Ontario Review Board
Re: Douglas M. Witol
ORB File No: 8393
Hearing held on: Monday, April 14, 2025
Place of hearing: Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre,
Pursuant to: Sections 672.48(1) and 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before: Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Goldenberg Members: Dr. H. Bloom Dr. J.C. Rose Mr. P. Capelle Mr. A. Bouvier
Parties Appearing: Accused: Douglas Witol Counsel: Mr. J. Blanco
The Person in charge of Hospital: Representative: Ms. M. Davidson
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. T. Jukes
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated May 27, 2025)
Introduction
On September 25, 2023, Douglas Witol was found unfit to stand trial (unfit) on charges of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, attempt murder, and fail to comply with a release order, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (the Criminal Code). Mr. Witol is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated May 2, 2024, discharging him subject to conditions.
On April 14, 2025, a panel of the Ontario Review Board (the ORB or the Board) convened a hearing at the Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre (TBRHSC) pursuant to s. 672.48(1) and 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. The annual review for Mr. Witol was held in person. The hospital was represented by Ms. Davidson, the Attorney General by Mr. Jukes, and Mr. Witol by Mr. Blanco.
Preliminary Issues
Dr Bloom, who previously completed a private assessment regarding Mr. Witol’s fitness dated January 25, 2023, indicated he does not believe there is any conflict with his participation in today’s Panel of the Board. The Parties were also canvassed in the days prior to this hearing as to whether they had any objections to Dr. Bloom’s participation. No concerns were raised.
Without Prejudice Position of the Parties
Ms. Davidson, the hospital representative stated the Hospital position, specifically that Mr. Witol remains unfit and is a significant threat to public safety. Therefore, the continuation of a conditional discharge disposition with no changes is recommended. This recommendation was joined by Mr. Jukes on behalf of the Attorney General, as well as Mr. Blanco on behalf of Mr. Witol. The hearing therefore proceeded by way of a joint position.
Background and Index Offences
The allegations giving rise to the offences are set out in the Hospital Report as follows:
“On the 9th of September, at approximately 2:12 p.m., officers were dispatched to Laukka Lane.
The complainant advised he witnessed his neighbour hit another male on a bike with his truck approximately four or five times. He further advised that the male was injured and laying on the road. Ambulance was dispatched and officers were attending the scene.
At 2:34 p.m., officers arrived on scene and observed Olavi SAARINEN laying down face up in front of Lot #23 Laukka Lane, the residence of Douglas WITOL. Officers observed tire marks in the driveway of 23 Laukka Lane and more tire impressions that stopped abruptly near the body of Saarinen. It was noted that Saarinen was face up and was bleeding from his ears. He was unresponsive and his eyes were open. He was breathing though. Saarinen's shoes were no longer on his body and they were a couple of feet away from him.
Officers spoke to the witness on scene, Arnold ROMPPAI. Romppai advised he had heard the male, who was identified as Olavi Saarinen, standing on his bicycle in front of the driveway in front of Lot 23 Laukka Lane. That driveway leads to the residence of Douglas Witol. Arnold Romppai heard Witol asked Saarinen what he wanted. Saarinen asked Witol if he would help check on Arnold. At which point, he observed Witol get into his 1999 green Ford pick-up truck, bearing Ontario Marker AS79986. Witol then sat in his vehicle revving up the engine while looking at Saarinen. Witol then creeped forward toward Saarinen while in his motor vehicle.
Witol then revved his engine while stopped about 15 feet away from Saarinen. Witol then put the motor vehicle in gear moving aggressively forward striking the front tire of Saarinen's bike knocking him part way off his bike while he was on Laukka Lane. Saarinen tried to get off the bike and Witol rammed Saarinen again knocking him to the ground on his bum. Saarinen attempted to get up and Witol rammed him again with his motor vehicle causing Saarinen to go over backwards. Witol reversed his motor vehicle on Laukka Lane to the opposite of his driveway. Saarinen got up and attempted to walked away from Witol while pushing his bicycle south on Laukka Lane. Witol then spun his tires and aggressively launched his motor vehicle toward Saarinen striking him in the back causing him to fly through the air along with is bicycle. Saarinen landed on the ground on the edge of Laukka Lane roadway and his bicycle landed on top of him.
Witol reversed his motor vehicle and drove away down Laukka Lane toward Auto road. About five minutes later Witol returned and drove into his driveway went into the garage for a short time then came back onto Laukka Lane. Witol parked at a 45 degree angle in front of Saarinen blocking the view of Arnold. Witol bent down in front of his motor vehicle then quickly left driving toward Auto Road leaving Saarinen injured on Laukka Lane roadway. Arnold walked down to check on Saarinen and observed that the bicycle was no longer on top of Saarinen. Arnold believed that Witol put the bicycle in the back of his motor vehicle or moved it somewhere else.
Arnold observed both of Saarinen's shoes off his feet, blood coming from his ears and his head was wrenched backwards. Arnold checked for a pulse and moved Saarinen's head to clear his airway. Arnold called 911 and informed them of the incident.
Saarinen was transported to the Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre by EMS for injuries he was believed to have sustained to his head. While officers were processing and holding the scene, Witol was observed driving back towards his residence. He was stopped by Cst. SILVER and asked to exit the vehicle.
At 4:14 p.m., Witol was advised by Cst. Silver that he was currently under arrest for Dangerous drive cause bodily harm, contrary to Section 320.13(2). Witol was read his rights to counsel to which he advised yes, he understood, and yes, he wished to speak to a lawyer.
At 3:18 p.m., Witol was read a caution to which he answered yes, he understood, and that he was scared.
At 3:37 p.m., Cst. Silver transported Witol back to the Thunder Bay Detachment for lodging.
At 4:02 p.m., Cst. Silver and Witol arrived at detachment and began the lodging process.
At 4:29 p.m., Witol spoke to Duty Counsel Lawyer, BEDERKA.
At 7:54 p.m., Witol was advised by D/Sgt Peckford that he was currently under arrest for Attempt to Commit Murder, contrary to Section 239(1)(b). Witol was read his rights to counsel to which he did not respond covering his head.
At 7:55 p.m., Witol was read a caution to which he did not respond. Witol was further caution that if Olavi SAARINEN passes away he will be charged with Murder. At this time, Witol will be held at the Thunder Bay Detachment for bail court in the morning.”
Current Diagnosis(es)
- Major Neurocognitive Disorder &
- Vascular Receptive and Expressive Aphasia.
Evidence at hearing
The Board admitted into evidence the Hospital Report dated April 1, 2025, as Exhibit 1. That document provides a great deal of information concerning Mr. Witol’s personal history, mental health history as well as his course in hospital and in the community both prior to and subsequent to the index offences. As the Hospital Report was made an Exhibit, it’s unnecessary to reproduce the information contained therein in these Reasons.
Dr. Sheppard, Mr. Witol’s attending psychiatrist, gave evidence on behalf of the hospital. There were no updates since the writing of the Hospital Report. Mr. Witol suffers from a neurocognitive disorder attributable to a stroke he suffered in 2013. There are no expectations that his current deficits will improve. Because of both receptive and expressive aphasia (he has difficulty expressing himself intelligibly as well as processing information communicated to him by others), Mr. Witol now has difficulty communicating what he is thinking. This is the main reason why he was found unfit. His ongoing communicative deficits would make it impossible for him to be a meaningful participant in a trial.
There is no indication that anything other than a conditional discharge is necessary or appropriate at this time. Mr. Witol is not treated with any type of psychotropic medications. He lives relatively independently and receives assistance with grocery shopping, banking, and other necessities from his sister. There have been no incidents in the past year and he has been compliant with his disposition.
Mr. Witol continues to drink alcohol, although this does not appear to impact his cognition. He does not drive and has had no contact with the victim of the index offences. His case manager visits him monthly to monitor his mental state and to look for signs of deterioration.
The hospital’s evidence is that it is highly doubtful that Mr. Witol could be assisted in augmenting his communication through non-verbal means. This possibility was explored; however, Mr. Witol does not want to participate in remediate learning to enhance his fitness; he would simply prefer to be left alone.
Even if found permanently unfit, the issue of risk to public safety remains, although difficult to quantify. Mr. Witol has no criminal record and no documented history of violence. However, there are reports of poor anger control and thirdhand reports of possibly concerning behaviour in the context of previous relationships with women. Further, the effects of brain injury and alcohol consumption are potential disinhibitors. Additionally, there are the allegations surrounding the commission of the index offences, which were very serious and potentially life threatening.
Mr. Witol lives in an apartment building where his neighbours are suspected of engaging in the use and sale of substances. He seems unperturbed by this.
Responding to questions from Mr. Jukes, Dr. Sheppard noted that the (Brain Injury Services of Northern Ontario (BISNO) would be a good resource for this patient, although historically, he has been reluctant to engage with this organization.
Cathy Couch, Mr. Witol’s sister, briefly gave evidence. She stated it was helpful to have the forensic team assist in moving her brother to his current apartment. Regrettably, she does not see a likelihood of him getting any better. She added that her brother is afraid that BISNO will force him to do things. Asked what additional resources the forensic program could provide; she stated that it would be helpful if staff could drive him to the grocery store.
Closing Observations
Ms. Davidson chose to rely on the hospital position as stated and the evidence presented. Mr. Jukes observed that Mr. Witol has been living event free since living on his own. Based on the hospital’s position, he accepts that Mr. Witol remains a significant threat to public safety. Mr. Jukes noted that a prima facie hearing is scheduled for September of 2025. Mr. Blanco submitted that while there are no ongoing concerns, there are residual ones vis-à-vis public safety such that maintaining a conditional discharge makes sense in the circumstances.
Analysis and Decision
In considering Mr. Witol needs, the Board notes that his fitness to stand trial was last assessed, on April 1, 2025. Regrettably, as a result of his major neurocognitive disorder, his ability to communicate is largely unchanged and remains severely impaired. Mr. Witol is unable to identity the key players in a court proceeding or their respective roles. He is unable to explain the difference between guilty and not guilty pleas or recognize the importance of telling the truth while giving evidence in court. Thus, Mr. Witol cannot grasp the consequences of a Court proceeding, advocate on his own behalf, or work effectively with his lawyer.
Flowing from the evidence contained in the hospital report together with Dr. Sheppard’s uncontroverted expert testimony, buttressed by the joint position of parties, the Board finds that Mr. Witol continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public. This determination relies upon the:
- circumstances surrounding the index offences,
- residual effects of a stroke suffered in 2023,
- possible disinhibitive effects of a major neurocognitive disorder,
- possible disinhibitive effects of alcohol consumption,
- reports of poor anger control by history.
Having made this determination, this panel of the Board’s paramount consideration in shaping a disposition for the upcoming year must be the safety of the public while also considering Mr. Witol’s needs pursuant to s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
The necessary and appropriate disposition for Mr. Witol must provide him as much freedom as possible, without subjecting the community to a real risk of dangerous behaviour.
Finally, this Panel strongly recommends that in advance of Mr. Witol’s next annual hearing that Dr. Bloom’s private assessment, dated 2023.01.25, be included within the Hearing Documents/Exhibits distributed to the Parties and the Panel in the weeks preceding the scheduled hearing date. This recommendation is put forward as Dr. Bloom’s private assessment included information obtained from a speech language pathology assessment that specifically addresses this patient’s receptive and expressive communication challenges.
Conclusion
Therefore, the Board unanimously determines that the necessary and appropriate Disposition required to manage the threat Mr. Witol poses to the safety of the public while still meeting his needs remains a Conditional Discharge Disposition, absent any changes.
In making this Disposition, the Board carefully considered the joint positions and submissions of the parties and the evidence of Dr. Sheppard 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. Witol’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.
P. Capelle Alternate Chairperson
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board