Re: Glen W. Collins
ORB File No: 8709
Hearing held on: Tuesday, April 29, 2025
Place of hearing: Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care 401 Sunset Drive, St. Thomas
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. R. Steinberg Members: Dr. T. Verny Dr. M. Kalia Ms. K. Tomaszewski Ms. C. Plyley
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Glen W. Collins Counsel: Mr. S.F. Gehl
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Zamprogna
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. K. Dalrymple
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated May 13, 2025)
Introduction
Mr. Collins is charged in three separate Informations with several offences. The first Information alleges he committed the offences of assault police with a weapon, threatening death, and possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace. The second Information alleges he committed the offences of failing to comply with the conditions of a release order (2 counts), threatening bodily harm, threatening death, obstructing a police officer, attempting to disarm a police officer, and assaulting a police officer. The third Information alleges he committed the offences of dangerous driving, failure to stop during a police pursuit, obstructing police, and assaulting police with a weapon.
All three Informations indicate that pleas and findings by the court were set aside pursuant to s. 672.31 of the Criminal Code on January 22, 2025, as Mr. Collins had been found unfit to stand trial and was remanded to the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board for an initial hearing. The Board accordingly convened a hearing at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care on April 29, 2025, in accordance with the provisions of s. 672.47(1) and 672.48(1).
At the commencement of the hearing counsel for the hospital suggested the evidence would establish Mr. Collins remained unfit and that an order for his detention with privileges, the most liberal of which would permit his indirectly supervised entry to Elgin County, was the necessary and appropriate disposition for the coming year. Counsel for the Attorney General supported the position of the hospital and counsel for Mr. Collins took no position with respect to fitness or disposition.
Index Offences
The facts of the index offences are detailed in the April 7, 2025, hospital report, which was filed as Exhibit 25 at the hearing. On October 18, 2021, it is alleged that Mr. Collins threatened police with a large kitchen knife when they attended his residence to apprehend him under the terms of the Mental Health Act. He also threatened to kill them and was observed shooting fireworks at emergency response unit members, nearly striking them. He was observed holding a mason jar filled with a clear liquid and a white cloth hanging out of the top and is alleged to have set the cloth afire and to have thrown the suspected “Molotov cocktail” at police standing behind a pickup truck, striking the truck. The Waterloo Regional Police Service Emergency Response Unit arrived, relieved the Stratford Police Service, and resolved the situation by apprehending Mr. Collins following the seventeen-hour long incident.
On March 7, 2022, police observed Mr. Collins driving a motor vehicle. They were aware a bench warrant was outstanding for his arrest and activated their emergency lights and siren. Mr. Collins took flight and after a pursuit the police vehicle blocked his way forward. Police approached his vehicle on foot and ordered him to turn off the ignition. He is then alleged to have reversed at a high rate of speed, causing officers to step away. Mr. Collins is alleged to have then driven toward the officers, striking the rear driver's side of the police vehicle, and causing one police officer to jump over the corner of the police vehicle to avoid being struck.
The police pursuit continued and ended when both ends of the vehicle driven by Mr. Collins were blocked by police vehicles. Police exited their vehicles with guns drawn, but he ignored their orders to exit his vehicle. Officers are said to have struck the driver’s side window with a baton while another officer gained entry from the passenger side door and turned off the ignition. Officers then physically removed Mr. Collins from the vehicle and transported him to Stratford police headquarters. Damage to police vehicles totalled about $14,000 and one officer suffered a minor injury to his right leg which did not require medical treatment.
The third set of charges involve allegations that on June 12, 2024, an individual complained to police that Mr. Collins was yelling and swearing on his property and threatening to kill another individual. When police attended his residence Mr. Collins is alleged to have opened the door, yelled at police, and threatened to “kill, zap, and hurt” officers on scene. A taser was applied to Mr. Collins when he resisted his arrest. He allegedly tried to take hold of the taser from police, held down the trigger continuously, and tasered an officer in the hand. Several closed hand strikes were applied by police to Mr. Collins in their effort to regain control of the taser.
Background and History
Mr. Collins is presently fifty-six years of age. His current diagnoses are Schizophrenia and query Personality Disorder, unspecified. He has no children and is reported to have had short term intimate relationships. He has an older stepsister and a younger brother.
He worked in a factory for an extended period until he injured his shoulder. He subsequently worked at other jobs but started to voice paranoid thoughts about his co-workers, which resulted in his unemployment. He lived in his younger brother’s house for about three decades, but his brother has recently revoked his invitation to remain there. The hospital report notes he had no learning problems while in school. He attended college but the report does not offer further details of his education.
Mr. Collins had been convicted between 1987 and 1992 of possession of a narcotic, assault, and driving with excess blood alcohol before being charged with the index offences between 2021 and 2024. The Crown Brief Synopsis notes that since 2018 police have had a total of 196 calls for service, specifically regarding criminal behaviour and mental health related matters, with respect to Mr. Collins.
Mr. Collins' brother has reported he started to present with symptoms of paranoia more than ten years ago. His paranoia became more intense in 2021 and led to two involuntary hospital admissions.
After being charged with the 2021 offences Dr. Helen Whitworth opined Mr. Collins was unfit to stand trial in March 2022. He was admitted to the Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences on April 14, 2022, pursuant to a treatment order. He was later assessed for fitness by Dr. Naghmeh Mokhber on February 1, 2023, but she was unable to render an opinion as Mr. Collins terminated their interview. He was found fit to stand trial following assessment at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care on February 9, 2023, and was returned to jail on February 14, 2023. Dr. Giovana De Amorim Levin in a criminal responsibility assessment prepared on September 20, 2024, expressed the opinion that “without medical treatment, the probability of Mr. Collins remaining unfit to stand trial will be high. Mr. Collins has been restored to fitness in the past while using an oral antipsychotic (Olanzapine) under a treatment order”.
The hospital report indicates Mr. Collins has used cannabis regularly in his adult life. It details his course of treatment subsequent to his admission to the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care on February 7, 2025.
Since his admission he is described as having presented with features of his mental condition, including restlessness, anger, paranoia, grandiose beliefs, tangential thinking, threatening gestures, and uttering threats. He has expressed the view that he does not suffer from any abnormal mental condition and does not require any medications. He has voiced violent ideas about his obligation to make the community safer by trying to stop all illegal actions, even if doing so involves killing criminals. On February 20, 2025, he refused to meet his psychiatrist and threatened to seriously hurt him if he saw him in the community, as he was a “key witness” with respect to supposed ongoing allegations of pedophilia involving his psychiatrist.
He has also disclosed multiple delusional beliefs about his identity and his education and is reported to have expressed multiple violent ideas.
During March and in early April 2025 Mr. Collins is reported to have continued to present with an unstable mental status, voicing grandiose and persecutory fixed delusions. He thought his attending psychiatrist was a terrorist and a child killer. He is described as having been actively psychotic during an incident that occurred on February 25, 2025, in which he alleged that his psychiatrist was involved in various illegal and nefarious activities.
On February 25, 2025, Mr. Collins was found incapable of consenting to treatment. The Consent and Capacity Board upheld the finding of incapacity on March 13, 2025. Mr. Collins’ brother, Gary Collins, has been acting as his substitute decision maker and has consented to treatment with the medication Abilify via injection. Treatment commenced on April 3, 2025.
Mr. Collins’ delusions about his attending psychiatrist have continued after the initiation of antipsychotic medication. He is said to have poor insight into his illness and need for treatment. His delusional thinking is said to be a barrier to any understanding of his current mental status.
Mr. Collins’ brother and stepsister have historically been his personal support. However, he has developed paranoid thinking about them and has become estranged from both.
Mr. Collins is considered to represent a moderate to high risk of violence while he remains in hospital, as medication and treatment have yet to be optimized. He is described as continuing to display unpredictable behaviours within the hospital setting, with his clinical presentation involving threats of violence toward in-patient staff and fellow patients. Due to his behavioural and affective instability, and in the absence of appropriate treatment and supervision, the authors of the hospital report consider his risk of re-offending to be very high.
In support of that conclusion the authors note that absent forensic supervision Mr. Collins would be unable to obtain stable housing and would not engage in professional care or treatment within the community due to his limited insight into his illness and his present psychotic presentation and paranoia. His grandiose and persecutory delusions would intensify, and he would likely cope by obtaining and using cannabis, as he has in the past, which, as in the past, would worsen his symptoms. The assessors of risk evaluations referred to in the hospital report conclude that his risk of violence will increase significantly in such circumstances, posing a substantial threat to himself, members of the community, and persons in authority.
Although significant threat to public safety need not be established on an initial hearing for an accused person found outfit, the authors of the hospital report offer the following:
(i) Mr. Collins has ongoing, grandiose and persecutory delusions which continue to give rise to violent, aggressive and threatening behaviour toward others. They note these symptoms were present at the time of the alleged index offences and remain a clinical and risk management concern;
(ii) Mr. Collins is not optimally treated and continues to demonstrate noncompliance with medication. He has demonstrated various occurrences in the past year of rapid deterioration in his mental state, coupled with violent intent and ideation toward others (including his attending psychiatrist, co-peers, and inpatient team members);
(iii) his insight into his mental illness, violence risk, and need for treatment is severely limited;
(iv) he has a history of substance use which remains unaddressed; cannabis use was a common factor reported during his periods of decompensation, his past violent incidents, and alleged index offences;
(v) Mr. Collins has voiced multiple violent ideas in response to his delusional thinking and while stressed; and
(vi) he does not have personal supports or access to professional services in the community and lacks stable housing.
The authors of the hospital report note Mr. Collins’ delusional thinking and thought disorganization have remained unchanged since he was found unfit to stand trial by the court on November 6, 2024. In their view he does not possess a reality-based understanding of the nature, object, and possible consequences of the outstanding court proceedings. They conclude, “on account of his florid symptoms of psychosis, he could not be meaningfully present, and could not meaningfully participate, in his trial”. Although he was started on oral antipsychotic medication on April 1, 2025, and an injectable anti-psychotic on April 3rd, clinicians feel more time is required to titrate and assess its therapeutic effects. In their view he remains unfit to stand trial.
They suggest he be subject to a detention order as the necessary and appropriate disposition. The authors opine that a conditional discharge would not be sufficient, as Mr. Collins lacks stable housing, personal supports, or professional support in the community. He has a history of substance use and non-adherence to medications. The provisions of the Mental Health Act are said to be inadequate to protect public safety, as by the time Mr. Collins met criteria for involuntary hospitalization, the risk to the safety of the public would already be at unacceptable levels. They therefore suggest detention with the most liberal condition permitting indirectly supervised entry to Elgin County as the necessary and appropriate disposition for the coming year.
Evidence at the Hearing
Dr. A. Ardani, Mr. Collins’ attending psychiatrist, testified on behalf of the hospital at the hearing. He adopted the contents of the hospital report and its description of Mr. Collins’ current diagnoses of Schizophrenia, query Personality Disorder, unspecified. Clinicians will inquire further into the possibility of a personality disorder diagnosis in the coming year, as insufficient historical information is presently available.
He confirmed that to date no improvement has been noted in Mr. Collins’ mental state since the initiation of antipsychotic medication on April 1, 2025. He is compliant with the injection under supervision, in the presence of four to five staff members, and when told restraint will result from noncompliance. He noted Mr. Collins’ history of cannabis use and his ongoing use at the time of the index offences and stated that Cannabis Use Disorder was under consideration as a possible diagnosis. In his view cannabis use would exacerbate the symptoms of Mr. Collins’ mental illness.
He last assessed Mr. Collins for fitness on April 25, 2025, and found him unfit to stand trial. Mr. Collins is sometimes able to recall the charges he faces but at other times thinks the charges have been withdrawn. He feels there is no reason that he is in custody in hospital. He is aware of all the participants and their roles in a criminal trial but has no understanding of the nature and object of court proceedings. His delusions lead him to conclude that the judges are all imposters and criminals and have personal vendettas against him, and that fake police officers arrested him in the absence of grounds for arrest. He also believes he is a key witness against criminal activities and his present situation, having been committed to the jurisdiction of the Board by the court, is an attempt to silence him.
Although he understands the pleas available to him, in Dr. Ardani’s opinion Mr. Collins has no understanding of the outcome of proceedings because he has no reality-based understanding of the allegations. While he understands the meaning of an oath and the consequences of its breach, in Dr. Ardani’s view it is unlikely Mr. Collins will be able to participate meaningfully with his counsel due to his tangential thinking, pressured speech, and jumping from topic to topic. He views those factors as impediments to Mr. Collins’ meaningful participation in his trial.
He thought the optimization of Mr. Collins’ antipsychotic medication will take a further three to six months. Mr. Collins continues at the present time to display active symptoms of psychosis and Dr. Ardani considered it unrealistic to expect Mr. Collins will be ready for discharge to the community within the next year.
In response to questions by Mr. Gehl, Dr. Ardani stated that Mr. Collins strongly disagrees with his diagnosis of Schizophrenia. He noted that in the past ten days Mr. Collins provided three different accounts of the allegations against him. He suggested Mr. Collins misinterprets the statements of others and cited as an example Mr. Collins’ perception during the hearing that an innocuous statement by Dr. Ardani was a threat against him.
No evidence was called the counsel for the Attorney General. Mr. Collins testified and insisted he had owned the home in which he had lived since 1982 and had no information it had been sold. He stated that in the past people had tried to sell his home and that Dr. Ardani was present when they made the attempt. He noted that he had pleaded not guilty to two of the three Informations and knew who the prosecutor was and the consequences of conviction. He maintained the police were out of their jurisdiction when they arrested him and that he had witnessed several murders in St. Marys, Ontario. He also expressed the opinion that all three sets of charges have been withdrawn and that a judge had ordered Dr. De Freitas at Ontario Shores to commit him under the Mental Health Act.
In her final submissions Ms. Zamprogna maintained the evidence established that Mr. Collins remained unfit to stand trial. Although he understands the parties and their roles in the trial process, his delusional ideation prevents him from having a reality-based understanding of the proceedings at trial. She suggested that Mr. Collins’ disorganized thought process, tangentiality, and pressured speech interfered with his ability to understand the trial process. She noted that several further months will be necessary to establish the efficacy of his antipsychotic medication regime and that he has a history of substance use and non-adherence with treatment, both of which were extant at the time of the index offences. He poses a high risk of future violence outside the hospital and has no place in the community to reside. She therefore supported the hospital recommendation that the necessary and appropriate disposition be a detention order as recommended by the hospital.
Ms. Dalrymple supported the hospital position, while Mr. Gehl suggested his client was fit to stand trial, as he knew the available pleas, understood the trial process, was able to “tell his side of the story”, and was aware of the basic facts alleged by the prosecution. He suggested a community living condition be included in the disposition in the event the evidence, in the view of the panel, established that Mr. Collins remains unfit to stand trial.
Conclusion
Having considered the evidence, the exhibits, and the submissions of counsel, the panel unanimously concludes that Mr. Collins remains unfit to stand trial. We note that s. 2 of the Criminal Code defines the term “unfit to stand trial” as meaning “unable on account of mental disorder to conduct a defence at any stage of the proceedings or to instruct counsel to do so”. In particular, the inability to “understand the nature or object of the proceedings, understand the possible consequences of the proceedings, or communicate with counsel” are elements of unfitness.
In this case the panel concludes that Mr. Collins remains unable on account of mental disorder to conduct a defence and to communicate with counsel. As stated by the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Bharwani, 2023 ONCA 203 at paragraph 141:
… context forms the backdrop against which the statutory test -- whether the accused is unable on account of mental disorder to conduct a defence or instruct counsel to do -- is applied.
- At paragraph 167 the Court states the following principles should inform all fitness assessments:
(i) the test is to be applied contextually;
(ii) the test for fitness is set out in s. 2 of the Criminal Code as noted above;
(iii) a person is unfit to stand trial if, on account of mental disorder, the person is unable to conduct a defence or to instruct counsel to do so;
(iv) the purpose of the s. 2 fitness test is to ensure that the accused can be meaningfully present and meaningfully participate at their trial;
(v) the Taylor test questions are not a sufficient surrogate for assessing fitness but are helpful when providing insights into an accused’s abilities in relation to the s. 2 criteria. Applying the fitness test is more nuanced than the questions recognized;
(vi) the accused must have a reality-based understanding of the nature and object and possible consequences of the proceedings; and
(vii) the accused must have the ability to make decisions, which involves the ability to understand available options, to select from those options, to understand the basic consequences arising from the options and the ability to intelligibly communicate to counsel or the court the decision arrived upon; and
(viii) the accused need not have the capacity to engage in analytic thinking in the sense that the accused need not be capable of making decisions in their own interests.
In the recent case of Re Clayton, 2025 ONCA 308, the Court referred to paragraphs 150 to 152 in Bharwani, noting that fitness is be considered in the broader context of the impact of an unfitness finding, which not only places presumptively innocent individuals under the authority of the Review Board system, but also results in their removal from the criminal justice system, thereby depriving them of their day in court. We are sensitive to those concerns.
The panel notes that the evidence clearly establishes that Mr. Collins’ mental illness is not presently responding to his antipsychotic medication regimen. He continues to have a delusional and disorganized thought process, tangential thinking, and pressured speech. He seriously misinterprets situations, a fact demonstrated by the allegations involved in the index offences and his interjections and testimony during the hearing -- for example, misinterpreting an innocuous comment by Dr. Ardani during his testimony as a threat. He thought all charges outstanding against him had been withdrawn by the prosecution.
In the circumstances we conclude Mr. Collins is unable to conduct a defence or to instruct counsel to do so. Due to the mental condition described above, he is unable to be meaningfully present and to meaningfully participate in his trial. The charges he faces are serious and involve three separate and complicated court proceedings. He is clearly unable to understand available options with respect to outstanding charges, as he considers them to have been withdrawn. Mr. Gehl’s suggestion that his discussion with prosecuting counsel of possible withdrawal, overheard by his client, may explain the basis for Mr. Collins’ impression, but does not explain Mr. Collins’ settled belief in their past withdrawal.
Mr. Collins is presently unable to intelligently communicate with his counsel due to his disorganized thought process, his flight between topics, tangentiality, and pressured speech. Accordingly, we find the evidence establishes that at the present time Mr. Collins is unfit to stand trial.
We agree that a conditional discharge is not realistic for the reasons stated in the hospital report and outlined above. Mr. Collins has no personal or professional supports in the community and no place to reside. Dr. Ardani’s uncontradicted opinion is that Mr. Collins will not progress in treatment to the point of discharge from the hospital in the coming year.
In all the circumstances, having considered the four factors set out in s. 672.54, public safety being paramount, the panel considers a detention order to be necessary and appropriate as the least restrictive and onerous disposition, and agrees with the hospital recommendation that indirectly supervised entry to Elgin County be the most liberal condition.
DATED this 13th day of May 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Mr. R. Steinberg Alternate Chairperson
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board