Ontario Review Board
Re: Floyd Paypompee
ORB File No: 4207
Hearing held on: Tuesday, April 15, 2025
Place of hearing: Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre,
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Goldenberg
Members: Dr. H. Bloom
Dr. C. Rose
Mr. P. Capelle
Mr. A. Bouvier
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Floyd Paypompee
Counsel: Mr. U. Agostino
The Person in charge of Hospital: Representative: Ms. M. Davidson
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. R. Derouard
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated May 27, 2025)
Introduction
On January 29, 2007, Floyd Paypomee was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on one charge of failing to comply with a condition of an undertaking or recognizance and two charges of uttering a threat to cause death or bodily harm. Mr. Paypompee is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated May 2, 2024, by which he was ordered to be detained at the forensic program of the Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre (TBRHSC) with privileges up to and including living in the community in approved accommodation.
On April 15, 2025, a panel of the Ontario Review Board (the ORB or the Board) convened a hearing at the TBRHSC pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada. The annual review for Mr. Paympompee was held in person. The hospital was represented by Ms. Davidson, the Attorney General by Ms. Derouard and Mr. Paypompee by Mr. Agostino.
Without Prejudice Position of the Parties
Ms. Davidson, on behalf of the hospital, indicated that Mr. Paypompee remains a significant threat and that a continuation of the current detention Disposition with no changes was recommended. Ms. Derouard, for the Attorney General, advised that she anticipated joining the Hospital recommendation after having heard the evidence. Mr. Agostino advised on behalf of his client that the ongoing presence of significant threat was conceded and requested a Conditional Discharge together with a residency clause specific to 545 Cumberland Street North in Thunder Bay.
Background and Index Offences
The allegations giving rise to the offences are set out in last year’s reasons for disposition as follows:
“On the 13th of September 2006 at 1235 hours police received a report from the Kenora Ontario Provincial Police Communication Centre regarding threats. Darlene Paypompee advised that Floyd Paypompee threatened to kill her while she was at home on her lunch break. Darlene advised that police could locate her at her place of employment. At 1517 hours police attended the Youth and Elder Centre in Whitefish Bay and spoke with Darlene Paypompee. Darlene advised that at approximately 1210 hours today (13 SEPT 06) she attended her residence for lunch. Darlene advised that when she returned to her residence from work she observed Floyd Paypompee down at her dock and boat launch area speaking with the boat launch users. Darlene advised that she believed that Floyd was asking the boat launch users for money (Darlene advised that Floyd has done this in the past). Darlene advised that she spoke with Floyd on her property as he was leaving the boat launch, and walking towards his residence. Darlene advised to Floyd that he should not be asking the boat launch users for money. Darlene then advised that Floyd got mad and told her to go back to Thunder Bay and that she does not belong in Whitefish Bay. Darlene advised that Floyd then stated, ‘I’m going to kill you pretty soon.’ Darlene advised that she then stated to Floyd ‘go ahead.’ Darlene then advised that Floyd stated, ‘I know you have no backup.’ Darlene advised that Floyd then walked away towards his residence. Darlene advised that she then entered her residence, locked all the doors and called police.
Darlene advised, via statement, that she is afraid of Floyd and they have previously reported similar incidents to police.
At 1524 hours police conducted a CNI criminal records check which revealed that Floyd was currently on an undertaking with conditions to abstain from contact or communication with Mark Kakeeway and Darlene Paypompee, nor be within 25 metres of their person, residence or workplace.
On the 31st of May 2006 at 1942 hours police received a report from the Kenora Ontario Provincial Police Communication Centre regarding a report of threats in Whitefish Bay First Nation. Mark Kakeeway advised that Floyd Paypompee told him that he was going to kill him.
At 1943 hours police contacted Mark, who advised that he was down at the boat launch in Whitefish Bay talking with some people when Pete Cowley and Floyd Paypompee arrived. Floyd then yelled at Mark, in Ojibway, from the road, ‘Mark, stop acting like a boss. I’ll kill you. Go ahead and call the cops, I’m not afraid of them anyway.’
At 2150 hours police attended the Mark Kakeeway and Darlene Paypompee residence in Whitefish Bay First Nation. At 2206 hours police obtained a statement from Mark. Mark advised, via statement, that he believed that Floyd was crazy enough to follow through with his threats and that he feared for his safety and the safety of his children.
At 2248 hours police obtained a statement from Darlene Paypompee, Mark’s common-law, who was a witness to the incident. Darlene advised that she also heard Floyd threaten Mark that he was going to kill him. Furthermore, Darlene also advised that she feared for the safety of Mark and her children. Darlene also advised that she felt that Floyd was crazy enough to damage their personal property.
At 2340 hours police attended the Floyd Paypompee residence and spoke with Floyd’s mother, Lillian Paypompee, outside of the residence. Lillian advised police that Floyd did not want to speak with police regarding this matter. Police observed Floyd come to the window on several occasion but refused to exit the residence.”
Current Diagnosis(es)
Schizophrenia, Paranoid Type,
Substance use, Cannabis.
Evidence at hearing
Dr. Shepphard gave evidence on behalf of the Hospital. Overall, Mr. Paypompee has had a good year with no readmissions to hospital. Mr. Paypompee travelled a number of times to his home community of Whitefish Bay, usually transported back and forth by his sister.
Notwithstanding a disposition prohibiting their use, Mr. Paypompee continues to smoke marijuana on a daily basis and to a lesser extent to consume alcohol, both in Thunder Bay and in Whitefish Bay,
Mr. Paypompee’s clinical condition remains unchanged. He suffers from treatment refractory paranoid schizophrenia. This is treated with high doses of two antipsychotics that control symptoms, although he has never had a remission of his illness.
Mr. Paypompee has maintained his residence at the Salvation Army. His time is mostly unstructured, although his case manager does take him out for shopping. Mr. Paypompee has a social network in Thunder Bay, including a close friend with whom he primarily smokes marijuana.
Dr. Shepphard described his patient’s mood as fairly stable, adding that Mr. Paypompee is generally compliant and pleasant. This patient’s poor insight vis-à-vis his illness is why he continues to be considered treatment incapable. Mr. Paypompee is compliant with his antipsychotic medication regime although he doesn’t believe he needs this.
Significant risk is maintained premised on:
- The patient’s treatment refractory psychosis which causes him to feel persecuted and entitled to respond violently if he feels he or his family are threatened. The last incident occurring some 18 months ago, when he got into a fight.
- Mr. Paypompee also has personality issues. More specifically, he is egocentric with no real regard to the rights of others, no empathy, and justifies violence as a response. These are antisocial personality traits, although his history of aggression is now somewhat dated. Dr. Shepphard added that Mr. Paypompee was transferred to Waypoint a number of years ago and spent seven years there before being returned to this hospital.
Dr. Shepphard advised that In the event Mr. Paypompee were to receive an absolute discharge, he would move out of the Salvation Army residence and attempt to live independently. His use of substances would increase and he would likely fall away from his prescribed medications. As a result, his delusions would become more prominent. He would perceive a degree of threat where it did not exist and act out aggressively.
A Conditional Discharge is not out of the question, but would inject uncertainty. A detention disposition allows for approval of accommodation, which remains essential as Mr. Paypompee continues to believe that he could continue to live independently in his own apartment. Secondly, Mr. Paypompee would likely need to be returned to hospital in the event of aggressive behaviour, as last seen some 18 months ago. Dr. Shepphard reiterated that Mr. Paypompee is easily prone to misinterpret what is going on around him, for example the actions of co-residents at the Salvation Army.
Overall, Mr. Paypompee is making good progress by residing in the community and visiting regularly with his family. Dr. Shepphard feels that a detention disposition has allowed his patient to progress, which is why a continuation is recommended.
Responding to questions from Mr. Agostino, Dr. Shepphard conceded that a Developmental Services Ontario (DSO) assessment has yet to take place. This was inadvertently overlooked in the past reporting year.
Asked to describe what occurred in the reported incident of violence some 18 months ago, Dr. Shepphard advised that something occurred between Mr. Paypompee and a co-resident wherein Mr. Paypompee indicated that the co-resident touched him in a sexual fashion and he therefore reacted.
Mr. Paypompee’s mental health remains stable despite the use of marijuana, although the treatment team is concerned about its long term impact on his mental health. The use of marijuana does not preclude a discharge of some sort as were he to receive a Conditional Discharge his quantity of use would not change, whereas it would likely increase in the event of an absolute discharge.
Dr. Shepphard opined that Mr. Paypompee is potentially on track for an absolute discharge and could foresee his patient be managed by an Assertive Community Treatment Team (ACT team). Prior to recommending a Conditional Discharge, Dr. Shepphard would want to see another good year and a living situation that Mr. Paypompee is content with, as he currently wants to move out of the Salvation Army into and independent apartment, whereas the treatment team believes that he continues to require a degree of supported living.
Dr. Shepphard conceded that his patient’s last two readmissions could have been accomplished under the auspices of the Mental Health Act as both incidents occurred due to violence such that Mr. Paypompee could have been formed pursuant to that legislation.
Responding to questions from a Board member, Dr. Shepphard advised that his patient would score moderately high on the PCL-R; in the 20s. Responding to a question from another Board member, Dr. Shepphard advised that if Mr. Paypompee were to mentally decompensate and was asked to attend for an assessment that he likely would. The treatment team would have concerns if Mr. Paypompee shifted to using cocaine or a heavier use of alcohol. In those instances, the Mental Health Act could likely not be used to justify an admission.
Mr. Paypompee is currently optimally housed where he is. The doctor was referred to page 26 of the Hospital Report and agreed with psychologist Dr. Lake’s conclusion, specifically:
“Placement in a staff-supported residence seems to have been helpful in managing Mr. Paypompee’s risk for violence, any reduction in available support and supervision (eg. independent living) would be concerning in that regard.”
Closing Observations
Ms. Davidson submitted that the appropriate disposition is a detention order, unchanged from what is currently in place. In the event the Board chose to order a Conditional Discharge, the Hospital would request a residence clause and a treatment clause with Mr. Paypompee’s consent as well as a Young clause to have him report to TBTHSC as requested by the treatment team and not to permit him to travel outside of Thunder Bay absent the approval of an itinerary by the person in charge.
Ms. Derouard joined the hospital’s position in supporting a detention disposition, adding that if a Conditional Discharge was ordered that the Crown would join in the conditions recommended by the hospital.
Mr. Agostino submitted that if a Conditional Discharge was appropriate and that his client would agree to a residence clause at his current location. Mr. Agostino submitted that a consent to treatment clause may be problematic as his client does not have the capacity to make his own treatment decisions.
Mr. Agostino submitted that his client has been doing exceptionally well living in the community for the past three and a half years. His clinical condition remains stable despite the continuous use of marijuana. Further, Mr. Paypompee enjoys excellent rapport with his family and has exercised travel passes without incident. Mr. Agostino reiterated that the last violent incident occurred some 18 months ago and that Mr. Paypompee has engaged in the programming offered to him at the Salvation Army over the past year.
In closing, Mr. Agostino submitted that the accommodation issue can be addressed within a Conditional Discharge with a residency clause and that the risk to public safety would not be increased in the event a Conditional Discharge were ordered. Mr. Agostino agreed with the conditions proposed by the hospital in the event a Conditional Discharge were ordered by the Board.
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. Paypompee 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, 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625.
The Board unanimously finds that Mr. Paypompee continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public. In arriving at this determination, the Board considered the joint position of the parties and accepted the uncontroverted evidence of Dr. Shepphard that Mr. Paypompee continues to pose a significant threat. The Board also relies on the Hospital Report and Risk Assessment contained therein in determining that Mr. Paypompee suffers from Schizophrenia, Paranoid Type; a major mental illness, that in the past has been complicated by the ongoing use of cannabis. The conclusory paragraph of the Assessment of Risk heading, at page 26 is reproduced below as it encapsulates the Hospital’s rationale, which this Panel adopts:
These results suggest that the factors most relevant to Mr. Paypompee’s risk for violent and sexually violent re-offending are consistent with the previous risk assessment. Factors related to his psychiatric and personality disorders, such as grandiosity, reactivity, and lack of empathy or remorse increase his potential for engaging in violent behaviour. Substance use has also reportedly been associated with some unusual behaviours (e.g., jumping out to startle staff) and an increase in aggressiveness. Pharmacological treatment and close monitoring or supervision continue to be critical in managing Mr. Paypompee’s risk for violent re-offending. If he were to stop taking his medication, Mr. Paypompee is likely to become more disorganized and reactive, which has the potential to increase the intensity and frequency of aggressive or violent behaviours, due to perceptions of threat, persecution, and entitlement. Concern about rules and the impact on others is unlikely to be a deterrent and the people in closest contact with him are most likely to be the targets of such behaviour. Monitoring treatment compliance, supervising interactions with co-residents, and providing access to enjoyable activities will be important. It will also be important to continue to educate and guide relevant professionals regarding potential warning signs and effective methods for managing concerns. Placement in a staff-supported residence seems to have been helpful in managing Mr. Paypompee’s risk for violence. Any reduction in available support and supervision (e.g., independent living) would be concerning in that regard.”
We note that notwithstanding a prohibition to do so, Mr. Paypompee continues to use cannabis on a daily basis. To date this does not appear to have increased his level of risk. We would agree with Dr. Shepphard’s uncontested opinion that Mr. Paypompee’s level of risk would increase as a result of augmented cannabis consumption.
The Board therefore accepts that absent an ORB Disposition, Mr. Paypompee would likely become non-compliant with prescribed medications which would lead to decompensation, increased 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. Paypompee 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. Paypompee 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. Paypompee’s needs pursuant to s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
The necessary and appropriate disposition for Mr. Paypompee provides him as much freedom as possible without subjecting the community to a real risk of dangerous behaviour.
In considering Mr. Paypompee needs, the primary rationale advanced by the Hospital as to why the Hospital seeks a renewal of this patient’s Detention Disposition is that he cannot yet live independently absent significant support. Mr. Agostino advanced the position that a residency clause within the context of a Conditional Discharge would suffice to address the Hospital’s concern vis-à-vis housing as his client has done exceptionally well living in the community for the past three and a half years.
This Panel of the Board recognizes that Mr. Paypompee has not required re-hospitalization for quite some time. We note however, that he was last admitted to hospital on November 21, 2022 due to non-compliance with his oral medications and that a subsequent decision of this Board upheld the basis of the restriction of his liberties. Mr. Paypompee’s recent tenure in community housing, the most recent of which is a Salvation Army residence have provided him with significant support. As noted at page 18 of the Hospital Report that residence is staffed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Absent this significant level of support it cannot be determined if he would remain adherent to his oral medications which are currently dispensed to him on a daily basis by Salvation Army residence staff.
Notwithstanding that Mr. Paypompee has engaged in programming at the Salvation Army his acceptance of antipsychotic medication is externally motivated, Given Mr. Paypompee’s limited insight vis-à-vis the need for psychotropic treatment and recent history of falling away from treatment it is unlikely he would remain medication compliant absent the level of oversight currently provided to him. While Mr. Paypompee maintains that he is able to live independently, this perspective is not supported by history.
If Mr. Paypompee was subject to a Conditional Discharge, use of the MHA to return him to hospital for assessment and/or admission would likely only be triggered after the occurrence of a violent incident. This contrasts with a detention disposition which enables the use of a Form 49 to enable a pre-emptive admission, if/when early signs of mental decompensation are observed.
In closing, this Panel of the Board was encouraged to learn that Mr. Paypompee continues to progress in his rehabilitation and community reintegration. His frequent visits with family have gone well, both in Thunder Bay and is his home community. We wish him well in the year ahead.
Finally, the Board looks forward to completion of a DSO Assessment for Mr. Paypompee in advance of next year’s hearing as it appears to have been inadvertently overlooked in the course of the reporting year under review.
Conclusion
Therefore, the Board unanimously determines that the necessary and appropriate Disposition required to manage the threat Mr. Paypompee poses to the safety of the public while still meeting his needs, remains a Detention Disposition.
The Board carefully considered the positions and submissions of the parties and the evidence of Dr. Shepphard 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. Paypompee’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
Legal Member
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board