Re B. (E.), 2025 CanLII 45870

Ontario Review Board

Re: B. (E.)

ORB File No: 2310

Hearing held on: Wednesday, April 16, 2025

Place of Hearing: 151 Bloor Street West, 10th Floor, Toronto Via Zoom Video Conference

Pursuant to: Sections 672.69 and 672.81 (1) of the Criminal Code

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Ms. M. Labrosse Members: Dr. S. Hucker Dr. T. Stirpe Mr. E. Siebenmorgen Ms. R. MacIntyre

Parties Appearing:

Accused: B. (E.) Counsel: Ms. M. Perez

The Person in Charge Counsel: Ms. J. Lefebvre

Correctional Service of Canada Representative: Dr. A.A. Allman

Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. M. Feindel

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION (Dated May 15, 2025)

Introduction

1. On June 7, 1996, Mr. B. (E.) was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on a charge of assault and four counts of uttering threats, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”). In May 2002, Mr. B. (E.) was convicted on a charge of manslaughter. He was then found to be a Dangerous Offender and became subject to an indeterminate sentence. He therefore became a dual status offender within the meaning of s. 672.1(1) of the Criminal Code. An appeal from the dangerous offender finding and indeterminate term of imprisonment was dismissed on September 24, 2009: R. v. B. (E.), 2009 ONCA 678. In April of 2022, he was charged with first degree murder arising out of a death of a fellow inmate in the Regional Treatment Centre, Millhaven Institution. The latter charge remains outstanding.

2. Mr. B. (E.) was most recently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB” or “the Board”) dated November 9, 2022 pursuant to which he was ordered detained within the High Secure Provincial Forensic Program at the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care, Ontario (“Waypoint”) should he cease to be subject to a term of imprisonment. Mr. B. (E.) has only limited privileges pursuant to that Disposition. In addition, on consent of the parties, the Disposition provided that the time for holding the next hearing to review the Disposition be extended to 24 months from the date of its issuance, pursuant to section 672.81(1.1) of the Criminal Code. Following the incident that gave rise to the 2022 murder charge, Mr. B. (E.) was transferred to the Special Handling Unit (“SHU”) at Archambault Institution in the Province of Quebec. He has resided on that unit since that time.

3. On April 16, 2025, a hearing by a panel of the Board was convened by way of Zoom video conferencing to review Mr. B. (E.)’s Disposition pursuant to s. 672.69 and 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. B. (E.) was in attendance by audio-video link and was represented by his counsel. The issues to be determined at the hearing were whether Mr. B. (E.) continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and, if so, what was the necessary and appropriate Disposition that was also the least onerous and least restrictive taking into account the factors set out in 672.54 of the Criminal Code. In line with previous discussions at several pre-hearing conferences, none of the parties sought a placement hearing pursuant to s. 672.68 of the Criminal Code.

Positions of the Parties

4. At the commencement of the hearing the parties were requested to provide their initial, tentative positions with respect to the issues before the Board. The parties jointly agreed that Mr. B. (E.) represented a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition remained a Detention Order on the same terms as contained in the existing Disposition. They furthermore agreed that the time period for holding the next review of the Disposition be extended to two years. The parties maintained their respective positions at the conclusion of the evidence.

5. In addition, counsel for Mr. B. (E.) advised the panel that Mr. B. (E.) may wish to provide some evidence at the outset of the hearing and then be excused from remaining for the balance of the proceedings.

Evidence at the Hearing

6. The documentary evidence at the hearing consisted of materials from the Correctional Service of Canada (“CSC”). As noted during the pre-hearing conferences, Mr. B. (E.)’s preferred language is French, though he was not seeking a French hearing, and his CSC documents are mainly in the French language. The panel gratefully acknowledges CSC’s assistance in providing English language translations of the documents for this hearing. The documentary evidence consisted of the following items that were marked as Exhibits:

i. A Psychological Risk Assessment dated April 26, 2024;

ii. An English-language translation of an Assessment for Decision, dated April 25, 2024;

iii. A decision of the Parole Board of Canada, dated June 28, 2024;

iv. An Assessment for Decision, dated October 10, 2024;

v. An English-language translation of the previous document;

vi. An English-language translation of an Addendum, dated April 29, 2024, to the April 26, 2024 Psychological Risk Assessment;

vii. An English-language translation of a Correctional Plan Update for the SHU, dated February 15, 2023;

viii. Thirty-three (33) pages of notes from Dr. Genevieve Proulx, a psychiatrist;

ix. A CPIC printout of Mr. B. (E.)’s criminal record, dated February 2, 2021; and

x. A synopsis of the allegations relating to the outstanding murder charge.

7. In addition, the panel heard oral evidence from Mr. B. (E.), followed by that of Dr. Genevieve Proulx (psychiatrist at the SHU) and Ms. Jessica Alarie (Mr. B. (E.)’s parole officer).

8. At Mr. B. (E.)’s request, he was excused from the balance of the hearing, pursuant to s. 672.5(10)(a) of the Criminal Code, after completing his testimony.

Findings

9. For the reasons that follow, the panel accepted the parties’ joint recommendation and found, independently on the evidence, that Mr. B. (E.) continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Detention Order with the same terms as contained in the Disposition dated November 9, 2022. The panel also agreed, in accordance with the parties’ consent, to extend the time for the next review of the Disposition to 24 months, pursuant to s. 672.81 (1.1) of the Criminal Code.

Index Offences

10. The circumstances surrounding the index offences were conveniently summarized in the last Reasons for Disposition, dated December 19, 2022. That summary, is as follows:

“On December 2, 1995, two youth workers from a specialized foster home had planned an outing with B. (E.), who was in their custody. At approximately 2:00 am on December 3, 1995, on their way back home, an argument broke out between the youth workers and B. (E.). B. (E.) became verbally aggressive. They made a stop at a store in Rockland, when one of the youth workers (M.) exited the car. B. (E.) said that he was going to strangle M.. When M. came back into the vehicle, the other youth worker (B.) told him about the threat and B. (E.) once again repeated that he was going to strangle him.

B. (E.) continued to be verbally aggressive on the way back to 265 9 Mile Rd. Before going to bed, B. (E.) grabbed an apple, when he was told to put it back, then proceeded to throw the apple in the direction of the youth workers. B. (E.) went back to his room. He stated that he was going to do everything that he could to be sent back into closed custody (prison).

While B. (E.) was in his room, both Youth Workers heard some noises. As they both headed towards his room, B. (E.) threw a chair at them hitting Beaudoin in the leg. At this point they physically restrained him until the police arrived....”

Background Information (Prior to Commission of the Index Offences)

11. Mr. B. (E.)’s early personal history and psychiatric background are detailed in the various CSC reports, which are in evidence and therefore need not be reviewed in detail in these Reasons. In brief, Mr. B. (E.) is now 46 years of age. He is single. He is Metis and grew up in the area of Hawkesbury, Ontario. He was born into a highly dysfunctional family where his parents suffered from mental illness. The home environment was violent, and Mr. B. (E.) was subjected to sexual abuse and taken into care by the Children's Aid Society at the age of two. There is an indication that growth delay also factored into the decision to take him into care. File information raises concerns about possible organicity problems arising from difficulties at birth (including an ante partum urinary infection suffered by his mother, in utero exposure to diazepam, prolonged labour, forceps delivery, and perinatal hypoxia). Other psychological assessments from his youth revealed a delay in his language development and some diffuse mild cognitive impairment.

12. Throughout his childhood, Mr. B. (E.) stayed in over 30 different foster or group homes, as well as in juvenile detention centres. File information indicates that he was affected by the historic and systemic factors common to Indigenous peoples in Canada, including the intergenerational trauma of substance abuse, loss of identity and culture, fragmentation of the family and community, neglect, physical, emotional and sexual abuse, and experience with youth protection services.

13. According to various documents, Mr. B. (E.) was not raised in accordance with Aboriginal traditions; however, during his various hospitalizations and his subsequent incarceration, he has participated in some Indigenous programs.

14. According to the various documents, Mr. B. (E.) was not raised in accordance with Aboriginal traditions; however, during the course of his various hospitalizations he has participated in some Indigenous programs.

15. Mr. B. (E.)’s criminal record dates to 1993, when he was 15 years old. He was convicted of numerous offenses including mischief, uttering threats, assault, sexual assault and aggravated assault. Documents in the CSC file indicate that the assaults were frequently committed against case workers. The sexual assault involved a young girl who resided at the same group home as Mr. B. (E.). The aggravated assault involved the choking of a female victim with a shoelace while uttering death threats. The incident occurred in a youth custody facility.

Brief Summary of Course Following the NCR Verdict and CSC Custody

16. Mr. B. (E.) was detained at what was then the Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre (now Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care). His violent behaviour continued at that facility, and he was convicted of assault upon a staff member (1997), assault upon another patient (1998), and assault causing bodily harm to another staff member (1998). The latter conviction resulted in a custodial sentence which Mr. B. (E.) was serving at Millbrook Correctional Centre when he, acting in concert with other inmates, engaged in a severe beating of a fellow inmate resulting in the latter’s death. This death led to Mr. B. (E.)’s conviction for manslaughter, his dangerous offender designation, and the indeterminate penitentiary sentence that he is now serving.

17. Mr. B. (E.) has a well-documented history of aggressive, violent behaviour, both inside and out of institutional settings. He has spent his entire adult life, to this point, in various custodial settings and has not been subject to any form of conditional release into the community. He was transferred to the SHU in 2005, after commencing his indeterminate penitentiary sentence, due to persistent threats to kill any fellow inmate or staff member who ignored or denied him. He was then transferred between several maximum-security institutions before being sent to the Regional Psychiatric Centre – Prairies, in 2009. In 2011, Mr. B. (E.) was transferred to the SHU a second time because of ongoing threats and an assault related to the seeking of contact with female staff members. In 2019, he was sent to the Regional Mental Health Center (RMHC) for treatment. Despite participating in various interventions, he continued to behave violently, especially against fellow inmates. He remained at RMHC since May 2019 until his transfer, at his request, to the Regional Treatment Centre at Millhaven Institution on January 28, 2021.

18. While at the Regional Treatment Centre at Millhaven, Mr. B. (E.) completed the Integrated Correctional Program Model (ICPM). Although he attended all sessions, it is reported that he completed the program without success. The program was completed on April 19, 2022 and, two days later, Mr. B. (E.) is alleged to have engaged in an assault upon a fellow inmate resulting in the inmate’s death. This allegation forms the basis of the outstanding murder charge. Notably, it is reported that while at the Regional Treatment Centre, Mr. B. (E.) continued to resort to threats in order to get what he wanted. He stated a desire to return to a Quebec institution, adding that he would make sure that he was transferred to the SHU. He also announced that, if it took too long for him to be transferred, he would attack another inmate.

19. Mr. B. (E.) has over the years continually expressed his hatred of correctional officers and on numerous occasions has threatened them with violence, including sexual assault. CSC file information also states that due to his experiences of being physically and sexually abused as a child, Mr. B. (E.) has developed a strong disdain and contempt for sex offenders, particularly child abusers.

20. Historically, Mr. B. (E.) has had a great need to be recognized for certain skills he possesses, including his capacity for telekinesis, hypnotism, and his ability to make bombs. He has continually requested that no male case worker be assigned to his care. Over the years, Mr. B. (E.) has been assessed as a high-risk individual who requires a significant level of high security. On occasion, Mr. B. (E.) has been non-adherent to medication and treatment and has maintained a pattern of threats and aggression.

21. Mr. B. (E.) continues to reside in the SHU at Archambault Institution. The SHU is considered to be the most restrictive form of custody within CSC’s facilities. In the Assessment for Decision for Day/Full Parole dated April 25, 2024, it was reported that Mr. B. (E.) could not, at that time, be safely managed in a regular maximum-security environment. It was stated that the SHU was the only environment that provided enough external capacity to enable his case management team to observe a decrease in the frequency of his violent acts. It was stated that before a reduction in his static supervision could be considered, Mr. B. (E.) must change his attitude during his healing and readjustment process while acknowledging the factors on which he must make progress. It was noted that for over three decades, he has adopted dysfunctional strategies. It would consequently be unrealistic to expect him to wisely manage his relationships, his emotions, and his problems, particularly in a broad context. A step-by-step process was thought to be more realistic. It was suggested that Mr. B. (E.) focus first on his efforts to create a healthy lifestyle for himself, in particular, by making active use of his time.

Diagnoses

22. In her psychiatry notes, Dr. Proulx listed Mr. B. (E.)’s diagnoses as follows:

• paranoid schizophrenia;
• substance use disorder (alcohol);
• mixed personality disorder (borderline, narcissistic and antisocial symptoms); and
• unspecified anxiety disorder.

23. In addition, Dr. Proulx noted that during his childhood and adolescence, Mr. B. (E.) exhibited ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder), behavioral issues, and self-harming behaviour, in addition to making several suicide attempts.

Evidence of Mr. B. (E.)

24. Mr. B. (E.) testified as the first witness, as he wished to make some brief comments and then be excused from the balance of the hearing. He testified that he wished to remain in prison rather than be returned to Penetanguishene (now Waypoint). He said that he had greater liberties in prison, and was able to receive the same level of service. He complimented the staff at the SHU, stating that they were very professional. Neither the parties nor panel members had any questions for Mr. B. (E.), who was then excused from the rest of the hearing as noted earlier in these Reasons.

Evidence of Dr. Proulx

25. Dr. Proulx has attended to Mr. B. (E.)’s psychiatric treatment (consisting of pharmacological interventions) since January of 2023. As previously stated, her notes respecting his care were admitted in evidence. She supplemented her notes, which are current to the end of November, 2024, and provided an update of Mr. B. (E.)’s mental condition.

26. Dr. Proulx testified that Mr. B. (E.) experienced some slight disorganization in November of 2024. This was managed through an increased dosage of his olanzapine. Dr. Proulx explained that Mr. B. (E.) typically experiences such changes with the experience of stressors, such as the prospect of being transferred out of the SHU. He currently experiences no active symptoms such as hallucinations.

27. Dr. Proulx stated that over the past year, Mr. B. (E.)’s insight into his mental health has improved. He now signals requests for help if experiencing psychotic symptoms. For example, he will raise his hands to seek assistance.

28. Dr. Proulx confirmed that Mr. B. (E.) currently receives no mental health services other than his prescribed medication. There is a psychologist at the SHU who has known Mr. B. (E.) for years, and this individual is available to him on request. Dr. Proulx confirmed that in her opinion, Mr. B. (E.) does require psychiatric care and close monitoring of his mental state. When he is psychiatrically well on his medication, the antisocial aspects of his personality disorder tend to predominate. Interventions, beyond medication, would be more from the standpoint of rehabilitative efforts in relation to Mr. B. (E.)’s criminal conduct.

29. Dr. Proulx stated that, for Mr. B. (E.), his setting is itself therapeutic. Dr. Proulx has a good rapport with him, as do his nursing staff. His circle of relationships is small, with not much stimulation. Most correctional officers working at the SHU are essentially specialists, and Mr. B. (E.) knows them all. There is a high ratio of staff to inmates at the unit. For Mr. B. (E.), the setting in the SHU is safer than it would be if he were in the general population. A change of setting would itself be stressful.

30. Asked whether she engages in risk assessment for Mr. B. (E.), Dr. Proulx answered that this takes the form of regularly asking him if he has thoughts of harming others. She testified that Mr. B. (E.) has not been threatening in several months, though he does maintain that he would not hesitate to hurt someone if he believes his rights are being violated.

31. Dr. Proulx noted that Mr. B. (E.), in addition to demonstrating improved insight, is engaging in more cognitively demanding activities. For example, he has taken up reading.

Evidence of Ms. Alarie

32. Jessica Alarie is Mr. B. (E.)’s parole officer. Having worked with CSC since 2011, she became acquainted with Mr. B. (E.) in 2015, when he was in the SHU. At the outset of her evidence, she advised the panel that Mr. B. (E.)’s next scheduled court date for his outstanding charge is August 15, 2025. This is to be a video appearance.

33. Ms. Alarie explained that Mr. B. (E.)’s status as a SHU inmate is reviewed every four months. In addition, he must have a psychological risk assessment every two years, as the National Parole Board must review his case every two years while he remains in custody pursuant to his sentence.

34. Ms. Alarie explained that currently, Mr. B. (E.)’s safety issues are seen as too important to support a transfer to another unit. It is not safe to move him if he does not feel he is ready. Recently, Mr. B. (E.) has been requesting that he remain in the SHU for two years, although Ms. Alarie hastened to add that he changes his mind a lot.

35. In response to questions concerning Mr. B. (E.)’s typical activities and routine, Ms. Alarie stated that he is on a range with four other inmates, with whom he socializes. He goes into the common room with them, exercising his common room and yard privileges every time that these are offered. He has access to a phone in the common room as well. In addition, Mr. B. (E.) attends the book club in the company of a social program officer. While he had been attending school, he is currently off of this assignment due to problems with his concentration. He also works as a unit cleaner.

36. In response to questions concerning Mr. B. (E.) having broken off his visits with an Indigenous elder, Ms. Alarie advised the panel that approximately two months prior to the hearing, Mr. B. (E.) started seeing an elder again, along with the Indigenous Liaison Officer. He has also seen the chaplain on occasion.

37. In response to a question from counsel for the Attorney General, Ms. Alarie stated that Mr. B. (E.) would likely be allowed to remain in the SHU as he does not feel he is ready to be transferred. However, she explained that due to the very restrictive nature of a SHU, the case management team must explore potential transfer options. Mr. B. (E.) is aware that the team needs to work with him to move him toward a reintegration into another secure correctional setting. The most realistic next step is a transfer to a therapeutic unit in another maximum secure facility, namely the Atlantic Institution or Kent Institution, both of which are smaller units within larger facilities and have mental health professionals among their staff. Given Mr. B. (E.)’s preference for the French language, the Atlantic Institution is the more likely option.

38. In response to a panel member’s question concerning the kind of preparation that would be involved in a transfer to the Atlantic Institution, Ms. Alarie stated that this would be a long process. She expressed the view that with regard to an appropriate period for the next review of the Disposition by the Ontario Review Board, a two-year review period would be fair.

39. In response to another question from a panel member concerning the final sentence in the Addendum to the April 2024 psychological risk assessment, Ms. Alarie confirmed that due to a translation error, the sentence had the opposite meaning to what was intended and that Mr. B. (E.) is indeed seen as presenting an undue risk to society.

40. No further evidence was led following Ms. Alarie’s testimony.

Analysis and Conclusions

41. Having heard and considered all the evidence, the submissions of the parties and after reviewing the extensive documentation available to us at the hearing, the Board concluded that Mr. B. (E.) remains a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the current Disposition should remain in place in accordance with its terms. Although the issue of “significant threat” was undisputed at the hearing, the panel nevertheless reaches this finding independently. As noted earlier, Mr. B. (E.)'s extensive history of violence and oppositional behaviour, as well as his level of risk, are well documented. It is also evident that his risk is related to both a major mental illness and a serious personality disorder involving mixed features.

42. It is most tragic that from a very young age, Mr. B. (E.) was subjected to both physical and sexual abuse himself and was raised in a very dysfunctional home before being taken into Children’s Aid Society care. From the Indigenous Social History described in his correctional file, it appears that Mr. B. (E.) experienced the effects of intergenerational trauma, which contributed to his maladaptive behaviours. These factors do not diminish his risk to public safety, though they help to understand that risk and provide insight into the kinds of interventions that may, over time, help mitigate it.

43. Beginning from a very young age, Mr. B. (E.) has engaged in physically and sexually assaultive conduct that, on several occasions, has resulted in serious physical harm, and had the potential to result in both physical and psychological harm of a serious nature. One such assault had lethal consequences, and Mr. B. (E.) is now charged with having caused a second death. There is nothing in the evidence to suggest that his risk has abated in any way over the many years during which youth services, forensic mental health services, and adult correctional services have sought to engage with him. Despite the resources that have been devoted to reducing Mr. B. (E.)’s risk of harm to others, Mr. B. (E.) has been successfully managed only in the Special Handling Unit (SHU) of a maximum-security penitentiary, the most restrictive form of static security available within the federal correctional system. Clearly, a consideration of the evidence in the context of the factors in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code leads, in this case, only to the conclusion that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Detention Order, to become effective at such time that Mr. B. (E.) is released from the penitentiary.

44. Notwithstanding all of the foregoing, it would appear that over the past year, there has been some incremental improvement in Mr. B. (E.)’s presentation. He has adapted to the routine in the SHU, shows an increased level of insight into his mental health and need for his medication, and has been less threatening in his presentation. There are encouraging signs suggesting that, with the cautious, sensitive and measured support of his case management team, Mr. B. (E.) may eventually be safely transferred out of the SHU into a less restrictive and yet therapeutic environment that enables his mental health needs to be met and his condition to be closely monitored. The panel wishes to acknowledge and commend both Mr. B. (E.) and his team for their efforts.

45. The panel is satisfied, in accordance with the parties’ consent, that the period prior to the next review of Mr. B. (E.)’s Disposition should be extended from 12 to 24 months. Mr. B. (E.)’s overall clinical situation and level of risk have remained largely unchanged for several years. It is not anticipated that there will be significant changes in his situation within the next two years, other than a potential transfer to a less restrictive unit. In addition, as counsel for the Attorney General observed, Mr. B. (E.) has several potentially significant stressful issues before him, including a trial of his outstanding charge and a potential transfer from the SHU where he has been residing for almost three years. Holding a review of his Disposition within another 12 months would serve no practical purpose and could add unnecessarily to the stressors that he already faces.

DATED this 15th day of May 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

Eric Siebenmorgen

Legal Member

Office of the Registrar

Ontario Review Board