Ontario Review Board
Re: Connor Z. Cobbold
ORB File No: 8470
Hearing held on: Thursday, April 10, 2025
Place of Hearing: Brockville Mental Health Centre
Pursuant to: Sections 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. P. Capelle
Members: Dr. S. Hucker
Dr. S. Wiseman
Ms. M. Chamberlain
Mr. A. Mete
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Connor Z. Cobbold
Counsel: Ms. M. McMahon
Person in charge of the hospital: Representative Dr. E. Carefoot
Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. M. Dufort
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated May 27, 2025)
On January 19th, 2024, the accused, Connor Z. Cobbold, was found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder on a charge of public mischief/false report contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (the Criminal Code). Mr. Cobbold is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated February 28th, 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 of Brockville or Ottawa, in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
On April 10th, 2025, a panel of the Ontario Review Board (“the ORB” or “the Board”) convened a hearing at the Brockville Mental Health Centre (“BMHC”) pursuant to s. 672.81(1)of the Criminal Code of Canada. The annual review for Ms. Cobbold was held in person. The hospital was represented by Dr. Esther Carefoot, the Attorney-General by Ms. Marie Dufort and Mr. Cobbold by his counsel, Ms. Meaghan McMahon.
Without Prejudice Position of the Parties:
Dr. Carefoot advised that her patient remains a significant threat and a renewal of his current detention disposition is recommended with one change. Specifically, the addition of day passes within Ontario, up to a 150km radius of the hospital, accompanied by a staff member or a person approved by the person in charge. This recommendation was supported by Ms. Dufort on behalf of the Attorney-General.
Ms. McMahon advised on behalf of Mr. Cobbold, that an absolute discharge was requested. She was unable to advise of an alternative position in the event the panel determined that Mr. Cobbold remains a significant risk.
Background and Index Offences:
- The circumstances giving rise to the charges on the index offence is set out in the hospital report and summarized as follows:
“According to the Crown Brief Synopsis, since February 2023, Mr. Cobbold attended Ottawa police stations, specifically at 211 Huntmar Drive and 474 Elgin Street, numerous times. Each time, Mr. Cobbold spoke to police officers, claiming that he committed criminal offenses. All of these reports were unfounded. He was warned several times against giving false statements, but continued making these statements. The Ottawa police service (OPS) have believed that Mr. Cobbold's mental health issues were "the driving force behind these interactions."
On April 21, 2023, Mr. Cobbold attended the Ottawa police station at 211 Huntmar Drive and reported several criminal offenses, including that he had possibly killed someone while "taking a hit off a bong" but could not articulate any other details about the event. He also said he believed he had sexually assaulted another child when he was young, but again could not provide any other specific details. When the police at that no further investigation would be conducted, he became verbally aggressive, saying that he wanted to go to jail as he did not have anywhere else to live. Therefore the alleged offenses were believed to be falsified.
On June 17, 2023, Mr. Cobbold was verbally trespassed from the Ottawa police station at 211 15 of 26 Huntmar Drive. The following day at 8:40 PM, Mr. Cobbold again attended this location, and entered a prohibited area of the property. He again provided statements to police, which were found to be unfounded after investigation. He was arrested for trespassing, and charged with public mischief and breach of probation. A psychological assessment was requested.
On June 17, 2023, Mr. Cobbold was at the front desk of the police station, and wanted to report that he had committed thefts, which he wanted to report to the police. Two civilians in the station were becoming concerned about his behaviour. Mr. Cobbold was agitated while talking to OPS staff. The OPS staff feared for these in their safety, and alerted officer Desormeaux, who spoke with Mr. Cobbold. Mr. Cobbold was verbally aggressive and said the police were constantly following him. He also reported wanting to steal in order to get arrested. He was felt to be becoming a safety threat due to his aggressive behavior.
On June 18, 2023, Mr. Cobbold was near the staff entrance of the Ottawa clinic station at 211 Huntmar Drive, and walked toward a police officer with his arms in the air, stating that he needed to turn himself in. Mr. Cobbold reported having multiple criminal offenses to report, and that he needed to be arrested and brought to jail. He reported stealing many items from different stores including groceries, toys, etc., over the prior two years. He was not able to provide more specific details. When another officer mentioned that Mr. Cobbold had been trespassed the previous day for attempting to report similar offenses, Mr. Cobbold became verbally aggressive with the OPS staff, saying that he would commit further thefts in order to be arrested.
On June 18, 2023, Mr. Cobbold reported to police that he had been living on the streets around Kanata, as he was not welcome at either of his parents’ homes. He also reported that he had stayed at the shelters in downtown Ottawa, however he was scared to return as he believed that someone would kill him. He reported communicating with his mother through telepathy and being able to figure out certain things (examples and details not provided). During the conversation he was calm, and was not felt to be intoxicated on drugs or alcohol. Mr. Cobbold did not want to go to the hospital, saying that someone would kill him there as well”.
Current Diagnoses:
Schizophrenia, continuous,
Cannabis use disorder,
Alcohol use disorder.
Evidence at the Hearing
The Board admitted into evidence the Hospital Report dated March 11th, 2025 as Exhibit 1. That document provides a great deal of information concerning Mr. Cobbold’s personal history, mental health history as well as his course in hospital and in the community both prior to and subsequence to the index offence. As the Hospital Report was made an Exhibit, it is unnecessary to reproduce the entirety of the information contained therein in these Reasons. Briefly, Mr. Cobbold is 29 years of age and was admitted to the BMHC in July 2024. He continues to display positive symptoms of his illness despite an increased dosage of clozapine. Mr. Cobbold smokes tobacco, which impacts the therapeutic level of clozapine in his blood. His insight regarding substance use is poor. On March 26th, 2024 he consumed cannabis on hospital grounds and tested positive the next day, despite initially denying having used. He had previously attended one or two Narcotics Anonymous groups in February 2025 but has not resumed his attendance since the positive test result on March 27th, 2025.
Mr. Cobbold has completed an Introduction to Forensics program, attending five of the six sessions. He was described as pleasant, although not an active participant. The day prior to this hearing he began a six-month program intended to provide further insight, vis-à-vis substance use. He does not grasp the education benefits offered regarding substance use and his associated level of risk. He has previously refused to engage in groups stating he does not have a problem with substances.
Ms. Dufort inquired if Mr. Cobbold was using substances at the time of the index offence. Dr. Carefoot responded that the Hospital Report indicates he appeared intoxicated and was not taking prescribed antipsychotic medications. Dr. Carefoot opined that if granted an absolute discharge, Mr. Cobbold would use increasing quantities of cannabis and be unable to recognize symptoms of decompensation. Mr. Cobbold has a history of major mental illness and limited insight that would increase his level of risk if granted an absolute discharge. His risk is further elevated by his stated intention to resume the use of substances if granted an absolute discharge. There are also concerns about his living environment augmenting his risk. Mr. Cobbold advises that if released from hospital he would live in a shelter. Dr. Carefoot opined that a shelter environment would jeopardize the likelihood of ongoing medication compliance and elevate the likelihood of substance use. There is a history of threats towards family as detailed in the Risk Assessment Consideration section of the Hospital Report.
Crystal Zazulak, Mr. Cobbold’s mother attended the hearing. She is undergoing the necessary process to become an Approved Person. What is envisioned in the short term, is the discretionary exercise of day passes once Mr. Cobbold demonstrates he can appropriately utilize indirectly supervised hospital grounds privileges. A current concern regarding the granting of day passes is the violence previously exhibited towards his mother. Dr. Carefoot opined that her patient cannot yet tolerate weekend privileges. However, this could be viable towards the end of this reporting year.
Ms. Dufort inquired if Mr. Cobbold would take his medications assiduously and on his own. Dr. Carefoot responded that Mr. Cobbold thinks he would but does not appreciate that antipsychotics are prescribed to address his delusions. The Doctor added that historically her patient has not been compliant with prescribed medications while in the community. Of particular concern is that he is currently prescribed Clozapine which requires a high degree of monitoring. If Mr. Cobbold consumes larger quantities of cannabis it would be less likely that he would remain assiduous to Clozapine. If he lived in a shelter, which is a high risk environment, his likelihood of violent behaviour would increase within a few days to a week.
Ms. McMahon inquired how much long it will take for Mr. Cobbold to be titrated to a therapeutic level of Clozapine. Dr. Carefoot responded that he is “almost there”, that this should be achieved within the next month. The Doctor added that the dosage may have to be augmented further when Mr. Cobbold receives hospital grounds privileges and starts smoking again. Dr. Carefoot advised that the full effect of Clozapine can take six months to a year to be seen. Mr. Cobbold remains on injectable Abilify to assist in managing his symptoms in the event he elopes or his symptoms prove to be poorly managed.
Ms. McMahon inquired if Dr. Carefoot could continue to prescribe her client’s medications if he was released into the community subsequent to an absolute discharge. Dr. Carefoot responded that potentially she could, adding that if Mr. Cobbold missed daily doses of Clozapine, she would have to consider alternative medication.
In the event Mr. Cobbold were to live in an Ottawa shelter after receiving an absolute discharge, Dr. Carefoot would attempt to monitor him by approaching the ROMHC to assign an outpatient psychiatrist and would recommend that he be made subject to a Community Treatment Order (CTO). Dr. Carefoot estimated that it would take several months to obtain an outpatient psychiatrist and to arrange for monthly blood work. . Carefoot added that her patient would not remain medication compliant subsequent to receiving an absolute discharge at this stage of his recovery.
Ms. McMahon inquired if Dr. Carefoot could remain Mr. Cobbold’s responsible psychiatrist on a CTO until his care was transferred to an outpatient psychiatrist. Dr. Carefoot responded that this was theoretically possible. However, Mr. Cobbold is unlikely to attend appointments with her in Brockville if living in a shelter in Ottawa. Dr. Carefoot opined that even if theoretically Mr. Cobbold remained medication compliant in the community, subject to a CTO and living in an Ottawa shelter, he would remain a significant threat to public safety.
The Doctor’s concern is that if Mr. Cobbold starts to destabilize he will not want to remain in a shelter if he feels threatened. In support of that contention she referenced paragraph 23 of the Boards’ March 17, 2025 Reasons for Decision and Disposition which states:
Dr. Carefoot assessed Mr. Cobbold on December 10, 2024, and he continued to request that he remain on the ASU. His treatment was augmented under his SDM’s consent by adding a long-acting injection (“LAI”) of Abilify Maintena. His presentation improved and he no longer expressed any fear of harm by the co-patient and he denied thoughts of harming others[emphasis added].
Mr. Cobbold currently enjoys a relationship with his mother, father and brother. If he receives an absolute discharge he knows that he cannot live with any of them due to previous acts of violence. Dr. Carefoot conceded that Mr. Cobbold has not assaulted any staff or co-patients since his arrival to the Brockville hospital. Dr. Carefoot opined that in hospital, this patient’s risk of violence is low, but would increase to moderate, in the event he were to be absolutely discharged.
Asked to identify previous acts of violence, Dr. Carefoot referenced the following incidents:
Threw stop sign through mother’s front window
Property damage inside home
Set fire to mattress inside home
Brought garbage into home
Verbal aggression towards mother
Physical aggression towards father as reported by previous treating psychiatrist
Questioned by the panel as to concerns that Mr. Cobbold would use substances other than cannabis, Dr. Carefoot responded that he had told her “I like to party.” Dr. Carefoot opined that Mr. Cobbold should not be using any substances.
At this juncture, Mr. Cobbold indicated that he wished to leave the hearing. His absence was excused and a brief adjournment was taken enabling Ms. McMahon to receive instructions in order to proceed in his absence.
Dr. Carefoot indicated that in the event Mr. Cobbold were to receive an absolute discharge she has no current plans for outpatient treatment. This is because she strongly believes her patient needs to be in hospital. If he received an absolute discharge, she would have to consider if a Form 3 under the Mental Health Act should be completed due to her concerns. She added that Mr. Cobbold is not yet optimally medicated. He would first have to demonstrate that he could engage with the treatment team and attend groups. At that juncture, she might have greater confidence that he would follow-up with outpatient appointments.
Ongoing paranoia also contributes to Mr. Cobbold’s risk to public safety. This is a young man grappling with his symptoms of a psychiatric disorder. He also believes Dr. Carefoot, like his family, is implicated in the “Linux System”. Dr. Carefoot described her rapport with Mr. Cobbold as improving. He finds it difficult to discuss his mental health as well as his relationship with his family.
Mr. Cobbold’s has remained compliant with the necessary blood work associated with a Clozapine regimen within the secure parameters of a hospital setting. He has not experienced any major side effects and some improvement has been noted. Specifically, he can now tolerate a discussion of his symptoms whereas he previously could not.
According to Dr. Carefoot, Mr. Cobbold has expressed remorse, but not insight, vis-à-vis violence perpetrated against his family. He continues to state that his father controls the Linux System but this no longer causes ongoing anger towards his father.
Closing Observations
Dr. Carefoot relied on the evidence to support her initial position. Ms. Dufort indicated that she remains ad idem with the position of the hospital and agreed that on the evidence it would be appropriate that the duration of Mr. Cobbold’s day passes should be increased from one day to three days.
With regard to significant threat, Ms. Dufort noted that Mr. Cobbold has been swearing at staff and more agitated subsequent to consuming cannabis. She submitted that the controlled environment of a forensic psychiatric ward has enabled the management of Mr. Cobbold’s behaviour. The consumption of substances will negatively impact his ability to remain assiduous to his Clozapine regime in a high risk shelter environment.
Dr. Carefoot submitted that Mr. Cobbold’s risk should not be diverted by placing him on a Mental Health Act Form 3. If that occurred, Mr. Cobbold would likely stay at the BMHC until admission could be arranged at another facility, likely the Brockville General Hospital. Dr. Carefoot added that admission to a Schedule 1 facility, such as the Brockville General Hospital, would be insufficient to support the forensic needs of this patient.
If placed on a CTO, the functionality of that Order is dependent on Mr. Cobbold presenting for weekly blood work. Dr. Carefoot does not believe he would do so, which is indicative that his risk to public safety remains.
Ms. McMahon submitted that the test for significant threat to the safety of the public as set out in Winko v. British Columbia(Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625 must be foreseeable, criminal in nature and also present a substantial risk of harm that is more than speculative. She submitted that the evidence indicates her client will use substances and reside in a shelter if granted an absolute discharge. Further, that meeting the Mental Health Act criteria for involuntary admission premised on the risk of serious bodily harm to another person does not rise to the same magnitude of risk as defined in Winko vis-à-vis significant threat to the safety of the public.
Ms. McMahon also submitted that the index offence does not rise to a level of significant threat to the safety of the public. Further, the evidence is that while Mr. Cobbold has threatened his family members, he has never acted on those threats. As a result, the likelihood is high that Mr. Cobbold will engage in low to mid-level criminal conduct which was conceded by Dr. Carefoot. Ms. McMahon submitted that there was no evidence of any serious altercations although Mr. Cobbold was convicted of impaired driving in 2020. Therefore, if granted the requested absolute discharge he could be managed pursuant to a Community Treatment Order.
Responding to questions from the panel, Ms. McMahon stated that there was insufficient evidence as to why his brother, mother and father do not want Mr. Cobbold to live with them. She submitted that Mr. Cobbold’s relationship with his mother has improved and that he does appear to be remorseful for the incidents involving his family. Further, no criminal charges have been laid against Mr. Cobbold in relation to those incidents.
Ms. McMahon was asked if the rationale why his family members do not want Mr. Cobbold to live with them is indicative that they have been subjected to threats of psychological harm that meet the Winko test or threshold. She responded that to arrive at that finding would be speculative because there is no evidence why he is not welcome to live with his brother, mother or father. During this exchange, several member of the panel observed Mr. Cobbold’s mother nodding her head in apparent agreement that she herself has been subjected to threats of psychological harm by her son.
Analysis and Decision
(a) Significant Threat
Ongoing significant threat to the safety of the public cannot be speculative. It must entail a real risk of serious physical or psychological harm arising from conduct that is both serious and criminal in nature.
In determining whether Mr. Cobbold continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public the Board has carefully analyzed the evidence as it relates to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Winko.
Mr. Cobbold suffers from Schizophrenia; a major mental illness, complicated by both Cannabis Use Disorder and Alcohol Use Disorder.
The Board unanimously finds that Mr. Cobbold continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public. In arriving at this determination, the Board considered the position of the parties, unchanged throughout the hearing and ultimately accepted the uncontroverted expert evidence of Dr. Carefoot that Mr. Cobbold continues to pose a significant threat. The Board also relies on the Hospital Report and in particular the Risk Management Factors set out at page 46 and reproduced below for ease of reference.
Risk Management Factors:
Mr. Cobbold’s risk management factors are currently addressed by the support of the hospital. However, in the absence of this support it is likely that Mr. Cobbold will have difficulties in the areas of professional services and plans, living situation, personal support, treatment or supervision response as well as stress or coping. Mr. Cobbold does not currently have housing. He has expressed his plans to live in a homeless shelter should he be released from the detention order. He denies concerns from the treatment team that this would lead to increased exposure to substance use and deterioration of his mental health. Mr. Cobbold’s history of lack of compliance with community mental health treatment suggests that he would likely not follow-up with mental health providers without the detention order, his poor insight increases this risk.
- Contained within the Hospital Reports, starting at page 19, is a section entitled UPDATE TO THE ORB for the FIRST ANNUAL HEARING, scheduled for April 5, 2024, written by doctors Strike and Leinonen. Therein, at page 24 the aforementioned Update states:
His conduct while psychotic has caused psychological harm to his mother, brother and other family members.
This Panel of the Board finds that the risk of psychological harm identified by Drs. Strike and Leinonen in their above referenced Update remains as at the date of this hearing. Further, that Mr. Cobbold’s risk rises to the requisite level of magnitude as defined in Winko vis-à-vis significant threat to the safety of the public.
Ms. McMahon argues that the index offence does not rise to a level of significant threat to the safety of the public. The implication of this position being that Mr. Cobbold’s NCR finding is something that can or should be reviewed by this Panel of the Board. Jurisdiction/authority for this Board to look behind this determination does not exist in law.
Ms. McMahon also submits that if granted an Absolute Discharge there is a high likelihood that Mr. Cobbold would only engage in low to mid-level criminal conduct thereby falling below the threshold of significant threat to the safety of the public as set out in Winko. This panel does not accept that contention His identified level of risk does not correlate to the granting of an Absolute Discharge and the diverting his ongoing mental health needs and risk management to this province’s civil mental health system.
The Risk Assessment Considerations, set out at pages 30-32 of the Hospital Report, subsequently described at page 36 of that same document as largely unchanged from the date of Mr. Cobbold’s November 12, 2024 Restriction of Liberties hearing. An excerpt from page 31 merits reproduction as it speaks to the degree of risk Mr. Cobbold poses:
Mr. Cobbold has a history of antisocial behaviours. He has stolen from his mother and manipulated family members for finances. He has also threatened to burn down his mother’s home and caused property damage.
Given the foregoing, this panel rejects Ms. McMahon’s contention that the rationale why Mr. Cobbold’s family do not want him to live with them bears no relation to previous incidents of psychological harm he has inflicted upon them. Further, incidents involving setting fire to a mattress, which could very well ignite an entire residence, as well as threatening to burn down his mother’s house do, in this Panel’s view, rise to a serious level of harm that is criminal in nature. This panel also cannot accept Ms. McMahon’s submission that while Mr. Cobbold has threatened his family , but has yet to act on those threats, this somehow minimizes the severity of the verbal aggression and threats targeted towards them.
The Board therefore does accept, that absent an ORB Disposition, Mr. Cobbold would likely become non-compliant with prescribed medications which would lead to decompensation, use of substances and the re-emergence of behaviours similar to those seen at the time of the index offences. We are satisfied that absent an ORB Disposition, it is likely that Mr. Cobbold will cause serious physical or psychological harm to members of the public and such conduct will likely be criminal in nature.
(b) Disposition
Flowing from the Board’s finding that Mr. Cobbold continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public it must shape a Disposition for the year ahead. Its paramount consideration in doing so must be the safety of the public while also considering Mr. Cobbold’s needs pursuant to s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
The necessary and appropriate disposition for Mr. Cobbold provides him as much freedom as possible without subjecting the community to a real risk of dangerous behaviour.
In considering Mr. Cobbold needs, the Board was attentive to Mr. Cobbold’s current pharmacological regime which includes Invega Sustenna intramuscular, every four weeks together with Clozapine. Mr. Cobbold’s history in the community substantiates Dr. Carefoot’s perspective that it is highly unlikely he would remain treatment compliant, let alone adherent to a Clozapine regime which requires a high degree of monitoring if residing in a high risk environment such as a homeless shelter. Further, his cannabis use, currently curtailed in a highly structured forensic psychiatric hospital would certainly increase. Falling away from his psychotropic medication in combination with increased cannabis use will, as stated by Dr. Carefoot, increase his likelihood of violent behaviour within a few days to a week. There is also the risk that he would use additional substances in that environment.
Ms. McMahon did not proffer an alternative position in the event the requested Absolute Discharge was rejected. The panel has nevertheless considered a Conditional Discharge Disposition and deemed it inappropriate in the circumstances. Both the documentary and viva voce evidence point to the need for elevated levels of supervision only attainable under the auspices of a Detention Order.
The level of risk to public safety Mr. Cobbold currently represents necessitates that the Person in Charge retain authority to:
- exercise her/his discretion in the granting of privileges and
- promptly and proactively return Mr. Cobbold to the BMHC if a deterioration of his clinical condition or behaviour is detected.
Conclusion
Therefore, the Board unanimously determines that the necessary and appropriate Disposition required to manage the threat Mr. Cobbold poses to the safety of the public while still meeting his needs, is a Detention Disposition as recommended by the Hospital.
In making this Disposition, the Board carefully considered the positions and submissions of the parties and the evidence of Dr. Carefoot and is satisfied that this determination is both necessary and appropriate. The Board reviewed the provisions of s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code and carefully considered the need to protect the public from dangerous persons, Mr. Cobbold’s mental condition, his reintegration into society and other needs.
DATED this 27th day of May, 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. P. Capelle
Alternate Chairperson
__________________
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board