Ontario Review Board
Re: Christopher Cameron-Mott
ORB File No: 8477
Hearing held on: Thursday April 3, 2025
Place of hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. C. Finley
Members: Dr. S. Lessard
Dr. S. Wiseman
Mr. D. Sandor
Ms. N. Lemieux-McKinnon
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Christopher Cameron-Mott
Counsel: Ms. L. Konarowski
The Person in charge of Hospital: Representative: Dr. F. Wood
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. M. Dufort
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated: May 27, 2025)
Introduction:
On January 24, 2024, Christopher Cameron-Mott was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on five charges of Assault with a weapon or imitation weapon and one charge of Assault/choking, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. Mr. Mott is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated April 3, 2024, detaining him at the Secure Forensic Unit of the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre (hereinafter referred to as “the Hospital”) with privileges up to and including that of living in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge. That disposition also orders that Mr. Mott abstain absolutely from the non-medical use of alcohol, drugs or other intoxicants and provides that Mr. Mott shall submit samples for the purpose of monitoring compliance with the ordered abstentions.
On April 3, 2025, a panel of the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing at the Hospital to review that disposition pursuant to section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Mott was present for the hearing, represented by his lawyer Ms. Konarowski. Prior to the hearing’s commencement, Mr. Mott confirmed that he could be referred to as “Mr. Mott” and that his preferred pronouns at this time are as used to this point in these reasons.
The record for the hearing included the Notice of Hearing, the most recent Disposition mentioned above, and the Reasons for that Disposition. On the consent of all parties, a Hospital Report, dated March 28, 2025, was entered into evidence as an exhibit.
The parties were canvassed for initial positions. Dr. Wood, Mr. Mott’s treating psychiatrist spoke for the Hospital. He expressed the position that Mr. Mott continued to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public as that term is defined in section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and as it has been further explained by the Supreme Court of Canada in Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625. He also expressed the position that it was necessary and appropriate, having regard to the objectives set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code, for Mr. Mott to continue to be detained with privileges and terms mirroring those found in the detention disposition under review.
The representative of the Attorney General agreed with the Hospital on both the threshold issue and those associated with disposition, subject to questions, as did counsel for Mr. Mott. All parties maintained that joint submission at the end of the hearing.
For the following reasons, the Board accepts the joint submission and finds that Mr. Mott continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. It has further concluded that the necessary and appropriate disposition, having regard to the primary objective of assuring the safety of the public, together with the other objectives set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code, and applying the principle of minimal intrusion, is that of a continued detention order with privileges and terms identical to those found in the detention disposition under review.
Evidence at the hearing
The evidence at the hearing consisted of that found in the Hospital Report mentioned above and that offered viva voce by Dr. Wood.
Turning first to the Hospital Report, it is cumulative in nature and details Mr. Mott’s personal history, mental health history, history of involvement with the criminal justice system and history of substance use. It also provides a summary of the index offences that brought Mr. Mott under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board.
On the 30th of August 2023, in the City of Ottawa the Accused Christopher MOTT (1992-03-27) while subject to a probation order to keep the peace and be of good behavior and not to be in possession of any weapon as defined by the criminal code or any other object that can be used as a weapon was in breach of such condition.
At approximately 0910hrs the Accused observed victim Jennifer BLAIS standing in front of 240 Sparks St waiting to cross the street. The Accused walked behind the victim and used a u-shaped black metal backing taken off a chair and placed it around her neck to choke the victim. Once she was on the ground and the accused walked back to her and used the same object to strike her head though she was luckily protected by her hands. As the public came to intervene in the assault the accused fled toward Wellington Ave.
As the Accused walked along Wellington St, Victoria HERNANDEZ was walking to catch her bus, as they walked past each other the accused locked eyes with her and without provocation struck her on the head with the metal object. The resulting strike caused a contusion to her head requiring medical transport along with the first victim.
The Accused continued along Wellington St to his third victim, Jimmy TANG, who was seated and on his cellphone. The Accused approached TANG, struck him multiple times and then took his cellphone. The Accused fled the area as TANG gave chase to recover his phone. Rather than hand it over, the Accused tossed the cellphone in the Ottawa River as he approached the Portage Bridge.
As the Accused, MOTT continued to flee the area, Moise NZAGAHIMANA was walking from Gatineau to Ottawa on the Portage Bridge. As MOTT passed him, MOTT struck NZAGAHIMANA with the metal object multiple times. While being struck NZAGAHIMANA was able to wrestle the object out of his hand. At the same moment Police were arriving. The Accused attempted to flee the area while given lawful commands to stop. The deployment of CEW by officers was unsuccessful which led to a foot pursuit eventually culminating in the arrest of MOTT while he tried to fight off Officers. Upon being taken into custody MOTT was transported to Ottawa Police cellblock for processing and held for show cause hearing.
Mr. Mott is now 33 years old and is identified in the Hospital Report as being non-binary. At the time of the authority of the Hospital Report his preferred pronouns were they/them, though as noted, Mr. Mott indicated at the outset of the hearing that he preferred usage of “he/him” at this time. Mr. Mott is Canadian of Inuit and Scottish heritage and comes from a family of four siblings. The Hospital Report describes a history of family difficulties that included struggles with alcohol and substance abuse by Mr. Mott’s father, the breakdown of the spousal relationship shared by Mr. Mott’s parents, strains regarding parenting time exercised by his father and an incident of concerning touching of Mr. Mott (characterized later as a sexual assault) by his mother. Mr. Mott moved back and forth between his father’s and mother’s homes from age five to about age fifteen. Though Mr. Mott has described his childhood as being “pretty good,” the Hospital Report details significant struggles associated with the breakdown of his parents’ relationship. Mr. Mott has described the men in his mother’s subsequent relationships with men as “strange” and has described those men as “awful.” He has described his father as being “pretty great” and someone that did his best to raise him in spite of the father’s alcohol and substance use issues.
According to the Hospital Report, Mr. Mott did well in school until the sexual assault he experienced following which he apparently developed symptoms of Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. His marks dropped, he stopped caring about his education and became, in his words, “that cool guy smoking marijuana.” Mr. Mott’s history of substance use has also included the use of methamphetamines and cocaine. The Hospital Report notes however that Mr. Mott’s chronic psychotic symptoms have persisted despite confirmed periods of abstinence from illicit substances and ongoing compliance with his antipsychotic medications.
The Hospital Report summarizes Mr. Mott’s psychiatric history beginning at page 11. It explains that in 2015, Mr. Mott reported to the Akausivik Family Health team that he was experiencing depression for which he received supportive counselling. In 2017 he was seen in an emergency room setting with several psychotic symptoms including auditory hallucinations, and grandiose and referential delusions. He was ultimately given a diagnosis of Psychosis Unspecified. He was discharged to the Salvation Army with follow up from the Mobile Crisis Team and was provided with a prescription of Risperidone. He continued to experience auditory hallucinations and grandiose, religious, and persecutory delusions through 2017 resulting in an increase of injectable antipsychotic medication.
Mr. Mott continued to struggle with the primary symptoms of his psychosis in spite of being compliant with recommended treatment through 2018 and 2019. He had multiple admissions to Montfort Hospital through to May 2022. He is now diagnosed with
Schizophrenia, multiple episodes, with ongoing mild residual symptoms
Possible Schizoaffective Disorder (bipolar type)
Amphetamine-type use disorder, currently in early remission
Cocaine use disorder, currently in early remission
Cannabis use disorder, currently in sustained remission
The Hospital Report’s clinical update for the purpose of this hearing begins at page 29. It confirms that Mr. Mott has been medication compliant since the last Board hearing and refrained from substance use while in the Hospital but that he relapsed on his transition to community accommodations at Wymering Manor, a residential services group home located in Ottawa, Ontario. His relapse affected his level of attendance at concurrent disorders group meetings in July 2024. He actively attended the Hospital’s Concurrent Disorder Unit’s inpatient intensive addiction and concurrent disorder program (a five-week program offered at the Hospital) in November and December 2024. Then, on January 16, 2025, he was voluntarily admitted to the Assessment and Stabilization Unit. From there he was transferred to the Concurrent Disorder Unit at the Hospital from January 21, 2025, to February 25, 2025. The Hospital Report says that his engagement with programming in that unit was minimal but that supportive measures were provided with regard to his cocaine and cannabis use disorders. Mr. Mott did not use substances while in that program. He has continued to express an openness to support and presents as cooperative.
Mr. Mott continues to struggle with substance use but also continues to be open and transparent with the treatment team on that issue. His chronic psychotic symptoms have persisted over both periods of abstinence from illicit substances and in spite of ongoing compliance to his antipsychotic medications. He has continued to display obsessive behaviours and manic features and continued to receive adjustments to his medications through to March 2025.
The Hospital Report includes a Violence Risk Assessment at page 33 that concludes that Mr. Mott presents a moderate risk for future violence. It confirms the same historic risk factors as had been cited in last year’s Violence Risk Assessment and described several dynamic risk factors applicable to Mr. Mott. The first is his major mental illness, schizophrenia. The indication is that though Mr. Mott has insight into his major mental illness and is treatment compliant, he continues to experience residual psychotic that have increased in intensity on occasion. He continues to struggle with substance use. Strengths include his transparency with the treatment team, his expressed desire for follow up and medications and his openness to the recommendations the treatment team offers. Mr. Mott has not experienced violent thoughts or attitudes over the course of this review period. Mr. Mott has expressed goals of being transitioned to the Grove or Lebreton residence to pursue eventual independent living, but his referral to either of these transitional homes has been placed on hold to allow for a period of abstinence from drugs to make his application suitable.
Dr. Wood provided a valuable update over the course of the hearing. He testified that Mr. Mott is reliable in keeping appointments, engages well with the treatment team and has successfully abstained from substances since his discharge from his most recent round of programming completed on February 25, 2025. He explained that the current focus is medication adjustment. Mr. Mott is currently on several medications that will be adjusted in the hopes of optimizing treatment and decreasing reliance on some of the medications he is currently receiving. Dr. Wood said that the medication adjustment is important in the context of a detention disposition as Mr. Mott continues to hear voices and to experience other primary symptoms consistent with a treatment resistant form of schizophrenia. He explained that concerns over manic behaviours noted with Mr. Mott over the course of the weeks that preceded this hearing will hopefully be resolved with the contemplated adjustments to his medications. He also confirmed that Mr. Mott had undergone a neuropsychological assessment relative to an ADHD diagnosis and that the results of that assessment were pending. He explained that Mr. Mott’s Inuit heritage was something the Hospital was sensitive to and confirmed that the Hospital continued to communicate this sensitivity to Mr. Mott, but that, at this point, no specific culturally informed services were contemplated. He clarified that though Mr. Mott did not exhibit any primary symptoms of his psychosis when using substances, he did express “feelings” for his own safety over the withdrawal period. At no time however did Mr. Mott ever display any form of aggressivity in the community.
Submissions
- As stated, at the end of the hearing, the Board was met with a joint submission that Mr. Mott continued to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that a continued detention disposition was both necessary and appropriate having regard to the several objectives set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code, the primary of which is the assurance of the safety of the public. In making this submission, all commented on Mr. Mott’s progress and several strengths, with the Hospital expressing its hope that next year it would be in a position to recommend less onerous conditions.
Analysis and conclusion
As stated, the Board agrees with the joint submission on the threshold issues of significant threat. This threshold has been described as “weighty,” “onerous” and “high.” At no point is there ever a burden on an individual to prove that a significant threat to the safety of the public has not been met. The importance of this threshold issue, as discussed in Winko, is such that even when assisted by joint submissions offered by counsel of the caliber seen in this hearing, the Board nonetheless turns its attention independently to whether the evidence satisfies the burden of “significance.” The independence of the threshold determination arises from the fact that the individual under the Board’s jurisdiction has not been convicted of the criminal act that informs the index offence. The independent finding by a Board, even in the context of a joint submission on the issue of significant threat, represents an essential safeguard that distinguishes the moral culpability of the mentally ill accused from the individual whose act and intent to commit a criminal act has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It represents the starting point in a consideration that does not turn its attentions to factors like those found in section 718 of the Criminal Code but is singularly focused on the definitions found in section 672.5401 and the objectives set out in 672.54. The Board is constantly attentive to the threshold of “significant threat” both in terms of likelihood of occurrence and likelihood of harm flowing from serious criminal conduct stemming from the absence of a disposition.
In Mr. Mott’s circumstances, he suffers from a major mental illness that is treatment resistant. Even in context of compliance with treatment, he continues to experience residual symptoms. He has significant struggles with substances that have aggravated the intensity of those symptoms historically. Both his major mental illness and use of substances were factors in the commission of index offences that were serious in nature and that injured people that were strangers to him in public settings. While Mr. Mott’s insight is improving, his ability to abstain from substances has fluctuated over the course of this past review period. Though Mr. Mott does appear to be on a positive trajectory, at this stage his risk for violence has been assessed as “moderate” in the context of a detention disposition. The analytical data and methodology of the Violence Risk Assessment were not challenged over the course of the hearing and the analytical data it relied upon was consistent with the evidence received by the Board, both in the Hospital Report itself and in Dr. Wood’s evidence given viva voce. For these reasons, the Board is satisfied that Mr. Mott represents a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and as described by the Supreme Court of Canada in Winko.
Turning next to the question of disposition, the Board carefully reconsidered the reigning detention disposition, the range of its privileges and its terms in light of the evidence received over the course of the hearing. An Ontario Review Board disposition must satisfy all of the objectives of section 672.54 of the Criminal Code, the primary of which is the assurance of the safety of the public. The disposition must carefully balance that primary objective with the other objectives of ensuring that Mr. Mott’s mental health and other needs, including the ultimate objective of reintegration into the community are met. The disposition must be minimally intrusive on Mr. Mott’s liberty while simultaneously ensuring the safety of the public.
It is our conclusion that a detention disposition continues to be necessary to attend to all of the s. 672.54 objectives. Though it is clear that Mr. Mott has strengthened his therapeutic alliance with the treatment team over the course of this review period, it cannot be said that the provisions of the Mental Health Act would suffice to ensure his return to the Hospital when asked in circumstances of decompensation. Mr. Mott has had a history of struggles with his major mental illness. The symptoms of that major mental illness have persisted in spite of compliance with treatment recommendations and periods of abstinence from the use of substances. When Mr. Mott has used substances, those symptoms have intensified, and Mr. Mott is only in the early stages of another period of sustained abstinence from the use of drugs that have historically included stimulants like cocaine. The safety of the public requires that the Hospital be empowered to respond quickly to evidence of substance use, decompensation, and intensification of symptoms exhibited by Mr. Mott. This is particularly the case given the dangerous and random circumstances of the index offences.
Considering Mr. Mott’s mental health and other needs, including the ultimate objective of reintegration into the community, a detention disposition is also not just preferred, but is necessary and appropriate. Mr. Mott’s medications are in the process of adjustment and have yet to be optimized. It remains to be seen whether the symptoms of his primary psychosis will prove residual in spite of medication optimization. This process requires close monitoring by the Hospital and, in the context of long struggles with substance use when residing in the community, also require high levels of support from the treatment team. Mr. Mott’s ability to abstain from the use of substances, and to be transparent and cooperative with the treatment team in the case of any use are key factors in his progress towards reintegration into the community. Mr. Mott will require the high levels of support offered by a detention disposition if he is to continue his progress towards transitional housing and from there to the independent living he seeks to achieve.
For these reasons, the Board has concluded that Mr. Mott continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public, and that a detention order is the only disposition that satisfies all of the objectives of s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code. An order will issue accordingly.
The Board thanks all of those who assisted with this hearing and commends Mr. Mott on his progress. It offers him all encouragement in his current trajectory and joins the Hospital in its hope that the next review period will result in less intrusive recommendations at the next annual review.
DATED this 27th day of May 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
D. Sandor
Legal Member
____________________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board