Re: Joseph Ronald Steven Pyne, 2025 CanLII 45889

Ontario Review Board

Re: Joseph Ronald Steven Pyne

ORB File No: 7023

Hearing held on: Monday, March 31, 2024

Place of Hearing: Brockville Mental Health Centre

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

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Ms. T. Mann

Members: Dr. R. Kunjukrishnan

Dr. A. Gibas

Ms. M. den Haan

Mr. M. Hajek

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Joseph Ronald Steven Pyne

Counsel: Mr. M. MacDonald

Person in charge of hospital: Representative Dr. A. Adiele

Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. C. Breault

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated May 12, 2025)

Introduction

1. On September 19, 2016, Joseph Ronald Steven Pyne was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of repeatedly communicating, directly or indirectly, with a person, breaking and entering (intent), and utter a threat to cause death or bodily harm (x2), all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada ("Criminal Code").

2. Mr. Pyne is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated March 27th, 2024, which detains him at the Secure Forensic Unit of the Brockville Mental Health Centre with privileges up to and including to live in the community in 24-hour a day supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge.

3. On March 31st, 2025, this panel of the Board convened a hearing at the Brockville Mental Health Centre, hereinafter referred to as the Hospital, to conduct Mr. Pyne's annual review hearing pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Pyne was present at the hearing and represented by counsel, Mr. M. MacDonald. Also present at the hearing to support Mr. Pyne were his Individual Service Co-Ordinator from Developmental Services of Leeds-Grenville, and a worker from Mr. Pyne's group home. On consent, a Hospital Report dated March 4th, 2025 was entered as Exhibit No. 1 and a CPIC Report dated March 17th, 2025 was entered as Exhibit No. 2.

4. The issues for the Board to decide were whether Mr. Pyne represents a significant threat to the safety of the public and, if so, the necessary and appropriate disposition for the coming year based on a consideration of the four factors in s. 672.54 of the Code.

Position of the Parties

5. At the outset of the hearing the parties were asked as to their without prejudice preliminary recommendations. Dr. A. Adiele for the Hospital recommended that Mr. Pyne be found to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public, and that the necessary and appropriate disposition was a detention disposition with changes enumerated at p. 70 of the Hospital Report. The representative of the Attorney General, Ms. Breault, advised that she was mostly in support of the Hospital's position, subject to exploration of the changes proposed. Mr. MacDonald indicated that Mr. Pyne was in support of the Hospital's position as to significant threat and the proposed changes.

Index Offences

6. Last year's Review Board disposition outlined the facts underpinning the index offences as follows:

"In summary, the charges relate to Mr. Pyne's interaction with Ms. Shannon Yuill. The Index offences followed his criminal conviction for an earlier assault on her. On January 11, 2016, the court imposed a 6-month conditional sentence, to be followed by 12 months' probation. The court's conditions were designed to protect Ms. Yuill: he was to abide by a curfew and have no contact with her. The court also issued a 10-year weapons prohibition.

The two uttering threat charges took place sometime between December 2014 and the end of February 2016. On the first occasion the accused asked Yuill to marry him. When she refused, he responded, "Maybe I'll keep you in the basement like a captive." On the second occasion, Mr. Pyne asked Ms. Yuill if she was afraid of him. When she denied this, he replied, "Aren't you afraid that I will kill you because I hate my mother". On the next day, he put a gun in his mouth.

The criminal harassment charge arose from the accused's incessant telephone calls to Ms. Yuill, made between March 27th, 2016, and April 1st, 2016. He ignored the victim's request to stop calling her. Also, during that time, he attended at her residence each day, banging and knocking on the front door.

On April 1st, 2016, the accused entered the victim's home at 6:00 a.m. in the morning through an open back door. He came up the stairs to the second floor. When Ms. Yuill asked him to leave immediately, the accused complied. Shortly after, the police located Mr. Pyne behind her house. He was arrested for Break and Enter and Breach of Conditional Sentence."

Current Diagnoses

7. Mr. Pyne's current psychiatric, developmental and physical health diagnoses are Schizophrenia with Catatonia, Unspecified Intellectual Disability and Velo-Cardio-Facial Syndrome (22q11.2 Deletion Syndrome).

Evidence – from the Hospital Report

8. The Hospital Report dated March 4th, 2025 sets out in considerable detail Mr. Pyne's personal history, psychiatric history and criminal offending history. As the Hospital Report was made an Exhibit, it is not necessary to fully set out this information in these Reasons. Some relevant material will be highlighted.

9. Mr. Pyne is now 31 years old and he has been under the jurisdiction of the Board since his NCR finding in 2016. He was initially admitted to the Hospital on May 2, 2016. In October of 2023 he was transferred to the Dual Diagnosis Transitional Rehabilitation Housing Program (DD-TRHP), a 24-hour supervised group home operated by Developmental Services of Leeds and Grenville (DSLG) and formally discharged on December 7, 2023. He continues to reside in this group home and reports being happy there. As an outpatient, his psychiatric care is currently provided by Dr. Adiele. Dr. Adiele has treated Mr. Pyne for a number of years and is very familiar with his presentation.

10. Mr. Pyne is incapable of consenting to treatment and financial decisions but is capable of examining and disclosing his clinical records. Mr. Pyne's grandmother, Linda Ubdegrove, serves as his substitute decision maker for treatment. Ms. Ubdegrove is described in the Hospital Report as a good support to Mr. Pyne and works cooperatively with the treatment team. The Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee manages Mr. Pyne's financial decisions.

11. Over the years, Mr. Pyne's mental status has remained relatively unchanged overall due to his intellectual difficulties. More generally, he continues as he has in the past to use profanity and make socially inappropriate comments, including sexual remarks and racist statements. Health teaching by staff to reinforce appropriate boundaries and behaviours has had limited effect. When confronted by staff about his language, he minimizes this behaviour, attempts to deflect responsibility, changes the subject to discussions about sexuality and asks bizarre questions. He struggles to take responsibility for his actions despite being told his comments are inappropriate and potentially harmful.

12. During the last year, Mr. Pyne's mental status and behavioural stability have fluctuated and he has had some physical health difficulties, as follows:

April 2024 – group home staff reported concerning episodes where Mr. Pyne appeared pale with blue lips, was observed shaking and staring off into space;

August 2024 – Mr. Pyne encouraged another group home resident to "pet" a staff member, albeit not maliciously;

September 2024 – Staff reported unusual nocturnal behaviour in that Mr. Pyne appeared to be sleepwalking while moving objects from his room to the living room; he also exhibited daytime lethargy which impacted his ability to participate in scheduled activities;

October 2024 – Staff observed Mr. Pyne demonstrating cognitive changes, including forgetfulness and Mr. Pyne reported experiencing "seeing things that [weren't] there";

January 2025 – Mr. Pyne acknowledged hearing voices occasionally but that they did not bother him or command him to do anything harmful;

February 2025 – Group home staff reported an episode where Mr. Pyne appeared confused and was "speaking gibberish"; he had forgotten that he had already asked for coffee and also had already called his uncle earlier in the day. Staff noted a facial droop. Subsequent assessment was negative for evidence of facial asymmetry or neurological deficits;

February 2025 – Mr. Pyne exhibited concerning behaviour. He had been observed speaking to himself and using racist language; when confronted, he became angry and directed a racial slur towards a staff member. He displayed limited remorse, claiming "free speech";

February 2025 – Staff observed Mr. Pyne to have a guarded and resistive attitude during interactions, with occasional mumbling and preoccupation in thought content. This soon resolved and he returned to his baseline;

March 2025 – Mr. Pyne hit another group home resident in the face, after the resident attempted to hug Mr. Pyne. Mr. Pyne later claimed the hit was accidental, as he was just trying to push the other resident away when his personal space was violated.

13. The extent to which Mr. Pyne's physical health conditions are tied to his more challenging behaviours is unclear at this time, but they are thought to be connected.

14. Mr. Pyne's insight into his care plan is partial which presents a significant clinical challenge in that this may be contributing to his inconsistent adherence to behavioural expectations.

15. The Hospital Report sums up the treatment team's analysis of significant threat as follows:

"…Mr. Pyne's case exemplifies the challenges of managing complex dual diagnosis patients in community settings…[T]he clinical team is of the view that Mr. Pyne continues to pose a significant threat to the public. His current placement in a 24-hour supportive accommodation provides the necessary supervision while allowing for some community integration, but his ongoing behavioural and psychiatric symptoms indicate a continued need for detention and intensive support and monitoring. The clinical team's vigilance and coordinated approach will be essential to maintaining his stability and preventing deterioration that could possibly increase risk to himself or others."

16. The Hospital Report also contains a list of recommended parameters intended to inform a multi-faceted approach to managing Mr. Pyne's complex clinical presentation, including continued close monitoring of his psychiatric symptoms to quickly detect any decomposition in his mental state, structured behavioural interventions to manage areas of concern such as appropriate social interactions and impulse control, regular medical follow-up to manage chronic health problems, ongoing assessment of his capacity to participate in treatment decisions, as well as consistent boundary setting to shore up his understanding of the impact of his behaviours on others.

Evidence – at the Hearing

17. The Hospital's evidence was presented through its report as well as through the oral evidence of Dr. A. Adiele. This evidence is summarized below.

(a) Apart from occasionally hearing voices, which is not distressing to him, Mr. Pyne has had a reasonably stable year in terms of his mental health.

(b) In terms of Mr. Pyne's physical health, Dr. Adiele mentioned Mr. Pyne's episodic shaking and staring off into the distance, as well as some episodes of sleepwalking which the Hospital will continue to monitor.

(c) Mr. Pyne continues to demonstrate interpersonal boundary violations; most recently he stroked a co-patient on the face. However, the incidents have been minor and continue to be very well managed by group home staff.

(d) Mr. Pyne is very interested in obtaining employment that is suited to his interests and abilities but the terms of his disposition do not allow him to access the city of Brockville independently, which has proven to be a barrier since the employment setting being looked at would not allow outside staff to accompany him into the workplace given the other employees' right to privacy.

(e) If Mr. Pyne were granted indirectly supervised privileges to the city of Brockville, arrangements could be made for staff to take him to and from his place of employment and staff in the workplace would monitor him while he is on their premises.

(f) Mr. Pyne currently volunteers with the local SPCA, accompanied by his Passport worker and has successfully done so for a year or so; he is now very interested in volunteering and indirectly supervised privileges might assist with increasing his ability to do this more independently.

(g) The treatment team would like to see if Mr. Pyne's disposition could be liberalized to allow him to spend longer periods of time, including overnights, to visit his grandmother and his uncle, with whom he remains very close. Whether he is able to exercise longer passes would depend on his grandmother's availability and the approval of the Hospital.

(h) Dr. Adiele worries that Mr. Pyne could be asked to leave his group home in the future because it is "transitional housing". Dr. Adiele believes that it is important for Mr. Pyne's disposition to reflect a broader geographic area in which to live, in case Mr. Pyne is asked to leave his current home. Dr. Adiele stated that if this were to occur, the team would likely look for a home that is close to Mr. Pyne's family, particularly his grandmother.

18. At this point in the hearing, Mr. Pyne spontaneously shared with the Board that a member of his group home staff had touched him; he demonstrated how by gesturing up and down the front of his body with his hands. Dr. Adiele said the matter was investigated and the staff member is no longer employed by the group home. Mr. Pyne now feels safer at night.

19. In response to questions from Ms. Breault, the representative of the Attorney General, Dr. Adiele provided the following information:

(a) Mr. Pyne's diagnosis is Schizophrenia with Catatonia, and that the catatonia element might account for Mr. Pyne's fixed staring and immobility during the episodes he experienced over the past year;

(b) Mr. Pyne is currently on a medication regimen that works well for him, despite his showing some breakthrough psychosis from time to time. Dr. Adiele does not think a change in Mr. Pyne's antipsychotic medication would effectively target his residual symptoms, some of which could be related to neurodevelopmental issues and not psychiatric issues. It would be better to characterize Mr. Pyne's schizophrenic illness as "difficult to treat" as opposed to "untreatable".

(c) Mr. Pyne's grandmother continues to be responsible for making Mr. Pyne's treatment and financial decisions. Mr. Pyne's grandmother lives in Elgin which is within the geographic radius currently stipulated in his disposition, but the treatment team is asking to extend Mr. Pyne's passes to 7 days and increase the geographic radius (currently 500km from the Hospital) which will allow Mr. Pyne to travel further afield with his grandmother during passes. Dr. Adiele conceded there are no immediate plans for this – going further afield with his grandmother – to happen but feels that it might give Mr. Pyne a better quality of life if he were permitted to do so.

(d) Mr. Pyne is doing well in his current placement but Dr. Adiele and the team feel that being able to transition him to another appropriately supported residence outside the community of Brockville would meet a "future clinical need". Mr. Pyne's disposition does not currently allow for this.

20. In response to questions from Mr. Howard, Dr. Adiele confirmed that Mr. Pyne's grandmother and uncle continue to provide excellent support to Mr. Pyne. As well, Dr. Adiele agreed with counsel's suggestion that liberalizing the disposition as recommended by the treatment team, including increasing the geographic area in which Mr. Pyne could reside to include the province of Ontario, and allowing him to access the community of Brockville indirectly supervised, would not result in any increased risk to the safety of the public.

21. In response to questions from the Board, Dr. Adiele clarified that the current treatment plan is for Mr. Pyne to obtain employment locally, within the community of Brockville, and that there is a program Mr. Pyne can access that will ensure he has the necessary training to be successful in his work. Mr. Pyne's group home and outreach staff will continue to be available to respond quickly in the event work-related behavioural or health-related concerns develop. Currently, Mr. Pyne's approved persons consist of his grandmother and his uncle.

22. Dr. Adiele indicated that the mainstay of Mr. Pyne's psychiatric medication is clozapine, which was reduced from 450mg to 400mg per day to address concerns of sedation. Dr. Adiele did not think that Mr. Pyne's breakthrough psychosis was related to the decrease in clozapine. Because clozapine can lower the seizure threshold in persons such as Mr. Pyne who live with the effects of neurodevelopmental delay, Dr. Adiele added an anti-convulsant to Mr. Pyne's treatment regimen, to good effect thus far.

23. The doctor opined that because Mr. Pyne had lived on his own in the past, he might do so again one day but he would aways need a high degree of support, such as staff-accompaniment for most of each day. While there are no guarantees he can stay at his current residence permanently as the needs of others in the community might, of necessity, come to have priority over his, no imminent change is expected. There are other homes in the Kingston area and in eastern Ontario that might prove suitable for Mr. Pyne. For now, he is happy where he is.

24. No further evidence was adduced by any party.

Submissions of the Parties

25. All parties were joined on the issue of Mr. Pyne meeting the legal threshold for significant threat.

26. As for the necessary and appropriate disposition, Dr. Adiele stood on the evidence contained in the Hospital Report, supplemented by the information adduced at the hearing.

27. Ms. Breault submitted that it was difficult to understand the Hospital's rationale for seeking to expand Mr. Pyne's indirectly supervised access to within 500km of the Hospital, particularly when he has not exercised indirectly supervised privileges to date. (Mr. Pyne's current disposition grants him indirectly supervised access to the Hospital and grounds.) Ms. Breault proposed that it made more sense for Mr. Pyne's indirectly supervised access to align with the goal of permitting him to work or volunteer in the community, in accordance with his current treatment plan. Ms. Breault did not oppose the proposed increase in Mr. Pyne's passes from 72-hours to 7 days, provided he continues to always be in the company of approved persons, hospital staff or delegates (such as staff from his group home or Development Services of Leeds-Grenville). Ms. Breault submitted that there was no pressing need to change the geographic area in which Mr. Pyne may reside.

28. Mr. MacDonald in his submissions noted that the Hospital had been very cautious about granting Mr. Pyne privileges and would continue to do so into the future. As such, Mr. Pyne supported the increased passes and privileges proposed by the Hospital. Mr. MacDonald reminded the Board of its obligation to ensure that its disposition reflect the least onerous and restrictive means of ensuring public safety while maximizing Mr. Pyne's liberty interests. This being said, Mr. Howard left the decision as to whether the necessary and appropriate disposition is a detention disposition or a conditional discharge to the Board, given that for all practical purposes, it would not have a significant impact on Mr. Pyne's day-to-day life. Mr. MacDonald emphasized the good progress that Mr. Pyne had made and would continue to make under the jurisdiction of the Board.

Conclusion and Disposition

29. Having considered all of the evidence tendered at the hearing, and the submissions of the parties, the Board has no difficulty finding that Mr. Pyne's current constellation of symptoms and behaviours are such that he continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in s 672.5401 of the Criminal Code of Canada, and as further defined in the Winko decision.

30. Mr. Pyne's risk flows from his major mental illness, Schizophrenia – with Catatonia, as well as his neurodevelopmental and physical health issues which, working together and separately, lead him to be impulsive, intrusive into the personal space of others and quick to anger when frustrated or upset. His threatening, sexually inappropriate, racist and hateful comments are of particular concern given his history of offending and the events of the index offences.

31. The Board accepts the uncontroverted evidence of Dr. Adiele and the contents of the Hospital Report that in the absence of Board oversight and a high degree of support and supervision, Mr. Pyne would likely become non-compliant with prescribed medications, decompensate, use substances and engage in the same type of behaviours that comprised the index offences, which were criminal in nature and serious. Indeed, although the more overt manifestations of his physical and verbal aggression have attenuated with the benefit of time, treatment, support and monitoring, he continues to engage in problematic behaviours.

32. Despite treatment with antipsychotic and mood stabilizing medication, he continues to experience positive symptoms of his schizophrenic illness and some lability of mood, albeit much less frequently and intensely than in the past. His insight into into the way in which his mental and physical health challenges impact his behaviours towards others is partial. His lack of insight contributes to his chronic inability to take accountability for his behaviours or to make sustained change in the way he relates to others. Mr. Pyne's risk to the safety of the public is linked to his history of violence and antisocial behaviour, suboptimal insight into his diagnoses, incomplete response to treatment and supervision as well as his inability to effectively regulate his emotions when stressed or frustrated. Thus, the Board concludes that in the absence of the requisite degree of support and supervision, Mr. Pyne is likely to cause serious physical or psychological harm to members of the public.

33. Having found that Mr. Pyne poses a significant threat to the safety of the public, the Board must shape a disposition for the year ahead. The Board finds that successful management of Mr. Pyne's risk and care requires that he continue to be subject to the terms and conditions of a detention disposition. This will allow the Hospital to approve his accommodation, which in Mr. Pyne's case is a key risk-mitigation strategy. However, notwithstanding his many difficulties, Mr. Pyne has made slow but relatively steady progress over the years he has been under the jurisdiction of the Board. Dr. Adiele and the treatment team continue to be optimistic that Mr. Pyne may one day progress to independent living in the community, albeit with a significant degree of support to assist him in medication adherence, participate in treatment and followup and to carry out activities of daily living. The Board is pleased that Mr. Pyne continues to be forward looking and is interested in pursuing employment and volunteering.

34. Given this progress, the Board finds that it is necessary and appropriate, least onerous and restrictive to grant Mr. Pyne that privilege of accessing the community of Brockville, indirectly supervised, for the purpose of work or volunteering. The Board expects that Mr. Pyne's community and hospital-based supports will continue to assist him in safely traveling to and from such activities and ensure he receives the necessary degree of extrinsic support to succeed in his work-related and volunteering endeavours.

35. In recognition of Mr. Pyne's close relationship with his grandmother and uncle, and good behaviour during his visits with them, the Board finds it is not contrary to the safety of the public and consistent with Mr. Pyne's liberty interests to extend his passes to 7 days from the current 72 hours.

36. Because Mr. Pyne has lived in the community in excess of a year and has done well overall, the Board considered whether a conditional discharge would be appropriate to manage his risk to the safety of the public and concluded that it would not. The Board notes that continued close monitoring of Mr. Pyne's complex mental and physical health issues is warranted due to the interplay of these long-standing issues on his cognitive, affective and behavioural stability. The Board finds that at this time a conditional discharge for Mr. Pyne currently has no air of reality. The Board accepts Dr. Adiele's evidence that a conditional discharge could be considered in the future if Mr. Pyne were able to demonstrate a lengthier track record of stable mental status, positive engagement in work and/or structured activities in the community, successful exercise of indirectly supervised privileges and no significant physical and/or verbal aggression. He would also need to show amenability to staff direction to return to hospital upon request.

37. The Board declines to expand the geographic area in which Mr. Pyne can reside as requested by Dr. Adiele. The Board notes that there is no current clinical or other need to do so given there are no imminent plans to transition Mr. Pyne to another residence. If it happens over the course of the next year that any lack of clarity around the term "live in the community" proves to be a barrier to finding Mr. Pyne an appropriate place to live, the Hospital may request an early hearing to have the issue addressed based on then-current information.

38. In coming to this determination, the Board considered the criteria set forth in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, the paramount consideration being the safety of the public, in addition to Mr. Pyne's mental condition, his reintegration into society and his other needs.

39. The Board thanks Mr. Pyne for so bravely and openly disclosing matters of concern to him during the hearing and wishes him well over the coming year.

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

Ms. T. Mann

Alternate Chairperson

Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board