Ontario Review Board
Re: David Craig
ORB File No: 8513
Hearing held on: Tuesday, April 22, 2025
Place of Hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. M. Labrosse
Members: Dr. S. Lessard
Dr. R. Cormier
Ms. M.L. Bridger
Ms. B. Naegele
Parties Appearing: Accused: David Craig Counsel: Ms. M. Munsterman Person in charge of the hospital: Representative Dr. A. Alabi Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. M. Dufort
REASONS FOR DECISION
(Dated May 21, 2025)
Introduction
On March 12, 2024, the accused, David Craig, age 65, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder of two counts of assault police and two counts of utter death threats contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. Mr. Craig is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated December 17th, 2024 and an order amending that Disposition dated December 18th, 2024. The Disposition is that of a Detention Order that requires that he be detained in the Secure Forensic Unit of the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre with privileges up to and including living in the community in accommodation approved by the Person in Charge of the Hospital.
By letter dated March 6th, 2025, the hospital informed the Ontario Review Board that Mr. Craig had been readmitted to hospital on January 23rd, 2025 thereby constituting a restriction of liberty.
Mr. Craig had been living in the community but was aggressive towards hospital staff who attempted to contact him. Police believed he might have a gun and waited for Mr. Craig to come out of his home to arrest him, which they did as noted on January 23, 2025. Mr. Craig was taken to the Royal Ottawa Secure Forensic Assessment Unit.
On April 22nd, 2025, the Board convened a hearing at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, hereinafter referred to as the hospital, to review that restriction of liberty pursuant to s. 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Craig was present and represented by counsel, Ms. Marni Munsterman. Also present was the hospital social worker, Ms. Nila Kelly.
Mr. Craig is a divorced man with three adult children. He suffers from a late-onset delusional disorder, which is likely schizophrenia.
The only issue for this hearing was whether the restriction of Mr. Craig’s liberty by admission to hospital was warranted and reasonable in the circumstances.
For the reasons set out below, the Board finds that the decision of the hospital to significantly increase the restriction of Mr. Craig’s liberty by admitting him to hospital was and remains reasonable and warranted and represents the least onerous and least restrictive decision available to the hospital in the circumstances.
As the only issue before the Board was the restriction of Mr. Craig’s liberty by readmission to hospital, there is no need to repeat the details regarding the index offences as well as regarding Mr. Craig’s personal, criminal, and psychiatric history as these are set out in full in the Reasons for Disposition dated January 21st, 2025 and the Hospital Report.
Position of the Parties
- The Alternate Chairperson ascertained that the hospital was not recommending any changes to the disposition and the only inquiry was whether the restriction of liberty was necessary and appropriate. The Hospital took the position that the restriction of liberty was necessary and appropriate. Both Ms. Dufort, on behalf of the Attorney-General and Ms. Munsterman, on behalf of Mr. Craig, were ad idem with the position of the hospital.
Evidence at the Hearing
The hospital’s evidence was presented through its report and through the oral testimony of Dr. Adedayo Alabi, Mr. Craig’s attending psychiatrist. This evidence is summarized below.
Dr. Alabi stated that Mr. Craig was admitted into hospital on January 23rd of this year and the restriction of liberty continues to be necessary. He is taking his medication. His psychosis is in partial but not total remission.
Dr. Alabi stated there was no evidence of clinical depression.
Ms. Dufort, on behalf of the Attorney-General, asked Dr. Alabi what the plan was moving forward. Dr. Alabi stated that Mr. Craig was on the waiting list for admission to the Rehabilitation Unit but that the wait can be very long. There were also concerns about a mortgage and a house.
Dr. Alabi stated that right now Mr. Craig has one on one access to hospital grounds. It is hoped that soon he will be allowed access to the grounds in a group.
The Crown asked if he had family in Ottawa and was he open to receiving visits from them. He has three adult children. Colton is his substitute decision-maker, and does visit. He also has a daughter and one other son. Mr. Craig interjected and stated that his daughter has come to visit him twice. There was nothing mentioned about the second son.
Ms. Munsterman asked whether he could be on the Rehabilitation Unit right now but for the waiting list. Dr. Alibi confirmed that he is ready to go to the Forensic Rehabilitation Unit but there are no beds.
Dr. Alabi further stated that the hospital has to keep their options open about a facility. The Doctor acknowledged that he has a good alliance with the patient and Mr. Craig takes his medication. Ms. Munsterman asked if there was improvement in insight and Dr. Alabi stated there was a significant improvement, “night and day”, a marked difference. Mr. Craig is happy that he is reconnecting with Colton, his son and daughter, and the estrangement was caused by the illness Dr. Alabi stated. The Doctor said it is good to see these connections improving.
There were no questions by four of the Board’s panel members. The Alternate Chairperson asked why the Board was notified only six weeks after the admission to hospital when it is required by law after seven days. The Doctor acknowledged it was a long time. He could not explain the lapse because he is new here to the hospital. He said that he just arrived in January and that there had been significant administration changes, so that might have been the reason. He did apologize on behalf of the hospital.
Submissions
In submissions, Dr. Alabi on behalf of the hospital stated he had nothing further to add.
Ms. Dufort, on behalf of the Attorney-General, indicated that the restriction of liberty was necessary and appropriate and the least restrictive.
Ms. Munsterman, on behalf of Mr. Craig, concurred that the restriction of liberty was necessary and appropriate and the least restrictive and that it continues to be so.
Analysis and Conclusion
The panel accepted the joint position of the parties. Mr. Craig had stopped taking his medications which led to a decompensation of his psychotic illness resulting in increased risk to the public. He was aggressive toward the police at the time of his arrest and, upon admission to the hospital, was verbally hostile and threatening to hospital staff. The ongoing restriction is justified as Mr. Craig is unable to manage his own housing and the hospital needs to find suitable accommodation before placing him back in the community.
The panel reminds the Hospital of its duty, pursuant to s. 672.56 (2) of the Criminal Code to advise the Board as soon as practicable if the restriction of liberty of an accused exceeds 7 days. This was not done in Mr. Craig’s case.
DATED this 21st day of May 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. M.L. Bridger Legal Member
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board