Ontario Review Board
Re: Paul Chester George
ORB File No: 7721
Hearing held on: Tuesday, May 13, 2025
Place of hearing: Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences 700 Gordon Street, Whitby
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before: Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Goldenberg Members: Dr. K. Hand Dr. G. Stones Hon. E.R. Kruzick Mr. R. Rainboth
Parties Appearing: Accused: Paul C. George Counsel: Ms. J. Boissonneault
The person in charge of Hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Szabo
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. N. MacDonald
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated May 27, 2025)
On April 20, 2020, Paul George Jr. was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of endangering life by administering noxious substances, arson, utter threat by text message and breach of recognizance (x2).
Mr. George is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board by which he was ordered to be discharged subject to a number of conditions.
On Tuesday, May 13, 2025, the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing at Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (“Ontario Shores”) and conducted the annual review of Mr. George’s Disposition.
Position of the Parties
At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as to their recommendations to the Board.
Ms. Szabo appeared for Ontario Shores. She advised of the Hospital position that Mr. George no longer represents a significant threat to public safety, and that accordingly, he is entitled to receive an Absolute Discharge.
Ms. MacDonald appeared for the Attorney General. Ms. MacDonald wished to hear the evidence before setting out the position of the Crown.
Ms. Boissonneault appeared for Mr. George. She also submits that Mr. George is entitled to receive an Absolute Discharge.
Index Offence
- We note that the events of the index offence took place in April 2019. It did involve Mr. George spraying noxious substances in his father’s home, uttering a threat to his father and charges of arson relating to fires set to two motor vehicles. We also acknowledge that there were charges of breach of recognizance.
Evidence at Hearing
- The Board admitted into evidence the Hospital Report dated April 4, 2024. The Hospital Report provides a great deal of information concerning Mr. George, his personal history, his mental health history, details of the index offences and Mr. George’s course in hospital and in the community subsequent to the date of the index offences. As the Hospital Report was made an exhibit in this hearing it is not necessary to reproduce the information contained in the Hospital Report in these Reasons. We do note, however, the stated diagnoses of:
Schizoaffective, Bipolar Type
Cannabis Use Disorder, Severe, in early remission
Cocaine Use Disorder, mild
- The Board also submitted into evidence a Clinical Note from February 2025. We note the following from the Clinical Note:
“Notwithstanding his ongoing use of cocaine, patient is doing extremely well. He would best be described as a very high functioning individual. Further, his ongoing use of cocaine seems to be entirely separate from issues of risk of safety to the public.
For these reasons, we are compelled that his risk no longer meets the threshold of significance.”
In addition to the documentary evidence, the Board heard from Dr. Pallandi. Dr. Pallandi has been following Mr. George for a lengthy period of time. He was asked about updates. Dr. Pallandi noted first that his patient continues to be “entirely clinically stable”. Of greater importance Dr. Pallandi advised that Mr. George told him that Mr. George made a decision to stop using cocaine and further, that he has not used cocaine since the time of that decision, March 26 of this year.
Dr. Pallandi noted that Mr. George has already obtained a community clinic that will assist him should he receive an Absolute Discharge. Dr. Pallandi noted that Mr. George has stable housing. In fact, Mr. George on his own, arranged to move from one apartment to another apartment during this last clinical year. Mr. George is self-employed. Dr. Pallandi stated that Mr. George does “very well vocationally”.
In response to a question from Hospital counsel, Dr. Pallandi stated that he has no reason to doubt Mr. George’s self-report. Dr. Pallandi noted that Mr. George stated he feels better now that he is no longer using cocaine and he also sleeps much better. Dr. Pallandi understands Mr. George is self-employed, has his own corporation and is engaged in intellectual property work.
Mr. George advised Dr. Pallandi of his wish to perhaps move to a more economical city. Mr. George considered and ultimately rejected moving to Montreal. Currently, Mr. George is thinking about potentially moving to Welland, Ontario. Dr. Pallandi advised that Mr. George does his work from his residence and wherever he was living, he would be able to continue with his employment. Dr. Pallandi described Mr. George as very intelligent and very thoughtful. Dr. Pallandi accepts that Mr. George is motivated to continue with his medication.
Dr. Pallandi emphasized that the clinical team had reached the decision to recommend an Absolute Discharge even before learning of Mr. George’s decision to stop using cocaine. Dr. Pallandi opined that there is simply no evidence that Mr. George’s use of cocaine has ever led to any assaultive conduct. Dr. Pallandi stated the clinical teams’ opinion that Mr. George’s use of cocaine did not create any risk of assaultive conduct.
In response to questions from Crown counsel, Dr. Pallandi acknowledged that if Mr. George were to receive an Absolute Discharge, the Forensic Outpatient Service at Ontario Shores would no longer be available to assist him. Dr. Pallandi also noted that there are agencies such as CMHA that could provide any necessary support.
The doctor noted that Mr. George gets his injection monthly from his family doctor. Dr. Pallandi stated his opinion that Mr. George would continue to be medication compliant.
The doctor confirmed that the decision to recommend an Absolute Discharge is a unanimous one. All members of the clinical team are in agreement. As well, the Hospital supports the recommendation for an Absolute Discharge.
In response to questions from Ms. Boissonneault, Dr. Pallandi agreed that there has been no violent or assaultive conduct since the days of the index offence. The doctor agreed that Mr. George is fully compliant with respect to his medication. Again, in response to questions from Ms. Boissonneault, Dr. Pallandi agreed that Mr. George's use of cocaine had no apparent effect on Mr. George’s mental state.
In response to questions from a panel member, Dr. Pallandi acknowledged that Mr. George is continuing with his use of cannabis. Mr. George apparently has from time-to-time used methamphetamines. Once again, the use of these other substances did not result or contribute to any assaultive conduct by Mr. George.
No other evidence was heard at this hearing.
Final Submissions:
Before Ms. Szabo commenced her submissions, she wished to hear the position that Ms. MacDonald would be taking in this hearing. Ms. MacDonald had no hesitation saying that having heard the evidence, the Attorney General accepts that Mr. George is entitled to receive an Absolute Discharge.
Ms. Szabo then noted that the parties were making a joint recommendation. Ms. Szabo simply emphasized that this recommendation is a unanimous recommendation both from the clinical team and from the Hospital.
Ms. MacDonald agreed and adopted Ms. Szabo’s submissions.
Ms. Boissonneault also urged the panel to accept the doctor’s opinion. Ms. Boissonneault was kind enough to refer to three authorities. Ms. Boissonneault referred to paragraph 69 in Winko v British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625. In addition, Ms. Boissonneault referred the panel to the Decision in Re Gibson, 2022 ONCA 527, and a further decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Re Sokal, 2018 ONCA 113.
Findings of the Board:
The Board is grateful to Ms. Boissonneault for referring the panel to the above authorities.
The panel also relies upon paragraph 61 in the Winko Decision and believe it is the most appropriate authority to assist the panel:
“It follows that the inquiries conducted by the court or Review Board are necessarily broad. They will closely examine a range of evidence, including but not limited to the circumstances of the original offence, the past and expected course of the NCR accused’s treatment if any, the present state of the NCR accused’s medical condition, the NCR accused’s own plans for the future, the support services existing for the NCR accused in the community and, perhaps most importantly, the recommendations provided by experts who have examined the NCR accused.”
The Board is impressed by the steps that have been taken by Mr. George to have the appropriate support and assistance in the community. We accept that he would have the ability to find appropriate community support if he makes a decision, for example, to move to Welland. We accept the description that Mr. George is “a high functioning” individual.
As noted in the above paragraph, perhaps the most important evidence is “the recommendation provided by experts who have examined the NCR accused”. We accept without reservation the evidence of Dr. Pallandi. We accept the evidence that the recommendation for an Absolute Discharge has the support not only of the clinical team but, as well, from the Hospital. We do note the parties’ joint recommendation but quite apart from the joint recommendation we are satisfied on the evidence that we have heard and accept that Mr. George no longer represents a significant threat to public safety and accordingly, Mr. George is entitled to receive an Absolute Discharge.
In reaching our Disposition, the Board has taken into consideration public safety, Mr. George’s mental condition and his other needs, and Mr. George’s reintegration into society.
DATED this 27^th^ 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