Re: Craig Tucker
ORB File No: 6427
Hearing held on: Friday, March 28, 2025
Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health 1001 Queen Street West, Toronto
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. M. Labrosse Members: Dr. P. Prendergast Dr. L.O. Lightfoot Ms. L. Banks Mr. A. Bouvier
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Craig Tucker Counsel: Ms. C. Currie
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Dr. S. Chatterjee
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. C. Waite
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated May 27, 2025)
Introduction
[1]. On November 6, 2013, Craig Tucker was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on charges of assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm, both contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada.
[2]. Mr. Tucker is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated February 16, 2024, which detains him at the Forensic Service of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, with privileges up to and including, to live in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
[3]. On March 28, 2025, the Ontario Review Board (“ORB”) convened a hearing at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, hereinafter referred to as “CAMH” and/or the hospital, to review Mr. Tucker's Disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Tucker was present for his hearing, represented by counsel, Ms. Catherine E. Currie. A Hospital Report dated February 25, 2025, was entered as Exhibit 1 for the hearing. A Victim Impact Statement submitted by Mr. Tucker’s mother, the victim of the index offences, was also submitted for the hearing.
[4]. The issues for this hearing are whether Mr. Tucker continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public, and if so, to determine the necessary and appropriate Disposition having regard to the factors enunciated in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
[5]. For the reasons set out below, the Board finds that Mr. Tucker continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the maintenance of the current detention order, on the same terms and conditions, remains necessary and appropriate at this time.
Index Offence
[6]. The index offence is summarized in last year's Reasons for Disposition as follows:
“According to the Toronto Police Service Supplementary Record of Arrest dated December 15, 2012:
The accused is a 34-year-old male who resides at 7 Woody Vineway in the City of Toronto. The complainant is the 60-year-old mother of the accused who also resides at 75 Woody Vineway. The accused has a history of mental health issues.
On Saturday December 15, 2012, at approximately 2:40 pm, the complainant was in her laundry room area washing clothes when she was approached by the accused. The accused started yelling at the victim telling her to get the f… out of the house. The victim was fearful of her son and picked up a caulking gun to prevent being assaulted.
The accused approached the complainant and took the caulking gun from her and proceeded to strike the victim about the head with it and then punched her in the face. The accused then knocked the victim to the ground at which point he kicked her about the body and then punched her again in the face. The accused then sat on the victim’s chest and started to choke the victim with his hands around her neck until she couldn’t breathe. The accused let go of the victim at which point she attempted to run up the stairs at which point he continued to hit her on the back and then ripped her shirt off. The complainant then fled the area and called the police.
The accused was subsequently arrested at the North York General Hospital as he was being treated for a hand injury resulting from his assault on his mother.
She suffered the following injuries:
Bump on forehead; cut to nose; scratch on neck and chest; sore all over face and back.”
Background History
[7]. Mr. Tucker’s personal, legal and psychiatric history are set out in detail in the Hospital Report. Briefly summarized, Mr. Tucker is 47 years of age and resided with his mother for much of his adult life until the index offences. He is financially supported by the Ontario Disability Support Program (“ODSP”). Mr. Tucker is reported as a poor historian, with a history of non-compliance with medication, substance use, and homelessness.
[8]. Mr. Tucker was diagnosed with learning and behavioural difficulties since early school age. He graduated from high school at age 19 in 1998. In July 2000, Mr. Tucker was employed at Yak Communication for two years and was terminated. In 2003 he worked in security on a contractual basis and part time for Union Electric in 2004.
[9]. Mr. Tucker has a lengthy history of mental health problems. He was treated for depression in early adolescence and from the time he was 26 or 27, began exhibiting bizarre behaviours and expressing paranoid ideation. He has a history of assaults and physically aggressive behaviour towards family members and others. He has been admitted to several hospitals, at times involuntarily, with diagnoses that included Psychosis NOS, Schizophrenia, Bipolar Disorder and Cannabis Abuse. His mother has initiated numerous police interventions by obtaining a Form 2 under the Mental Health Act.
[10]. Following the NCR finding on his index offences on November 6, 2013, Mr. Tucker resided at CAMH under the jurisdiction of the Board. He was discharged to high- supportive housing (CMHA-THRP2) on April 23, 2018. Mr. Tucker was readmitted to hospital on September 1, 2018, and discharged back to the same housing on November 8, 2018. He was readmitted to hospital on December 20, 2019, following a series of housing rule violations, a change to his mental state, and substance use. On December 2, 2021, he was discharged to 96 Dowling Avenue, 24/7 supervised housing managed by Regeneration Community Services and was followed by the Expanded Forensic Outpatient Service (“EFOPS”) team. Mr. Tucker was again readmitted to the hospital August 23, 2022, initially to a general unit, before being transferred to a secure unit on September 30, 2022, due to rule-breaking, drug use and threats of violence.
[11]. Mr. Tucker's current diagnoses include treatment resistant Schizophrenia and Cannabis Use Disorder.
Evidence at the Hearing
[12]. The hospital's evidence was presented through its report and through the oral testimony of Dr. S. Chatterjee who has been Mr. Tucker’s attending psychiatrist since October 2023. Dr. Chatterjee adopted the contents of the Hospital Report and advised that Mr. Tucker is currently on Unit 1-3 of the hospital, where he has spent the entire last reporting period.
[13]. Mr. Tucker has remained stable since the completion of the Hospital Report. He is compliant with the long-acting antipsychotic medication and has been receiving the same dose since it was last increased in December 2023.
[14]. According to Dr. Chaterjee, Mr. Tucker is doing well and has abstained from substances. He is attending hospital and community-based activities. He recently started working at the Parkdale Food bank.
[15]. Mr. Tucker completed an anger management program, a Substance Relapse Prevention group, and attended CBT and discharge readiness. Regarding discharge to the community, it has been determined that Mr. Tucker will require a high level of support and supervision and he is on a waitlist for mental health supportive housing. The hospital is hoping to address Mr. Tucker’s cyclical pattern of discharges and readmissions to hospital with increased supervision and support.
[16]. Two housing options became available over the course of the past year including supportive housing at Bailey’s House and 1335 King Street West. Unfortunately, Mr. Tucker pulled back from the application process, failing to attend a number of orientation, interview, and touring appointments. At the last minute, it was discovered that one of the residents at Bailey’s House is a person with whom Mr. Tucker had historical issues. This triggered a trauma-like response from Mr. Tucker, and he refused to go there or to discuss it again with the treatment team. Dr. Chatterjee does not discount the possibility that there may be some unconscious institutionalization which is making it difficult for Mr. Tucker to truly commit to the discharge process. The treatment team continues to work with to ready him for the discharge process, but he appeared to destabilize by the stress of potential discharge over the past year.
[17]. In the opinion of Dr. Chatterjee, Mr. Tucker’s risk is still active due to his underdeveloped insight into his major mental illness and because of his substance use disorder, though he is currently abstaining from substances. Mr. Tucker has a fragile mental health which can decompensate quickly if triggered by stress and substance use.
[18]. Dr. Chatterjee does not believe that Mr. Tucker is ready for a conditional discharge. He remains in hospital and has been for several years. Previous discharges to the community have failed and have led to readmissions due to decompensations and increased risk of violence. In the opinion of Dr. Chatterjee, a detention order continues to be required as the provisions of the Mental Health Act would be insufficient to enable a swift readmission.
[19]. In response to questions posed to her by counsel for Mr. Tucker, Ms. Currie, Dr. Chatterjee responded as follows:
a. Dr. Chatterjee does not anticipate changing Mr. Tucker’s current treatment. Though she believes that he could benefit from treatment with clozapine, Mr. Tucker may not be willing to comply with the necessary monitoring protocol.
b. With regard to the potential discharge to Bailey’s House that did not happen, Dr. Chatterjee does not necessarily believe that Mr. Tucker was demonstrating insight into his situation by refusing this placement, as the issue about the resident was not discovered until the last minute. According to Dr. Chatterjee, there was “a lot going on” at the time that contributed to this discharge not happening.
c. Dr. Chatterjee believes that it could be possible for Mr. Tucker to go back to TRP2 Housing, even though he was there previously and lost this housing after decompensating. The treatment team will continue to look at all available housing options for Mr. Tucker.
d. Dr. Chatterjee is aware that Mr. Tucker would like to find employment in the community and that he also wants to be in housing close to the hospital.
[20]. In response to a Panel member’s question regarding whether Mr. Tucker was endorsing any delusional beliefs with respect to the potential discharge to Bailey’s House, Dr. Chatterjee responded that it does appear that the stress brough about by a potential discharge to the community triggered some delusion ideation on the part of Mr. Tucker. It is clear that this has been stressful for him and that he continues to demonstrate considerable mental health fragility when facing this next step in his rehabilitation.
[21]. No other evidence was presented.
Submissions of the Parties
[22]. The Board was presented with a joint submission of all parties that Mr. Tucker continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the maintenance of the current detention order on the same terms and conditions remains the necessary and appropriate disposition for the coming year.
[23]. Counsel for Mr. Tucker, Ms. Currie, added that it is clear that Mr. Tucker is moving forward and that it is hoped that he will move further along in the rehabilitative process over the course of the next year.
Analysis and Conclusion
[24]. Having considered all of the evidence presented at the hearing, and the joint submission of the parties, the Board finds that Mr. Tucker continues to meet the threshold of significant threat to the safety of the public as set out in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and as further defined by the Supreme Court of Canada in Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625.
[25]. Mr. Tucker has an established diagnosis of Schizophrenia. His psychotic symptoms are currently in partial remission with treatment, although he continues to harbour delusional beliefs. Mr. Tucker also has a long history of cannabis use which is known to affect his mental state. He has a history of serious violence associated with psychotic symptoms of his illness and continues to demonstrate a lack of insight in respect of his mental illness and his risk of violence.
[26]. The index offences occurred in the context of psychotic decompensation and involved serious violence against Mr. Tucker’s mother and caused her considerable psychological and physical harm.
[27]. The last year has been a positive one for Mr. Tucker who has maintained relative stability and has continues to abstain from substance use. He has participated and completed psychosocial programming, is enjoying access into the community and is deemed ready for discharge to mental health supportive housing. Efforts to discharge Mr. Tucker were not successful as the prospect of leaving the hospital appears to have led to an increase of symptoms. The hospital will need to continue working with Mr. Tucker to better prepare and equip him for an eventual discharge.
[28]. Given the fragility of Mr. Tucker’s mental health and the fact that he will need significant support and supervision once discharged, we agree that a detention order continues to be necessary and appropriate at this time. The hospital needs to retain the authority to approve housing and the ability to readmit Mr. Tucker to hospital in the event of further deterioration of his mental condition and increased risk of violence.
[29]. We have considered the four factors set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, namely the protection of the public, which is the paramount consideration, the mental condition of the accused, his reintegration into society and his other needs, in coming to our decision that current detention order, on the same terms and conditions, remains the necessary and appropriate and least onerous and least restrictive disposition in all of the circumstances.
DATED this 27th day of May, 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Ms. M. Labrosse Alternate Chairperson
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board