Re G. (S.), 2025 CanLII 49383

Re: G. (S.)

ORB File No: 4920

Hearing held on: Friday, April 24, 2025

Place of hearing: Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences 700 Gordon Street, Whitby

Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) and 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Ms. L. Silver

Members: Dr. R. Wood Hill Dr. G. Stones Mr. D. D’Intino Mr. J. Cyr

Parties Appearing:

Accused: G. (S.) Counsel: Ms. J. Boissonneault

The person in charge of hospital: Representative: Ms. J. Szabo

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. T. Hewitt

REASONS FOR DECISION AND DISPOSITION

(Dated May 27, 2025)

Introduction

1On October 24, 2007, G. (S.)was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on charges of fail to comply with undertakings (x8), utter threat to cause bodily harm (x4), assault with a weapon (x5) and assault (x4), all contrary to the provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada.

2Ms. G. (S.) is currently subject to the terms and conditions of a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB” or the “Board”) dated February 7, 2024. Under her current Disposition, Ms. G. (S.) is detained at the Dual Diagnosis Service or the Forensic Service at Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (“Ontario Shores” or the “hospital”), subject to a number of conditions, including the privilege of living in the community in supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge of the hospital.

3On February 27, 2025, the Hospital sent a letter to the Ontario Review Board notifying it that Ms. G. (S.) was readmitted to Hospital on February 17, 2025, and that this constituted a restriction of her liberty.

4On April 24, 2025, the Board convened a hearing in person at Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (Ontario Shores) to conduct a hearing pursuant to s. 672.81(1) and 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code. The purposes of this hearing were to determine if the initial and ongoing restrictions of liberty (ROL) were necessary and appropriate, and further, to determine whether Ms. G. (S.) continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public and if so, to determine the necessary and appropriate Disposition, which is also the least onerous and least restrictive means to protect the public in consideration of the circumstances.

Current Psychiatric Diagnoses:

• Intellectual Disability, moderate
• Tourette’s Disorder
• ADHD

Index Offences:

5The details of the index offences are extracted from the Hospital Report at page 2, which are as follows:

“ Assault #1

On March 23, 2007, at approximately 3:20 p.m., police were dispatched to assist a female on Queen Street in Tottenham. PC Shantz, PC Conner, and PC Smith attended Queen Street, Tottenham, Town of New Tecumseth, County of Simcoe, and spoke to the complainant, who advised that she was worried about the female out walking around in the Tottenham area, possibly entering a vehicle.

Further investigation revealed that the female in question was Ms. G. (S.), with an address of 6718 Concession 2, New Tecumseth, also known as the Cedar Heights Group Home. Police interviewed Amanda Dove, who is a resident support worker at the group home. During the interview, Ms. Dove indicated that Ms. G. (S.) was a resident there and had been for approximately three years. Ms. G. (S.) took numerous medications to keep her personality in order. When she was off her medication, she could become violent.

Ms. Dove stated that on the morning of the March 23, 2007, Ms. G. (S.) was in good spirits when she woke up. She went to school, and she was having some difficulties with the teacher. She started swearing at the teacher, and she raised her fist at the teacher as if she was going to hit her. She was asked to leave the classroom and take a time out, which she did. After that, she continued to swear and be inappropriate. Snack time came around, which was at approximately 10:30 a.m. When she was not allowed to get a snack out of the fridge, she became aggressive with Ms. Dove. Ms. G. (S.) struck Ms. Dove with an open right hand in the arm area. Ms. G. (S.) left the kitchen area and attempted to leave the group home. Ms. Dove blocked the door. At that time, Ms. G. (S.) struck Ms. Dove twice with a closed fist in the shoulder and arm area. Ms. Dove indicated that Ms. G. (S.)’s fist actually struck her partially on the cheek.

Ms. Dove indicated that this behaviour was not out of the ordinary, and police records showed attempts to have Ms. G. (S.) formed under the Mental Health Act in the past proved unsuccessful.

At 4:00 p.m., PC Shantz and PC Conner arrested Ms. G. (S.) for assault and returned her to the Beeton Detachment of Nottawasaga OPP for processing.

Fail to Comply with Undertaking #1

On May 13, 2007, at approximately 18:18 hrs, Ms. G. (S.) left Cedar Heights Group Home without telling the staff members she was leaving. Ms. G. (S.) did not tell the staff members of the home where she was going, thereby breaking the rules of the Group Home. She was released on an undertaking dated April 12, 2007 out of the Provincial Court in Barrie, Ontario. One of her conditions was to follow the rules of the home and staff direction at all times. As a result of her leaving the home without consent of the staff members, Ms. G. (S.) was charged with failing to comply with her undertaking contrary to the Criminal Code Section 145(3).

Fail to Comply Undertaking #2

On May 22, 2007, at approximately 1730 hrs, Ms. G. (S.) left Cedar Heights Group Home without telling the staff members she was leaving. Ms. G. (S.) did not tell the staff members of the home where she was going, thereby breaking the rules of the Group Home. She was released on an undertaking dated April 12, 2007 out of the Provincial Court in Barrie, Ontario. One of her conditions was to follow the rules of the home and staff direction at all times. As a result of her leaving the home without consent of the staff members, Ms. G. (S.) was charged with failing to comply with her undertaking contrary to the Criminal Code Section 145(3).

On May 22, 2007, Police responded to a missing persons complaint at the Cedar Heights Residential home, located at 13150 Kennedy Road North in the Town of Stouffville. Upon arrival, police were informed by residential staff, Sarah Mitchell, that two residents, Mr. Michael Colton and Ms. G. (S.) had left the home without permission.

Police were further informed that both Mr. Coulton and Ms. G. (S.) had missed their medication. As well, Ms. Mitchell stated that staff member Mr. Matt Granger had followed both residents to 13992 Kennedy Road North, but lost sight of them.

Police searched several areas where both residents were known to frequent while AWOL. Search results were negative.

At 22:15, police received a phone call from Mr. Granger who had located the missing residents at the corner of Wellington Street and Leslie Street, in the Town of Aurora. Police attended and transported the residents back to 13150 Kennedy Road North. Subsequent investigation revealed that Ms. G. (S.) had breached the conditions of her undertaking from April 12, 2007.

Consequently, Ms. G. (S.) was then taken into custody and transported to 5 District, in the Town of Markham, where she was booked and lodged into cells.

Ms. G. (S.) was to be held for a show cause hearing on May 23, 2007.

On May 8, 2007, at approximately 0600 hrs, the accused, Ms. G. (S.), left Cedar Heights Group Home without telling the staff members she was leaving. Ms. G. (S.) did not tell the staff members of the home where she was going, thereby breaking the rules of the Group Home. She was released on an undertaking dated April 12, 2007 out of the Provincial Court in Barrie, Ontario. One of her conditions was to follow the rules of the home and staff direction at all times. As a result of her leaving the home without consent of the staff members, Ms. G. (S.) was charged with failing to comply with her undertaking contrary to the Criminal Code Section 145(3).

On June 1, 2007, at approximately 2245 hrs., the victim, Ms. Oluranti Akintonde-Akinrinsa arrived at her place of employment, the Christian Horizon Group Home located at 172 Sunset Blvd., in Stouffville, where she was employed as a Support Worker.

The accused, Ms. G. (S.), a resident of the home, upon getting out of the shower, saw the victim and started yelling at her. Ms. G. (S.) uttered comments such as, “I don’t want any black person near me”, “Nigger”, “I’m going to kill you”, “I know where the sharp knives are”. Ms. G. (S.) then tried to follow the daytime staff out of the apartment.

The victim at this point was in fear for her safety, police were contacted, and attended the scene.

When police arrived on scene, Ms. G. (S.) was sitting on the front steps outside of the apartment with the victim on scene, waiting for police.

The victim was clearly shaken up by the threats she had received. After speaking with the victim, Ms. G. (S.) was arrested for uttering death threats. Ms. G. (S.) was given rights to counsel for a young person and cautioned.

Ms. G. (S.) was transported to 5 District Headquarters. The victim also attended 5 District for a written statement.

Ms. G. (S.) was paraded and searched by S/Sgt. Randle and placed in cell 5D1.

Police learned of conditions Ms. G. (S.) was on, one being to obey the house rules at her residence.

Ms. G. (S.) was charged with uttering death threats and fail to comply. She was to be held at 5 District where she would await a Show Cause hearing on June 2, 2007 held at 50 Eagle Street, Newmarket, at 0900 hrs.

Utter Threats to Cause Bodily Harm #1

Ms. G. (S.), on June 1, 2007 at approximately 2310 hrs at 172 Sunset Blvd., in the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville, did in person knowingly utter a threat to the victim Oluranti Akintonde-Akinrinsa to cause death to the victim to wit: Ms. G. (S.) told the victim that she was going to kill her, contrary to section 264.1(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

Fail to Comply with Undertaking #3

Ms. G. (S.), on June 1, 2007, at approximately 2310 hrs at 172 Sunset Blvd., in the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville, and being detained by the order of a Justice, made on April 12, 2007, at the City of Barrie and being bound to comply with the direction of the said Justice, did fail without legal excuse to comply with the conditions of obeying the house rules to wit: by yelling and screaming, and threatening death to her guardian (victim), contrary to section 145(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

Assault with a Weapon #1

Ms. G. (S.) was a ward of York CAS and she was under the care of Christian Horizons Toronto 32, a troubled youth care facility. The victim, Ms. Josephine Herrera, was a social worker for this company.

On an occasion between June 18, 2007 and June 23, 2007, Ms. G. (S.) was not following the house rules being set out by Ms. Herrera in the facility located at 172 Sunset Blvd., in the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville. Ms. G. (S.) became extremely aggressive and broke a plate. She then took a shard from the broken plate, held it to Ms. Herrera, and stated that she was going to be assaulted. Ms. Herrera felt threatened by this, and believed Ms. G. (S.) was going to follow through, and Ms. G. (S.) was charged with Assault with a Weapon.

Assault with a Weapon #2, Utter Threats to Cause Bodily Harm #2 and #3, Assault with a

Weapon #3,

Ms. G. (S.) was a ward of York CAS and was under the care of Christian Horizons Toronto 32, a troubled youth care facility. The victim, Ms. Elizabeth Flack, was a social worker for this company.

On June 27, 2007, Ms. G. (S.) was escorted by Ms. Flack to the skate park located on Bullock Drive at McCowan Road, in the Town of Markham, in regards to possible EDP female.

Police met with the two known victims Ms. Herrera and Ms. Flack in the parking lot of the skate park. They both were social workers for Christian Horizons Toronto 32. They were in charge of Ms. G. (S.). Ms. G. (S.) was required to have supervision 24/7. Ms. G. (S.) came with a long history of problems. It was suspected she suffered from Bipolar and Schizophrenia, but she was never diagnosed.

The workers took Ms. G. (S.) to the skate park that day and after a short time, Ms. G. (S.) became involved in a confrontation with the youths using the skate park. Ms. G. (S.) began to swear and threaten the youths. The workers came to take her away, and managed to get her in the car, but Ms. G. (S.) would not allow them to drive away.

When police arrived, Ms. G. (S.) was yelling and screaming from the middle seat of the open mini-van door. Many attempts were made to get her to go home calmly, but they were all unsuccessful.

Ms. G. (S.) pushed Ms. Flack. Ms. G. (S.) then threatened to kill both Ms. Flack and Ms. Herrera.

Ms. G. (S.) then waved a jug of radiator fluid and said she was going to harm Ms. Flack and Ms. Herrera with it.

Ms. G. (S.) was not rational. She said she had the power to do black magic and put a curse on people. She said that she cut herself. It appeared that she was suffering from a sort of mental illness. She was never diagnosed with anything.

It was obvious that day that she would do harm to herself and/or others because of her mental issues. At 2050 hours, Ms. G. (S.) was apprehended under the Mental Health Act, and she was transported to MSH.

On June 28, 2007, at 0030 hrs, after Ms. G. (S.) was examined by the crisis worker, Ms. Estelle Ludwig, the emergency room doctor, Dr. Arcand, and by phone call to the psychiatrist Dr. Sai, it was decided that Ms. G. (S.) would not be formed. They all indicated that it was a behavioural issue, and not a mental issue. Police felt that they were wrong in this matter and that they did not take the time to understand the entire story.

Police then made the decision to go ahead and lay the appropriate charges. Ms. G. (S.) was transported to 5DHQ, where she would be held for a show cause bail hearing for June 28, 2007, 50 Eagle Street courthouse.

Ms. G. (S.) refused to speak to a lawyer. CAS was notified of the charges and Mike would go to the courthouse in the morning to assist.

Assault with a Weapon #4, #5 and #6; Breach of Undertaking #3 and #4

On Thursday July 26, 2007, Ms. G. (S.) assaulted three staff workers at her group home located at 172 Sunset Blvd. in the town of Whitchurch-Stouffville.

Ms. G. (S.) was at Christian Horizons Group Home since the beginning of May 2007. At the time, she was on probation and she had multiple pending charges before the courts. Ms. G. (S.) suffered from a multitude of mental illnesses, including ADD, PDD, ODD, as well as multiple personality disorders. She was also known to be violent and unpredictable when upset.

On the above-mentioned date, Ms. G. (S.) had been upset for the better part of the day and had begun acting out as per her usual behaviour. She entered her room after a loud tantrum and slammed the door. Ms. G. (S.) began kicking her closed bedroom door, as her temper level increased.

Staff workers were forced to enter Ms. G. (S.)’s room in order to remove any breakable objects. At this point, Ms. G. (S.) attacked the staff workers verbally and physically. Ms. G. (S.) cursed, screamed and even spit at the staff workers.

Ms. G. (S.) threw a box of Alpo Dog Food at one of the staff workers, striking her and sprayed liquid air freshener in the face of another. She was restrained by the staff workers to avoid further escalation of the situation. Upon releasing Ms. G. (S.), she punched a third staff worker in the shoulder.

Ms. G. (S.) was restrained a second time and forced back into her room. She demanded to leave, but she was denied exit by the staff workers. Ms. G. (S.) returned to her room and exited the residence through a window. Her whereabouts was unknown.

Ms. G. (S.) was described as a white female, 5’4 110 lbs with a fair complexion and thin build. She had brown eyes, black hair, with blue highlights and pierced ears. She was wearing blue jeans, a black tank top, black shoes (with pink) and carrying a black purse.

Ms. G. (S.) had very limited access to money and no access to vehicles. Ms. G. (S.) was arrested for assault (x3) and breach of probation. Further police investigation was required.

On the July 31, 2007, at 2245 hrs, police were called to 2-172 Sunset Blvd., in the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville, in regards to a missing person.

The complainant was the staff at the residence of the missing person as the missing person lived in a group home. The complainant stated that Ms. G. (S.) was last seen approximately 15 minutes prior.

As police were on route to the residence another unit advised that they had the female and for a unit to bring staff by to talk to her.

Police arrived at the residence and spoke to staff and the project manager. There was no need to complete a search urgency chat. The project manager advised that she just wanted the missing/found youth brought back to the residence.

Police went to the skate park, where the youth was located with staff. The youth was physically fine. No injuries. She did not want to go to the hospital. She agreed to come home.

The youth was searched and put in a cruiser and transported to the residence. The youth was diagnosed with ADHD and she could be uncontrollable when she was off her medication.

At the house, Ms. G. (S.) was a lot calmer and said that she would not leave and that she would not cause any more problems.

No zone alert was needed as Ms. G. (S.) was located within minutes of her being reported missing.

Utter Threats to Cause Bodily Harm #3

On October 13, 2007, the youth and victim were at a group home residence located in the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville. The victim was in the process of preparing the medication for the youth. The youth became extremely angry, and by verbal communication, threatened to kill the victim at this time.

Fail to Comply Undertaking #5

On July 31, 2007, the youth was placed on a recognizance at the Newmarket Court. One condition of that recognizance was to be in the company of the surety at all times which is the Children’s Aid Society or designate, staff from the group home “Christian Horizon”. On October 13, 2007, the youth refused to stay within the group home, and left he premise without staff from Christian Horizons, thereby breaching the said condition of her recognizance.

On Saturday, October 13, 2007, the youth was returning to her residence, located at 172 Sunset Blvd., in the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville, with the victim (Philestena McLeod). As per the conditions of her release, the youth has a constant supervised curfew in effect, unless in the direct company of a staff member from Christian Horizons or Children’s Aid.

On the above-mentioned date, the youth became very agitated after being told by the victim not to touch a wild bunny for the possibility of rabies. The youth began to display poor behaviour by yelling, swearing, and hurling insults at the victim.

Upon returning to the residence, the youth threatened to kill the victim multiple times and continued to rant and rave wildly. The youth gathered a few belongings and proceeded to run out of the residence without her supervisors. The victim had no idea where the youth had disappeared to and notified police.

Upon arriving, officers found the youth in the building beside her residence, speaking with a family she spends time with. The youth as very confrontational with officers and only returned to her residence under the supervision of one of the neighbours. While within her residence, the youth continued to escalate her aggressive behaviour and unleashed a barrage of insults and curses at the victim as well as the officers.

The youth was placed under arrest for uttering threats and breach of her recognizance. The youth was read her rights to counsel, and a caution. The youth was then transported to 5DHQ where she was booked by Staff Sgt. Randle and searched by a female officer.

The youth spoke to duty counsel and she will remain at the station until appearing at a show cause hearing the following morning.”

Without Prejudice Position of the Parties:

6At the commencement of the hearing, Ms. Szabo presented the Hospital’s position, which was for no change to the current Disposition. Furthermore, the Hospital submitted that both the initial and ongoing ROL were necessary and appropriate.

7Mr. Hewitt for the Attorney General agreed with this position.

8Counsel for the accused, Ms. Boissonneault, also agreed and thus the parties presented a Joint Position for the Panel’s consideration.

Evidence at the Hearing:

9The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence from Dr. Bhullar.

10Dr. Bhullar testified by way of update that on April 15, 2025, there was an incident where Ms. G. (S.) was exposing herself and was not dressed appropriately. When staff encouraged her to wear appropriate undergarments, she became verbally and physically aggressive, she was spitting at the walls, hitting the walls, pulling papers off the walls and was not responsive to verbal de-escalation and would not accept as needed medication, thus she required seclusion and chemical restraints.

11Dr. Bhullar testified that the plan for the coming year is to try and reintegrate Ms. G. (S.) into suitable community-based housing. At present, her former group home will not take her back. Efforts are being made to solicit additional funding for Ms. G. (S.) so that her prior placement might be able to meet her needs and safely manage her there.

12In response to questions from Ms. Boissonneault, Dr. Bhullar testified that while the Hospital is looking at all options for community housing, at the present time there are no beds available that would meet Ms. G. (S.)’s needs.

13In response to a question from the Panel, Dr. Bhullar further confirmed that there are no available beds in the Dual Diagnosis program at the present time.

Analysis and Conclusions: Initial and Ongoing Restriction of Liberty

14Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence as well as the submissions from the parties, the Panel accepts the joint submission from the parties – that the initial and ongoing ROL was and remains, necessary and appropriate.

15Ms. G. (S.) was readmitted to the Hospital on February 17, 2025, after Vita Group Home notified the Forensic Outpatient Service (FOS) that Ms. G. (S.) had activated the fire alarm in her living area twice on January 10, 2025, with police and fire attending the home. After four false alarms the group home was fined $500 for each false activation. When the fire alarm was activated, all the doors in the group home are unlocked, placing other residents at risk.

16In order to support Ms. G. (S.), the group home increased staffing support (2:1), where one staff sat directly in her apartment by the alarm to prevent her from pulling it. Additionally, a consequence/reward system was put into place.

17Ms. G. (S.) stopped pulling the fire alarm when the staff were physically blocking it. When this additional support was removed by the group home due to the financial burden, Ms. G. (S.) initially refrained from pulling the fire alarm until February 16, 2025.

18On February 16, 2025, the Vita group home contacted the FOS crisis line indicating that Ms. G. (S.) was repeatedly activating the fire alarm system. At that point, the group home stated that they could no longer safely staff Ms. G. (S.) to help prevent her from engaging in this behavior. The York Regional Police were contacted, and Ms. G. (S.) was admitted to the general forensic unit (FCRU) on February 17, 2025. The fire alarms were temporarily placed on safe mode until Ms. G. (S.) was brought to the hospital.

19After her admission, a meeting was held with the FOS and FCRU teams, and the Vita group home. The group home staff explained that a fire alarm needs to be located within her living area due to the MAG lock-door separating her living area from the remainder of the home. Additionally, Ms. G. (S.)’s current staff budget does not cover the cost of increased staffing beyond 1:1 and therefore, any additional staffing costs are covered by Vita’s overall budget. It is not realistic nor safe to have a staff sitting in front of a fire alarm to manage this behavior.

20The group home has requested additional funds to meet Ms. G. (S.)’s staff needs from the Ministry, however, it was rejected. Ms. G. (S.) cannot return to Vita under any circumstances.

21Upon her readmission to the Hospital, Ms. G. (S.) continued to be disruptive. She was intermittently verbally abusive to staff, agitating female patients, threatening to sleep with their boyfriends, and offering to pay one female patient to assault another female patient.

22Her dysregulated behaviour continued until the hearing, where Dr. Bhullar testified to the aforementioned incident on April 15, 2025. At present, there are no community placements to which Ms. G. (S.) can be discharged, though the Hospital continues to make efforts in this regard.

Analysis and Conclusions: Necessary and Appropriate Disposition

23Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence as well as the submissions from the parties, the Panel accepts the joint submission position: Ms. G. (S.) poses a significant threat to the safety of the public and a continuation of the existing Detention Order Disposition with the aforementioned privileges is necessary and appropriate and the least onerous and least restrictive option in consideration of all of the circumstances.

24Ms. G. (S.) has had long-standing challenges with behavioural regulation, verbal and physical aggression, property damage and some self-harming behaviours in recent years. She has in the past been non-compliant with her medications, thereby exacerbating her mental status.

25Her insight and judgment are described in the Hospital Report as “poor” and clinical interviews with her are difficult due to her affective dysregulation.

26Ms. G. (S.)’s risk for violent reoffending was assessed in the “low-moderate” range in the context of the current Disposition and the high degree of structure provided within this framework. Under a Conditional Discharge, that risk would rise to “high”.

27Ms. G. (S.) enjoys the support of her grandmother and has CAS supervised visits with her son.

28The Panel unanimously finds that, absent a Detention Order and the strict oversight of the Hospital, it is likely that Ms. G. (S.) would disengage from treatment, become medication non-adherent and engage in violent reoffending.

29Therefore, the Panel agrees with the Joint Submission, that Ms. G. (S.) poses a significant threat to the safety of the public and that a continuation of the existing Detention Order with privileges up to and including residing in a supervised accommodation, approved by the Person in Charge, is the necessary and appropriate, least onerous and least restrictive Disposition in consideration of all of the circumstances.