulties associated with rule-breaking and use of cannabis. The most recent Reasons for Disposition dealt with this issue as well. At paragraphs 8-10, the Honourable Mr. Justice DelFrate said
Since the prohibition of using cannabis was removed from his conditions at last year’s hearing, Mr. Dennis has resumed using cannabis. Initially, it was once weekly but now it is once every two weeks. The use of cannabis does not seem to have affected his mental condition.
When questioned about the possibility of an Absolute Discharge, Dr. Valoo stated that it is premature since Mr. Dennis continues to require supervision to determine his level of stability. Further, Dr. Valoo is concerned about noncompliance with his medication and the loss of housing were he to decompensate.
His housing has been a concern. Presently he is in transitional housing. Tensions arise since he asks other residents for money or food and at times, he does not return the money nor the food. Permanent housing is not readily available so the staff is looking for high support permanent housing, but it may take some time to achieve that goal.
The Hospital Report’s update begins on page 38. It says that Mr. Dennis has had another year of treatment compliance and mental stability. He has not exhibited primary symptoms of psychosis and has not been aggressive or violent towards staff or others. He has not been admitted to the Hospital for mental health concerns. He administered his oral antipsychotic medications independently and attended at the CAMH FOPS clinic once every two weeks to receive his Clopixol Depot. He moved to new permanent housing in December 2024, which is a one bedroom apartment through Houselink-Mainstay.
Unfortunately, Mr. Dennis tested positive for alcohol in July 2024. He then disclosed use of alcohol on January 21, 2025, saying that he was drinking a “few beers” every now and then. He tested positive for cocaine on January 30, 2025. The Hospital Report says that Mr. Dennis does not grasp the potential risks of alcohol and substance use.
The Hospital Report explains that though Mr. Dennis has not engaged in any acts of aggression or violence over the course of this reporting year, concerns have been raised surrounding rule breaking following his moving to a new residence in December 2024. The Hospital Report says that Mr. Dennis engaged with a tenant that allows homeless people to come into the building to use substances, and that Mr. Dennis has knocked on tenants’ doors requesting money and cigarettes. He requires on-going support with housekeeping skills, personal hygiene, and money-management.
In terms of positives, Mr. Dennis engages with his occupational therapist at least once weekly and has regular contact with his family. While he has not attended any groups, he has expressed an openness to attending some if they “are of interest” to him. He socializes with friends on a weekly basis playing games and football and enjoys being outdoors and doing long rides on the TTC. He has been cooperative with his clinical team in spite of changes in his case manager and his psychiatrist. He attends appointments with reminders and shows some degree of openness with the team. His treatment goals for the next review period include:
- Exploring opportunities to connect with structured leisure activities
- Providing on-going intervention to assist with money management and budgeting
- Providing on-going psychoeducation around the risks of substance use and unhealthy interactions, with a possible renewed referral to CAMH’s Forensic Consultation and Assessment Team (“FORCAT”) if Mr. Dennis agrees
- Maintaining current permanent housing.
The Hospital Report includes a Risk Assessment that effectively begins at page 41. Its contents and methodology were not questioned over the course of the hearing. It identifies Mr. Dennis’ clinical risk factors and specifically mentions his recent problems with insight, ongoing symptoms of major mental disorder, instability, and treatment and supervision response. It contemplates future problems with his living situation, personal support, treatment/supervision response and with stress or coping. It also identifies Mr. Dennis’ key protective factors that include his compliance with the recommended antipsychotic medications, his social network, and his involvement with professional care. It explains that Mr. Dennis is a likeable and pleasant person. He is always agreeable to meet and has been working actively with his team on rehabilitative initiatives related to substance use, personal finances, and the activities of daily living. He has not demonstrated any recent evidence of irritability or aggression and has not had any incidents of violence since 2013.
The concern expressed in the Risk Assessment is centered around Mr. Dennis’ lack of insight and use of substances. The Hospital Report describes his Re-offence Scenario as follows:
If Mr. Dennis were to reoffend, it would likely be in the context of medication discontinuation and/or escalating substance use. With deterioration in his mental state, he would be likely to re-experience paranoid delusions, hallucinations, agitation, and disorganization, accompanied by poor impulse control and erratic behavior. His cannabis use may escalate, and/or he may use other recreational substances which would further contribute to psychotic symptomatology. In a psychotically decompensated state, he would likely act out in response to relatively innocuous stimuli in a violent manner, posing a danger to the public in general. Even when treated, Mr. Dennis displays very little insight into his rule-violating behaviours and can be duplicitous.
In her live testimony, Dr. Igoumenou adopted the Hospital Report and its contents. She has been Mr. Dennis’ outpatient psychiatrist since January of this year. She confirmed that Mr. Dennis has been treatment compliant and has not exhibited any positive symptoms of his psychosis. He has, she said, exhibited ongoing negative symptoms such as reduced motivation and attention to personal hygiene. She said that she does not anticipate any changes to his medications. In terms of insight, she confirmed that Mr. Dennis has limited insight on the impact of substances, including cannabis, on his major mental illness. She explained that when he tested positive for cocaine in January 2025, that this likely came from contaminated cannabis that he had purchased from an unreliable source. She said that Mr. Dennis needs ongoing support in forming boundaries around relationships with other people, particularly as he is now living in an area of Toronto that has a subculture that is connected to illicit substances. She commended Mr. Dennis for his efforts to distance himself from people connected with that subculture but indicated that he remains vulnerable. She emphasized however that his current accommodation does not provide the level of support and supervision that his transitional housing provided. He continues to require support from his occupational therapist with regard to hygiene and money management. This all informed her conclusion that Mr. Dennis continued to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. She opined that absent a disposition, Mr. Dennis would lose the support of his clinical team. He currently lacks community support to fill that void.
Dr. Igoumenou spoke to what would, in her mind, be needed for Mr. Dennis to be eligible for an absolute discharge. She said that stability in housing was a crucial factor. To this point, Mr. Dennis has had a prolonged period of stability in terms of lack of positive psychotic symptoms and treatment compliance, but he is now in a relatively new and unfamiliar environment that brings new challenges and freedoms that may threaten that stability. The Hospital’s goal is to maintain Mr. Dennis’ stability, encourage his course of transparency with the treatment team, work on relapse prevention and the development of healthy relationships, and progress in terms of budgeting and personal hygiene.
In response to questions from the representative of the Attorney General, Dr. Igoumenou said that Mr. Dennis exercises some insight into the strength of the cannabis he is purchasing but that when he has less money, he will buy it from unreliable sources. This poses concerns, especially in the context of the January 2025 incident with what was suspected to be cocaine-laced marijuana. Dr. Igoumenou explained that Mr. Dennis has antisocial personality traits and does not have the internal strength to say “no” yet to people offering him cannabis from unreliable sources.
In response to questions from Mr. Dennis’ lawyer, Dr. Igoumenou said that Mr. Dennis’ cannabis use has not increased since permitted to use that substance in his ORB disposition. He does continue to drink alcohol from time to time, and he is aware that it is a breach of his disposition. Dr. Igoumenou stated that while work is a protective factor for Mr. Dennis, he has not had motivation for work lately. This is a “work in progress” and the team will continue to look for opportunities.
In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Igoumenou testified that Mr. Dennis needed to have a community psychiatrist in place before she could recommend an absolute discharge. She said that she would also consider the involvement of the ACT team, particularly given Mr. Dennis’ new accommodation. She explained that while Mr. Dennis has remained stable over this last year and has not demonstrated any forms of aggression or violence since 2013, this is owing to the intensive support of the treatment team. She explained that the team increased involvement when Mr. Dennis had financial issues, when he tested positive for cocaine, and when he began knocking on tenants’ doors asking for money or for cigarettes. She said that Mr. Dennis’ risk was managed because of the responsive supports offered by the Hospital in the forensic system.
Dr. Igoumenou testified that Mr. Dennis does not see cannabis as having the potential to decompensate his mental illness. He believes it is an herbal product that he uses for social reasons and for relaxation. He has no insight into the impact of cannabis on his schizophrenia. She testified that Mr. Dennis’ use of cannabis also poses financial stresses and, as a result, puts his housing at risk, particularly should he engage in door-knocking again. She said that a loss of housing for Mr. Dennis would be highly decompensating. It was difficult to find him a place coming out of transitional housing because of his antisocial personality traits and use of cannabis. If he lost his current housing, he would have to be readmitted to the Hospital to avoid homelessness and further decompensation. Dr. Igoumenou expressed confidence that Mr. Dennis would respond positively to the Hospital if that occurred and would come in as invited. She highlighted that Mr. Dennis does cooperate with the team and wants to work with them so as not to lose his housing.
Dr. Igoumenou addressed concerns associated with the impact of alcohol on Mr. Dennis’ major mental illness. She said that, while Mr. Dennis’ injectable antipsychotic medications are protective (he receives both an injection and takes oral medications to manage his major mental illness), if the alcohol prohibition were removed, he would increase his alcohol consumption. This would lead to an increase in his use of substances followed by treatment noncompliance, decompensation and increased risk to the safety of the public.
Submissions
At the end of the hearing, the Hospital renewed its submissions as set out at the beginning. On the threshold issue of significant threat, Ms. Marshall highlighted the joint submission and explained that, while Mr. Dennis is making progress, he is still at an early stage in permanent housing. She emphasized the importance of the treatment team and the ORB disposition to help support a setting where Mr. Dennis’ housing could be maintained. She raised concern about substances particularly when Mr. Dennis is short on money and turns to unreliable sources for his cannabis. With regard to disposition, she noted that Mr. Dennis had been managed on a conditional discharge for three years, and submitted that Mr. Dennis’ therapeutic alliance with the treatment team was a protective factor that would bring him to the Hospital voluntarily when requested.
The representative of the Attorney General agreed with the Hospital’s position on all issues. He suggested that Mr. Dennis was at a point of inflection progressing towards an absolute discharge. He agreed with the concerns expressed by the Hospital regarding cannabis and alcohol and emphasized the guardrails that are in place to manage Mr. Dennis’ risk. These included Mr. Dennis’ history of compliance with oral antipsychotic medications, his level of transparency and openness with the treatment team, and his desire to work with that team so as to maintain housing.
Counsel for Mr. Dennis also agreed with the Hospital and emphasized that this has been another year of treatment compliance and absence of primary psychotic symptoms for Mr. Dennis. She highlighted that Mr. Dennis is open and forthright with the treatment team and has had no admissions for mental health reasons. He has reported physical health concerns and was open with regard to his alcohol use and use of cannabis. Mr. Dennis’ lawyer also highlighted the protective factors that support the continuation of a conditional discharge. These included the support Mr. Dennis receives from his family, his regular visits with his sister and daughter and his desire for employment. According to Mr. Dennis’ lawyer, these factors are motivating for Mr. Dennis and suggest that he is on an upward trajectory.
Analysis and Conclusion
As mentioned above, the Board agrees with the joint submission. In arriving at its conclusion firstly regarding the threshold issue of significant threat, it carefully considered the provisions of section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and the direction provided by the Supreme Court of Canada in Winko.
Section 672.5401 statutorily defines “significant threat” as follows:
For the purposes of section 672.54, a significant threat to the safety of the public means a risk of serious physical or psychological harm to members of the public — including any victim of or witness to the offence, or any person under the age of 18 years — resulting from conduct that is criminal in nature but not necessarily violent.
- The Ontario Court of Appeal provided further insight as to the meaning of this term as it has also been explained in Winko. In Re Abeje, 2019 ONCA 734 at para. 19, the Court of Appeal says:
The meaning of the phrase “significant threat to the safety of the public” is well settled. It was summarized in R. v. Ferguson, 2010 ONCA 810, 264 C.C.C. (3d) 451, at para. 8:
The phrase refers to a foreseeable and substantial risk of physical or psychological harm to members of the public that is serious and beyond the trivial or annoying. A very small risk of even grave harm will not suffice. A high risk of relatively trivial harm will also not meet the substantial harm standard. While the conduct must be criminal in nature, not all criminal conduct will suffice to establish a substantial risk. There must be a risk that the NCR accused will commit a “serious criminal offence.”
The conclusion that Mr. Dennis continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public derives from the seriousness of the index offences, the role that his major mental illness played in their commission, and his ongoing lack of insight into the risk of decompensation his use of cannabis and alcohol continues to play in a setting where he still manifests the negative symptoms of his major mental illness. Over the course of the last period of review, Mr. Dennis’ use of cannabis exposed him to use of a stimulant drug (cocaine). He continued to struggle with personal hygiene and money-management. This caused him to begin knocking on tenants’ doors where he lives to ask for money and for cigarettes. The panel agrees with the Risk Assessment included in the Hospital Report. Absent a disposition, Mr. Dennis is likely to lose those key supports that have managed his risk to this point. He does not currently have community support in place that would adequately ensure the safety of the public or meet his mental health and other needs. This would leave him in the same position he was in at the time of the commission of the index offences. He would increasingly use substances and alcohol as he managed new stresses without the support of the treatment team. This would lead to likely loss of housing, noncompliance with oral antipsychotic medications and decompensation into the primary psychotic symptoms that drove the index offences. For these reasons, the panel has agreed with the joint submission that Mr. Dennis continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. In his situation, the risk identified for the purpose of section 672.5401 is primarily one of physical harm arising from serious criminal offences.
The panel is also satisfied that a continuation of Mr. Dennis’ conditional discharge is necessary and appropriate and represents the least restrictive option available to manage the risk that he continues to pose, having regard to the objectives set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code. The panel has specifically considered whether a conditional discharge is sufficient to ensure the safety of the public as a primary objective. Mr. Dennis has been independently treatment compliant with oral antipsychotic medications for a number of years. His injectable antipsychotic medication provides some protective qualities. He has not had any incidents of aggressivity or violence since 2013. He has a good therapeutic alliance with the treatment team and is open with them when it comes to factors that could cause his decompensation (i.e., alcohol and cannabis use). He sees them as supportive in terms of keeping his housing. He is motivated by his family, including his sister and a daughter that he cared for primarily for an extended period of time spanning her developmental years. What is more, should signs of decompensation be noted stemming from Mr. Dennis’ use of alcohol, the Hospital could act on the breach of the Board disposition or could seek an early review to address any new risks arising. For these reasons, the Board is convinced that the continuation of the conditional discharge satisfies the primary objective under section 672.54 of the Criminal Code. It is also our view that it satisfies the other 672.54 objectives as it permits Mr. Dennis to progress in the formation of positive relationships, structured activities, and community supports that will help to manage his major mental illness as the next annual review approaches.
The Board expresses its appreciation for all who participated in this hearing and offers its encouragement to Mr. Dennis over the course of the next review period.
An order will be issued accordingly.
DATED this 14th day of May, 2025 at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. D. Sandor Legal Member
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board