Re: Tyler Gipson
ORB File No: 7998
Hearing held on: Tuesday, April 1, 2025
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: Tyler Gipson Counsel: Ms. N. Calvinho
The person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. E. Carefoot
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. J. Masse
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated May 20, 2025)
Introduction:
On December 21st, 2021, the accused, Tyler Gipson, was found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder on charges of criminal harassment and unlawfully entering a dwelling place, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. Mr. Gipson is currently subject to the terms of a Disposition dated January 23rd, 2024 and an Order amending that Disposition dated March 21st, 2024, which detains him at the Brockville Mental Health Centre with privileges up to and including to live in the community within Leeds and Grenville County in Eastern Ontario, in 24-hour supervised accommodation approved by the Person in Charge.
On April 1st, 2025, the Board convened a hearing at the Brockville Mental Health Centre, hereinafter (“the Hospital”), to review Mr. Gipson’s Disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Gipson attended his hearing and was represented by his counsel, Ms. N. Calvinho. A Hospital Report dated March 10, 2025 was marked as Exhibit No. 1, a CPIC Report dated March 17th, 2025 was marked as Exhibit No. 2, and a Victim Impact Statement dated March 17th, 2025 was marked as Exhibit No. 3.
The issue at this hearing is whether Mr. Gipson is a significant threat to public safety, as defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code. If so, the necessary, and appropriate, Disposition in the circumstances must be determined, bearing in mind the factors enunciated in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
For the reasons set out below and based on the expert evidence and opinions before us, the Board concluded that Mr. Gipson presents a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board determined that his risk can be properly managed with a continuation of the existing Detention Disposition with the change proposed by the Hospital to allow day passes indirectly supervised within 250 km of the Hospital in Ontario. The Board also finds that a requirement for supervised living, rather than approved accommodation as recommended by the Hospital, is the necessary, and appropriate, Disposition in the circumstances.
Position of the Parties
At the beginning of the hearing, the parties were canvassed for their initial positions. Dr. Carefoot on behalf of the Hospital submitted that the current Detention Disposition should be continued, with the conditions that Mr. Gipson reside in approved accommodation and be permitted day passes into the community indirectly supervised within 250 km of the Hospital to allow him to attend sporting events.
Counsel for the Crown supported the Hospital’s position with respect to the increase in radius into the community (within Ontario) but had questions regarding the approved accommodation.
Counsel for Mr. Gipson supported the Hospital’s recommendations.
Index Offence:
- The circumstances giving rise to the index offence are abstracted from last year’s Board Reasons dated March 21, 2024 as follows:
July 11, 2021: Gananoque Police Service was called to the home of Chelsea Heikamp, who stated that she woke up to find Mr. Gipson standing over her while she slept, and then he went out the back door to sit on the deck. He was arrested on the charge of break and enter. He told police that “voices” told him he was supposed to be there. Police located items that did not belong to the victim which were seized. When they were searched, officers found what was suspected to be methamphetamine. Mr. Gipson informed police that and the victim were in a relationship, that her voice was speaking to him, at times the voice was sexual in nature, and that he had been wearing a rope around his testicles for a sexual purpose and did so while entering the residence. He told police that he did not enter the residence for a sexual purpose but only wished to hang out.
The victim had been repeatedly contacted in the past by Mr. Gipson and had a Trespass Order against him.
Background History
Mr. Gipson’s background history is set out in detail in the Hospital Report dated March 10, 2025 and need not be repeated at length here. Briefly summarized, he is presently 28 years of age. His most current diagnoses are Schizophrenia, Intellectual Development Disorder, mild, Methamphetamine Use Disorder, severe, in partial remission, and Cannabis Use Disorder, moderate, in sustained remission.
Mr. Gipson has prior criminal offences which include a careless driving charge in 2017. In 2019 he was convicted of mischief under $5,000.00 and unlawfully in a dwelling house and received a 12-month probation sentence. He has several convictions for fail to comply with probation orders and 2020 charges for failure to attend court for which he received a suspended sentence. He was also charged with a drug offence in 2020 and convicted in February 2021 of uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm for which he received probation.
Mr. Gipson denied any history of physical, emotional or sexual abuse. Mr. Gipson reported life was "alright" and that he was fairly happy growing up. Mr. Gipson reported he and his siblings would sometimes become involved in physical altercations but did not provide further information regarding these circumstances.
Mr. Gipson’s aunt reported that his father had alcohol use issues and his mother and one of his sisters use drugs.
According to his aunt, Ms. Bailey, Mr. Gipson lived with her from grade 8 until he graduated from grade 12. Ms. Bailey is reported to be a main support and caregiver to Mr. Gipson and his one sister throughout the years. Ms. Bailey stated that Mr. Gipson's father died a few years ago from pancreatitis, and he had provided significant stability for Mr. Gipson.
Ms. Bailey stated that Mr. Gipson began hanging out with "the wrong crowd" and became involved in drugs when he was approximately 18-19 years old. Prior to this, she reported he would often play hockey with the neighboring kids after school. She said that he worked with his father in construction, demolition and landscaping and was a hard worker. Mr. Gipson reported his longest period of unemployment has been one year.
Ms. Bailey is an Approved Person and although she experiences health issues, she continues to provide support to Mr. Gipson, they speak regularly on the phone, and he visited her at Christmas.
Mr. Gipson has been living in 24-hour supervised FITT housing since March 22, 2024. Dr. Carefoot took over Mr. Gipson's care on July 2, 2024. Mr. Gipson now receives funding from Developmental Services Ontario (DSO) through the passport program and uses this to participate in recreational outings as well as to pay for a driver’s education course. He completed his G2 licensing requirements in February 2025. All of Mr. Gipson’s random drug and alcohol screenings have been negative during the reporting year.
On August 20, 2024 Dr. Carefoot was informed by management that peers had reported Mr. Gipson was involved in a relationship with a staff member at the FITT House. The staff member was placed on leave and after investigation, their position was terminated. Mr. Gipson initially denied being in a relationship with the staff member and denied any feeling that he was pressured to be in a relationship. Education was provided that relationships between staff and patients would always be inappropriate.
On September 25, 2024 staff received a voicemail from Gananoque police stating that there was an arrest warrant for Mr. Gipson for failure to report to his probation officer in March 2022. The charges were dismissed on February 28, 2025. This caused Mr. Gipson some stress, but he coped with it well.
Evidence at the Hearing
The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence from Dr. Carefoot.
Dr. Carefoot advised the Board that Mr. Gipson had been doing very well until the week before the hearing, at which time there was a change to his risk level.
On March 26, 2025, staff at FITT House noticed a white substance on Mr. Gipson’s nose. When confronted, he admitted that he had crushed and inhaled his prescription Wellbutrin. Staff are supposed to supervise patients taking their medication to ensure compliance, but Mr. Gipson stated that he had been misusing the Wellbutrin for about a month and a half, though not every day. Dr. Carefoot stated that Mr. Gipson continues to struggle with insight into substance use and viewed inhaling prescription medication as “not as bad” because it was prescribed medication. This lack of insight into substance use increases Mr. Gipson’s risk to the community. In her opinion, he requires significant support to improve his insight.
Mr. Gipson was detained in hospital from March 26 to 28, 2025 to monitor for withdrawal symptoms as the treatment team discontinued his Wellbutrin. His urine drug screen was clear for substances and no decompensation in his mental state was noted. He returned to FITT House but lost all community privileges.
Mr. Gipson was also untruthful with staff as to where he was when he was in the community. The treatment team became aware that Mr. Gipson was continuing to see the former staff member in the community and he did not reveal that he had been with her in her vehicle. This led to trust issues on the part of the treatment team and an increase in the risk factor of treatment and supervision issues.
The treatment team intends to discuss whether extra education can be provided to Mr. Gipson regarding healthy relationships and boundaries by Developmental Services Ontario (Lanark, Leeds and Grenville). They will also investigate whether involvement by an Adult Protection Services worker would be of benefit to Mr. Gipson.
Prior to the incident with the Wellbutrin abuse, the treatment team had anticipated that Mr. Gipson would be able to transition from FITT House in the very near future to independent living. Dr. Carefoot testified that they now feel that Mr. Gipson requires a prolonged period of stabilization at FITT House before he will be ready for placement in the community.
In response to questions from the Attorney General, Dr. Carefoot stated that:
Mr. Gipson’s risk factors have increased to a moderate level in a structured setting based on the noted incidents. Absent such structure, his risk factors would be even higher.
After Mr. Gipson has shown approximately 6 months of stability at FITT House, the next step in his transition to the community would likely be the Murray Street 8-hour supervised residence, rather than an independent apartment in Brockville.
Mr. Gipson has shown improvement in his insight into the index offence. He feels empathy for the victim of the offence and expresses remorse.
Mr. Gipson has used his community passes within 150 km of the Hospital accompanied by staff, but not independently.
- In response to questions from counsel for Mr. Gipson, Dr. Carefoot testified that:
Mr. Gipson has not yet experienced any adverse effects from discontinuance of Wellbutrin.
Because of the two recent issues (the incident with the Wellbutrin and with the former staff member), Mr. Gipson’s risk has increased, and this will delay his reintegration into the community.
At FITT House, staff trust patients to inform them where they are in the community and with whom. Mr. Gipson did not do so when he met with the former staff member. The treatment team is concerned with the power imbalance in this relationship as it began as a relationship between staff and a patient. The treatment team is concerned that it is an unhealthy relationship if Mr. Gipson feels that he cannot be honest with other people about it. In the context of his mild intellectual disability, further education will assist Mr. Gipson to understand power dynamics in a relationship.
Staff originally became aware of the possible relationship between Mr. Gipson and the staff member August 20, 2024. Considering the circumstances of the index offence, management confirmed that there was a real relationship and no signs of psychosis. At that time, the treatment team had discussed their concerns with the power imbalance with Mr. Gipson, who stated that he understood and would no longer be involved with the person.
The main concern is that Mr. Gipson was not honest with the team. He informed them that he was no longer seeing the person, while as recently as the week before the hearing staff discovered that they are still in communication by text and he has met the person in their car. His failure to tell the team who he was with, and where, was the primary concern in terms of a potential increase in risk factors. Adult Protective Services may be able to assess the relationship to ensure that it is not abusive.
In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Carefoot stated that she would refer Mr. Gipson for a stalking assessment for risk management purposes (e.g. the Stalking Assessment and Management structured professional judgment tool).
In July 2024, Mr. Gipson had asked about stopping his medication since he no longer heard voices and suggested that it was substance use that was the largest contributor to the voices. Education was provided that the voices were the result of Schizophrenia, but substances acted as a destabilizer. Mr. Gipson was agreeable to try a decrease in the medication and there were no negative effects of the reduction. In February 2025 he again questioned his diagnosis, believing that the substances are a major cause of the voices, but stated that he finds the medication helpful, he was open to education, and he intends to remain on the medications. Dr. Carefoot has requested a diagnostic assessment from a psychometrist to provide another professional’s opinion to Mr. Gipson in order to help him accept the diagnosis.
After Mr. Gipson uses his community privileges appropriately for two to three months, Dr. Carefoot anticipates that he can exercise indirectly supervised passes. At first, the range will be closer to the Hospital, and then the range will be gradually expanded.
Dr. Carefoot testified that Mr. Gipson sees the relationship with the former staff member as a “friendship with a bit more than friendship.” He has informed Dr. Carefoot that it felt good that someone “normal” felt that he was worthy of being in a relationship with and it helped him to feel better about himself. Dr. Carefoot emphasized that it is important for Mr. Gipson to feel self-worth and not rely on external validation. She feels that if Mr. Gipson feels that he can be more open with the treatment team, the trust can be rebuilt with the hope that Mr. Gipson will seek their assistance and advice as needed.
Mr. Gipson continues to experience anxiety, and while there has been no noted increase in anxiety after discontinuing the Wellbutrin, the treatment team will monitor and consider if a different medication is required in the future. In December 2024, Mr. Gipson preferred to try medication rather than counselling, but they will continue to discuss benefits of counselling.
No further evidence was entered.
Submissions
The Hospital maintained its position that Mr. Gipson remains a significant threat to the safety of the public. Due to the recent events, his risk is currently elevated, and therefore a Detention Disposition is the only appropriate Disposition at this time. Specifying that Mr. Gipson reside in approved accommodation in Brockville will permit him to move into independent housing if he is ready within the coming year, and the privilege of indirectly supervised day passes within 250 km of the Hospital in Ontario will permit him to attend sporting events.
Counsel for the Attorney General submitted that the recent events with medication abuse and lack of honesty with the treatment team are concerning. Mr. Gipson’s risk increased even in the most supportive housing structure. It is premature to consider independent accommodation within the upcoming year, although the Attorney General recognizes that the Hospital will implement any changes safely.
Counsel for Mr. Gipson continued to adopt the Hospital’s position. She noted that Mr. Gipson was honest when confronted about the medication abuse and willing to accept that it was wrong. His insight into the effect of the index offence on the complainant has increased significantly since the previous year.
Conclusion and Disposition
Having considered all of the evidence tendered at the hearing, and the submissions of the parties, the Board does find that Mr. Gipson poses 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.
The Board agrees with the parties’ submission that extending passes as recommended by the Hospital will provide Mr. Gipson with more opportunity to attend sporting events in the area, which he enjoys.
In terms of risk management, it is Dr. Carefoot’s expert opinion, presented at page 35 of the Hospital Report, that the most likely re-offence scenario “would involve an unstable living situation, substance use, lack of follow-up with mental health professionals and medication non-compliance.” At the time of writing of the Hospital Report, Mr. Gipson’s risk of future violence, serious physical harm, and imminent violence were considered to be low-moderate. As Dr. Carefoot testified, the recent setbacks experienced by Mr. Gipson elevated his level of risk to moderate.
The Board agrees with the Hospital's position that at this time it is premature to consider a Conditional Discharge for Mr. Gipson. As Dr. Carefoot testified, Mr. Gipson experienced a recent setback in the highly supportive 24-hour supervised FITT housing. The treatment team had been preparing to move Mr. Gipson into less supportive housing, and he was looking forward to this. In light of the setback with the abuse of Wellbutrin, Mr. Gipson’s suboptimal insight into the impact of substances on his mental illness, the corresponding increase to his risk factors, and his recent lack of transparency with the treatment team, they now anticipate moving Mr. Gipson to the Murray Street residence after a period of six months’ stability in FITT House.
The Board considered the Hospital’s submission that approved housing would be sufficient to manage the risk, but finds that it remains appropriate to specify supervised accommodation in the Disposition. Murray Street is an 8-hour supervised residence and therefore the Board finds it appropriate to remove the requirement for 24-hour supervised housing. However, the evidence before the Board was clear that several months of stability at FITT House will be required before the team considers moving Mr. Gipson to Murray Street. He will then require some time in the less supportive housing before moving to independent living.
If Mr. Gipson progresses sufficiently in his recovery that the Hospital feels that he is ready to live independently in the community within the upcoming year, the Hospital can request an early hearing from the Board.
Accordingly, taking into consideration the four factors set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, the Board is of the unanimous view that the least onerous and least restrictive Disposition, while being necessary and appropriate to protect the safety of the public in the circumstances, is a Detention Disposition. An increase to Mr. Gipson’s passes as recommended by the Hospital is appropriate. The Board finds that for the reasons above, a condition for supervised accommodation rather than approved accommodation is both necessary and appropriate.
The Board commends Mr. Gipson for his progress. In particular, we note that he has an excellent work ethic, and he has saved money and planned for living independently. The Board is confident that the Hospital will monitor Mr. Gipson's progress and ensure a slow transition into the community to ensure his success.
DATED this 20th day of May, 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. M. den Haan Legal Member
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board