Ontario Review Board
Re: Christopher Schmidt-Griffiths
ORB File No: 8447
Hearing held on: Monday, March 31, 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: Christopher Schmidt-Griffiths
Counsel: Mr. C. Carter
Person in charge of the hospital: Representative Dr. E. Carefoot
Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. C. Breault
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated May 20, 2025)
Introduction:
Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCR) on December 18, 2023, on charges of breach probation and causing a disturbance in a public place, both contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada.
Mr. Christopher Schmidt-Griffins is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated March 28, 2024 and an Order amending that Disposition dated April 22, 2024. This Disposition detains him at the Secure Forensic Unit of the hospital with privileges up to and including to live in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
On March 31, 2025, the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing at the Brockville Mental Health Centre (the “Hospital”) to review Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths’ Disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths was present at his hearing and represented by his counsel, Mr. C. Carter. Also present was Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths’ mother, Sonja Karagiannis. A Hospital Report dated March 10, 2025 was entered as Exhibit No. 1 and a CPIC Report dated March 17, 2025 as Exhibit No. 2.
The issue at this hearing is whether Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths continues to meet the threshold for 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.
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 no changes. Counsel for the Attorney General supported the Hospital’s position.
Counsel for Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths did not take a position with respect to significant risk pending evidence from the Hospital.
For the reasons set out below and based on the expert evidence and opinions before us, the Board concluded that Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths 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 addition of the amendment adding travel passes as specified in the formal Disposition) is the necessary, and appropriate, Disposition in the circumstances.
Index Offences
- The circumstances giving rise to the charges on the index offences are set out in last year’s Reasons for Disposition as follows:
“In April of 2023, Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths was placed on probation for the offence of criminal harassment. In July of that year, he attended at the complainant’s (his mother’s) residence and was arrested and charged with breaching his probation. In the period September 12 - 23, 2023, police received numerous calls regarding disruptive behaviour in public by this accused. On September 22nd, he was yelling and screaming outside a residence for some four hours. Police attended and arrested him for cause disturbance and breach probation, by not keeping the peace.”
Background History
Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths’ background history is set out in detail in the Hospital Report and need not be repeated at length here. Briefly summarized, he is presently 34 years of age. He has never married and has no children. He had challenges in his early years, being diagnosed with ADHD and dyslexia. His father apparently was abusive toward both his mother and sister, and his parents separated when he was one. After about the age of five, he had no contact with his biological father. When Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths was 12 or 13, a step-father became involved in the family. This was a positive relationship.
As a youth, Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths was charged with uttering death threats and stealing and cashing his mother’s cheques, although his mother claims he was “along for the ride” with a friend who committed the offences. In his teen years, Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths began experimenting with substances, particularly alcohol and cannabis. He did not advance beyond grade 11 although he completed all required high school credits in 2019 or 2020. His employment history was limited.
When he was twenty-one, around 2011, he developed signs of psychosis. He experienced auditory hallucinations, telling him that his mother was not his real mother. This led to him being physically violent toward her at times. The situation became unmanageable, and he was admitted to hospital on several occasions. In 2012, he assaulted his mother and was found NCR for this offence. He was admitted to the Brockville Mental Health Centre and remained under the jurisdiction of the ORB until 2021, when he received an Absolute Discharge.
He returned to live with his mother and things initially went well. However, he left his mother’s home (he did not explain why he did so) and began living on the streets. He remained homeless until his admission to the Hospital in October of 2023 following this NCR finding.
When Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths was interviewed for the preparation of the Hospital Report after admission in October 2023, he claimed to regularly see his family physician and faithfully take his anti-psychotic medication after his Absolute Discharge although he missed some doses. This was not consistent with Dr. Gray’s intake assessment that Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths had not taken Clozapine for some time. When asked if he accepted his diagnosis of Schizophrenia, he answered yes, but then terminated the interview, and returned to his room, yelling and screaming. He seemed to be responding to internal stimuli. He also claimed, the next day, that he was very stable after his Absolute Discharge and had no mental health issues prior to his current admission (Hospital Report, page 18). When admitted to the Hospital for assessment for criminal responsibility, he had to be placed in locked seclusion due to his agitation and potential for violence (page 23). Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths demonstrated grandiosity, paranoia and delusions (Hospital Report, page 24). By November of 2023, Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths’ condition had improved. He did not express delusional beliefs and his insight and judgement were fair.
In February of 2024, Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths was further assessed. His improvement was called “dramatic” due to the administration of psychiatric medication and absence of illicit substances. Under the current management structure, his risk of violence was deemed to be in the low range (Hospital Report, page 26).
In the past reporting year, Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths experienced a significant improvement in his mental stability and responded well to Clozapine. He has had access to full indirect community privileges since May 2024. He has been working at the Hospital delivering newspapers four days per week. While he indicated that he was interested in finding a job, he has not yet requested assistance from the Vocational Therapist.
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 took over Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths’ care in July 2024. She testified that this is Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths’ second time under the ORB, having received an Absolute Discharge in 2021.
Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths’ Schizophrenia is considered to be treatment-resistant. There has been significant improvement in the positive symptoms of his illness with medication, but negative symptoms remain prominent. Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths downplays the symptoms of his illness.
Although he is currently compliant with his medications, in Dr. Carefoot’s opinion if Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths were not subject to a Detention order, the risk would be elevated as he would likely discontinue his medications as he has done in the past. Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths has been participating in programming but requires motivation with respect to substance use programming.
The treatment team is of the opinion that Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths is ready to live in the community, and referrals have been made both to FITT House (a 24-hour supervised residence) and to the Murray Street residence (an 8-hour supervised residence), which is his preference. Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths is at the top of the waitlist for both accommodations.
Dr. Carefoot testified that Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths’ risk to public safety is low while in hospital, but without significant support it would rise to a moderate level due to clinical factors. She sees Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths’ living situation as the primary concern. His plan if conditionally or absolutely discharged is to reside with his mother. The treatment team has concerns about this. Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths has had a complicated relationship with his mother, and his return to her residence after receiving an Absolute Discharge in 2021 was not conducive to his mental health. In that environment, he faced significant stress. His mother is also the victim of the index offences in 2023. In Dr. Carefoot’s opinion, a Conditional Discharge is not appropriate at this time, as the primary risk is that Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths would not have approved accommodation.
Dr. Carefoot stated that the re-offence scenario would be that Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths would return to substance use, discontinue his medications, and again become homeless, which would lead to destabilization and criminal behaviour.
In response to questions from counsel for the Attorney-General, Dr. Carefoot noted that the original NCR finding was based on a violent offence, and Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths has convictions for several other violent offences prior to the current NCR finding.
At the time of his Absolute Discharge, Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths stated that he intended to continue with his medications and would receive follow-up care in the community, but he did not follow up with a doctor in the community, and he had not taken medications for some time prior to the index offences.
Dr. Carefoot confirmed that the controls of Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths’ risk factors are currently all institutional. Without strict structure provided by a Detention Disposition, his risk would increase. She stated that in order to ensure that Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths is able to successfully reintegrate into the community, the process must be slow. He will require the support of supervised housing initially and the treatment team is encouraging him to attend Narcotics Anonymous meetings in the community and the Hospital is looking for a sponsor. Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths will need to engage with supports to ensure his success in the community and Dr. Carefoot noted that he has been somewhat reluctant to do so even while in hospital.
She stated that in the past, the Detention Disposition was required to bring Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths back to hospital. Currently they “are not there yet” in trust levels that Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths would voluntarily return to hospital if required. There are historical concerns with treatment/supervision response as evidenced by breaches of probation and other orders.
In response to questions from Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths’ counsel, Dr. Carefoot confirmed that Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths is still experiencing negative symptoms of his illness. He has access to full indirect community privileges but does not often go into the community, preferring to remain in hospital despite staff encouragement. Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths has not yet engaged with the Hospital’s substance use counsellor or a Narcotics Anonymous program in the community.
Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths has had no positive urine drugs screens since he was admitted to hospital. He states that he no longer struggles with addiction. Dr. Carefoot noted that he has done well under supervision, but that historically when in the community Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths has struggled. While supervised prior to the Absolute Discharge, Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths had success remaining abstinent from substance use, but after the Absolute Discharge he relapsed to substance use, which was a factor in the subsequent decompensation in his mental state. Although Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths has not reported any craving for substances, in Dr. Carefoot’s opinion, a robust community support plan is required to ensure continued abstinence.
Dr. Carefoot stated that Ms. Karagiannis is not an Approved Person. The Social Work team notes that in their opinion, she cares greatly for her son, but the Hospital needs to be able to monitor their interactions. She is the victim of the Index Offences, and their relationship is highly emotionally charged. Dr. Carefoot agreed that the team can reassess Ms. Karagiannis’ ability to become an Approved Person in the coming year.
In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Carefoot stated that Mr. Schmidt-Griffith’s Clozapine levels will be re-checked to ensure that the dosage is optimized. She agreed that Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths’ smoking has an impact on the Clozapine levels, but he has not wanted to try smoking cessation.
She anticipates that Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths will be placed at the Murray Street residence within the month and that this is the best housing fit for him. Because the family dynamics are complex, the treatment team believes that after some stability in the group home setting, Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths would do best in his own individual apartment at the appropriate time.
Dr. Carefoot will request a more thorough diagnostic and risk assessment through the psychologist. In her opinion, if Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths were not under a Detention order, he would likely again experience homelessness, substance use, and discontinue psychiatric treatment and follow-up. Based on previous history, it would be likely that Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths’ mental state would decompensate, positive symptoms of his illness such as hallucinations and delusions would reoccur, and he would reoffend violently against his mother or another family member. Depending on the length and severity of the decompensation, because of the treatment-resistant nature of Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths’ illness, it would take longer for him to return to his current baseline.
She noted that it is premature to consider a Conditional Discharge at this time, as Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths will first require a period of stability in the community in the Murray Street residence. She stated that there would be no change to Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths’ risk to the public if he were permitted passes to go camping with staff or an Approved Person.
Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths addressed the panel and stated that the last time he was under the jurisdiction of the ORB, he completed all of the substance programming and was told he did not need to redo the groups, so he did not, but he will try to do some. He also informed the panel that he agrees with Dr. Carefoot that he still needs support, and he does not know what would happen if he was not bound by a Disposition of the Board and rules. He stated that in the past he stopped taking his medication because he did not believe it helped, but he has since changed his mind.
In response to questions from the panel, Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths stated that he accepts that he has a psychiatric illness and said that his medications help him with stress, anxiety, and his symptoms. He is looking forward to living at the Murray Street residence very much and one day living on his own. He will consider attending Narcotics Anonymous programming and using other community support resources. Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths also stated that the Hospital has helped him, that he has a good doctor, a good lawyer, and he is working to stay positive.
Mr. Schmidt-Griffith’s mother, Ms. Karagiannis, expressed a strong desire to address the panel. The Alternate Chair noted that it is unusual for the victim of the index offence to present evidence but permitted her to address the Board. Ms. Karagiannis advised the panel that Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths has physical issues which cause him extreme pain, and she is concerned that these are not being addressed. She also informed the Board passionately and at length that her home is a spiritual home with no alcohol or drugs.
No further evidence was presented.
Submissions of the Parties
Dr. Carefoot maintained the Hospital’s position that a continuation of the Detention Disposition is necessary and appropriate. She supported the proposed amendment to permit passes to enter the community for up to 72 hours with staff or an Approved Person within 250 km of the Hospital with an approved itinerary. This will allow Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths the opportunity to go camping should he wish to do so.
Counsel for the Attorney General continued to support the Hospital’s position and supported the amendment.
Counsel for Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths did not take a position with respect to significant threat but indicated that his client realizes that he needs support. Counsel stated that his instructions were to request a Conditional Discharge on behalf of his client in addition to the provision for travel passes.
Conclusion and Disposition
Having considered all of the evidence tendered at the hearing, the Board finds that Mr. Schmidt-Griffins 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. He suffers from a major mental illness, treatment-resistant Schizophrenia. Despite ongoing treatment with Clozapine, he continues to exhibit negative symptoms of his illness. Prior to his involvement with the ORB, he experienced issues with treatment compliance, and again fell away from treatment after his Absolute Discharge.
Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths has a history of violent conduct toward his mother, assaulting her on a number of occasions, and finally being found NCR for assaulting her. This resulted in him remaining under the jurisdiction of the ORB for nine years. He also has a significant history of substance abuse, which has historically resulted in destabilization of his mental health.
When he was granted the Absolute Discharge, he returned to his mother’s home. Things initially went well, but this did not last. He left her residence and lived on the streets, relapsed into substance use, and his condition deteriorated.
The Board notes that Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths has had a positive reporting year, with improved insight into his mental illness, no incidents of violence, good compliance with medication, and no concerns with substance use while in hospital. His insight into the impact and severity of his substance use is still developing and he is beginning to access counselling support for substance issues.
The Board unanimously accepts Dr. Carefoot’s expert opinion that it is essential for the Hospital to have the ability to approve Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths’ accommodation and therefore a Conditional Discharge is inappropriate at this time. Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths has had a good reporting year, but he has not yet transitioned from living in the Hospital to living in the community, and therefore it would be premature to consider a Conditional Discharge until he has had time to adjust to living in supervised accommodation.
In consideration of all the evidence, submissions of the parties and criteria set forth in s. 672.54, the paramount consideration being the safety of the public, in addition to the mental condition of Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths, his reintegration into society and his other needs, we conclude that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a continuation of the current Disposition with the amendment set out in our formal Disposition.
Mr. Schmidt-Griffiths testified very well, and the Board appreciates the information he provided about his progress.
Ms. Karagiannis’ love for her son was evident in the way she gave evidence to the panel. She is clearly invested in advocating from her perspective what her son needs.
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