Ontario Review Board
Re: N. (T.)
ORB File No: 7620
Hearing held on: Monday, May 5, 2025
Place of hearing: Syl Apps Youth Centre 475 Iroquois Shore Road, Oakville
Pursuant to: Sections 672.48(1) and 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before: Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Goldenberg Members: Dr. P. Prendergast (via Zoom) Dr. G. Nexhipi Ms. C. Murray Ms. R. Chopra
Parties Appearing: Accused: N. (T.) Counsel: Ms. M. Addie
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Mr. J. Hunter
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. H. Limheng
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated May 22, 2025)
On October 15, 2019, N. (T.), a young person within the meaning of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, was found unfit to stand trial on charges of sexual assault and sexual interference with a person under age 16.
N. (T.) is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated May 2, 2024 by which he was ordered to be detained at the Forensic Psychiatry Program of the St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, West 5th Campus (“St. Joseph’s”), forthwith together with a number of prohibitions and privileges. One of the privileges permitted N. (T.) to live in the community in 24-hour per day supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge. That Disposition also provided for N. (T.) to be detained at the Syl Apps Youth Centre (“Syl Apps”) pending his transfer to St. Joseph's.
On Monday, May 5, 2025, the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing at Syl Apps and conducted the annual review of N. (T.)’s Disposition.
Position of the Parties
At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as to their recommendations to the Board.
Mr. Hunter appeared for Syl Apps. He advised of the hospital position that N. (T.) remains unfit to stand trial, and if the Board so finds, Syl Apps is recommending a continuation of the current Disposition.
Mr. Limhang appeared for the Attorney General. He supported the hospital’s recommendation.
Ms. Addie appeared for N. (T.) She also advised that she and her client support the hospital’s recommendation.
Ms. Addie also had some “late breaking news”. She advised that she had just received an email from St. Joseph's indicating that N. (T.) was now number one on the St. Joseph's waiting list. Ms. Addie understood that the person who had been number 1 previously had been on the waiting list for more than one year.
Outstanding Charges:
- It is not necessary to set out the index offences in detail. N. (T.) was charged at the age of fourteen. It was alleged that he molested a four-year-old girl who was visiting his home by trying to insert his penis into the child’s anus. He was released to the custody of his mother on conditions. He was subsequently charged with another sexual assault (and other offences) when his mother’s friend babysat him, bringing her five-year-old daughter. When the friend checked on the children during the night, she found T. N. in her daughter’s bed, his pants down, touching her daughter’s vagina with his hand and his penis.
Evidence at Hearing:
The Board admitted into evidence a document entitled Update to the Hospital Report. The hospital Update provides considerable information concerning N. (T.), his personal history, his mental health history, details of the outstanding charges and details of N. (T.)’s course in hospital over the past year. As the Hospital Report was made an exhibit in this hearing it is not necessary to reproduce the information contained in the hospital Update.
We do note, however, the stated diagnoses of: (i) Intellectual Disability (ii) Autism Spectrum Disorder
In addition to the documentary evidence, the Board heard from Dr. Jeremy Butler. Dr. Butler advised that he first got to know N. (T.) in February of 2024. Dr. Butler noted that originally N. (T.) was upset about going to school. He apparently became very frustrated with the form of school activities. Dr. Butler identified an early issue of finding “the right mixture of activities”. N. (T.) would become frustrated with too many activities and also at other times, he became frustrated when he did not have enough to do.
Dr. Butler made some modest changes to his medication. He added risperidone to N. (T.)’s medications.
Dr. Butler noted a number of N. (T.)’s accomplishments over the past year. N. (T.) successfully completed his schooling and received a certificate. He has been participating in programs with more age-appropriate individuals. Dr. Butler noted that in the fall the hospital was able to obtain Passport funding from DSO and much of that funding was used for the Passport worker to take N. (T.) to a facility known as “The Hub”. At The Hub N. (T.) engaged in activities in the park, going to movies, engaging in crafts and other recreational activities.
For some reason that is not perfectly clear to Dr. Butler, the Passport funding apparently “ran out”. The clinical team is working in getting future Passport funding from DSO.
Dr. Butler noted another very positive feature. While previously N. (T.) had issues with the amount of schooling, he currently has chosen to take three different school activities. We understand this is done on a daily basis.
Dr. Butler noted that N. (T.) is medication compliant. N. (T.) also has no hesitation in asking for additional medication when necessary.
Dr. Butler testified that overall N. (T.)’s behaviour over the past year has been appropriate. There has been no sexually inappropriate conduct over the past year.
Dr. Butler stated his opinion that N. (T.) remains unfit to stand trial. He last assessed N. (T.) for fitness approximately two weeks ago. N. (T.) had some understanding with respect to some of the fitness questions. N. (T.) understands that his lawyer’s job is “to help me”. N. (T.) believes that a judge’s job is also “to help”. N. (T.) also understands his obligation to tell the truth.
N. (T.) has no understanding about the role of the Crown Attorney and when the doctor raised that issue with N. (T.), N. (T.) became extremely upset. The doctor described N. (T.)’s understanding about the outstanding charges as being “very superficial”. Dr. Butler was of the opinion that N. (T.) cannot meaningfully participate at any trial. The doctor advised that N. (T.) received education on the issue of fitness. Apparently, a psychologist at Syl Apps engaged with N. (T.) for about a year but is no longer doing so.
Dr. Butler is not prepared to find that N. (T.) is permanently unfit. Dr. Butler noted the significant progress over this past year. Dr. Butler stated previously that school was the enemy to N. (T.), but currently and voluntarily, N. (T.) is engaging in three courses at school. The doctor also noted the benefits obtained when there was funding that allowed a Passport worker to take N. (T.) to The Hub and engage in the activities available at The Hub.
In response to questions from Crown counsel, Dr. Butler noted the difficulty in finding a community residence. To date, the hospital has been unable to find a residence that would accept N. (T.)
In response to questions from Ms. Addie, Dr. Butler repeated that N. (T.) always cooperates with the medication requirements. The doctor noted that N. (T.) would be “ashamed” after he engaged in certain behavioural outbursts.
Dr. Butler believes that N. (T.) does have a level of insight concerning his medication requirements. In response to questions from a Board member, Dr. Butler acknowledged that the additional medication would not be expected to have any effect on N. (T.)’s fitness to stand trial.
In response to questions from another panel member, Dr. Butler repeated the necessity for community living to be in supervised accommodation.
We note for the record that Ms. N., N. (T.)’s mother, was present at this hearing. The doctor noted that N. (T.) is “extremely attached” to his mother. He frequently inquires when his mother will be coming to visit.
No other evidence was heard at this hearing.
Final Submissions:
The Board notes that the parties were making a joint recommendation.
Mr. Hunter, however, used this opportunity to acknowledge that N. (T.) has enjoyed “a great year”. Mr. Hunter asked the Board to accept the doctor’s evidence that N. (T.) is unfit to stand trial and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a continuation of the Detention Order with the exact terms set out in last year’s Disposition. Mr. Hunter acknowledged that the hospital is not asking for a finding of permanently unfit. Mr. Hunter acknowledged that the hospital is not asking the Board to make a recommendation to the Court for a stay of these charges. Mr. Limheng similarly is not asking for the Board to make a recommendation to the Court for a stay of these charges. Ms. Addie also is of the same position.
Mr. Limheng had advised the Board that the Crown had made out the prima facie case in October 2024. The Crown acknowledged that there is an issue whether the Crown’s obligation to make out a prima facie case every year depends on the age of the patient at the time of the events of the outstanding charges or alternatively, at the patient’s actual age. By way of abundance of precaution, the Crown did make out a prima facie case based on N. (T.)’s age at the time of the events of the index offence.
Ms. Addie stressed that her client has enjoyed “a very good year”. Ms. Addie stated that this has been N. (T.)’s “most positive year” since coming under the Board. Ms. Addie reminded the panel that the parties were making a joint recommendation.
Findings of the Board:
The Board accepts the evidence of Dr. Butler and the evidence contained in the Hospital Report. The Board also accepts that the parties’ joint recommendation is well founded. We accept Dr. Butler’s evidence that presently N. (T.) is unfit to stand trial. We also note Dr. Butler’s evidence that he is not prepared to state at this time that N. (T.) is permanently unfit to stand trial. The panel also agrees that the parties’ joint recommendation as to the necessary and appropriate Disposition remains a continuation of a Detention Order with the exact terms set out in last year’s Disposition. The Board hopes that Syl Apps’ clinical team will follow up with DSO in an attempt to secure further Passport funding to allow N. (T.) to engage more frequently with same age peers. Finally, the panel also notes that no party was requesting that the panel recommend a stay to the Court. Once again, we accept without reservation the parties’ joint recommendation on this issue.
As a result, the Board will issue a Detention Order with the exact terms set out in last year’s Disposition.
In reaching our Disposition, the Board has taken into consideration public safety, N. (T.)’s mental condition and his other needs, and N. (T.)’s reintegration into society.
DATED this 22nd day of May 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. J. Goldenberg Alternate Chairperson Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board