Ontario Review Board
Re: Charles Joseph Horvath
ORB File No: 1646
Hearing held on: 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. P. Capelle
Members: Dr. H. Bloom Dr. C. Rose Mr. J. Goldenberg Mr. A. Bouvier
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Charles Horvath 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 June 5, 1993, Charles Joseph Horvath was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of attempted murder and possession of stolen property. Mr. Horvath is presently subject to Disposition of Ontario Review Board dated May 2, 2024, by which he was ordered to be discharged subject to a number of conditions. One of the conditions required Mr. Horvath to “reside at 219 Pearl Street, Thunder Bay, Ontario.” Another condition required Mr. Horvath to abstain absolutely from non-medical use of alcohol or drugs or any other intoxicant.
On Tuesday, April 15, 2025, the Ontario Review Board convened an in-person hearing at Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre (T.B.R.H.S.C.) and conducted the annual review of Mr. Horvath’s disposition.
At the commencement of the hearing, the Alternate Chair noted that Mr. Horvath was not in attendance. Mr. Agostino advised that Mr. Horvath was aware of this hearing and aware of his right to attend at this hearing but requested that he be permitted not to attend. Mr. Agostino also advised that he was fully instructed by his client. Under those circumstances, the Board exercised its discretion pursuant to s. 672.5(10)(a) and permitted Mr. Horvath to be absent from this hearing
Position of the Parties:
At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as to their recommendation to the Board.
Ms. Davidson appeared for the hospital. She advised of the hospital’s position that Mr. Horvath remains a significant threat to public safety and, if the Board so finds, the necessary and appropriate disposition is a Conditional Discharge with the exact conditions set out in last year’s disposition.
Ms. Derouard appeared for the Attorney General. She anticipated joining the hospital’s position.
Mr. Agostino advised that his client was seeking to be discharged absolutely. In response to a question from the Alternate Chair, Mr. Agostino advised that if the panel found his client to be a significant threat to public safety, he and his client supported a continuation of a Conditional Discharge with the exact terms set out in last year’s Disposition.
Index offences:
- The facts of the index offences are set out in last year’s reasons for disposition as follows:
The victim was home alone after midnight and the doorbell rang. He approached the front door by a darkened hallway and observed a male person standing on the porch facing the door. The subject fired a single shot from a small rifle held waist height, hitting the victim in the right shoulder. The victim raised his arm for protection and was struck in the left wrist by a second shot. As the victim fled, two other rounds were fired into the residence through another window, narrowly missing the victim. The victim fled to a nearby friend’s residence and was conveyed to a hospital. Police were notified by the friend’s wife. When police approached the scene of the crime, they saw a flash and heard the sound of another rifle shot. Mr. Horvath was subsequently apprehended after throwing away a .22 rifle which had been stolen from a residential break and enter a few days earlier. A search of the accused’s pockets revealed a large number of .22-calibre ammunition, along with 15 high powered .308 calibre shells. A check of the weapon at the police station revealed a spent .22 calibre round in the chamber with five live rounds in the magazine. When questioned with respect to the index offence Mr. Horvath has indicated no remorse. He has indicated that he was ‘ripped off’ by the victim in a previous drug deal, and that the victim deserved to be shot as a result.
Evidence at the Hearing:
- The Board admitted into evidence the Hospital Report dated April 2, 2025. The Hospital Report provides a great deal of information concerning Mr. Horvath, his personal history, his mental health history, details of the index offence, and Mr. Horvath’s course in hospital and in the community subsequent to the date of the N.C.R. finding. As the Hospital Report was made an exhibit in this hearing, it is not necessary to reproduce the information contained in the Hospital Report in these reasons. We do note, however, the stated diagnoses of:
Paranoid Schizophrenia
Substance Abuse – past history
In addition to the documentary evidence, the Board heard from Dr. Sheppard. Dr. Sheppard focused on the issue before the panel, namely whether Mr. Horvath continues to be a significant threat to public safety.
Dr. Sheppard noted that he has known Mr. Horvath for many years. Doctor Sheppard also noted that this past year, Mr. Horvath has done about as well as he ever has. Dr. Sheppard noted that Mr. Horvath has lived in the community since 2010. The doctor noted there has been no reason to readmit Mr. Horvath to hospital since 2010.
Dr. Sheppard noted that his patient is compliant with medication. The doctor also noted that his patient has abstained from using substances, including alcohol.
Dr. Sheppard advised that Mr. Horvath receives considerable assistance from the Forensic Outpatient Service and also from the Comprehensive Community Support Team (CCST). Dr. Sheppard testified that Mr. Horvath has been able to live in the community in large part by reason of the considerable support given to him by both the Forensic Outpatient Team and by CCST.
Dr. Sheppard then noted that Mr. Horvath’s insight is “poor.” He does not accept that he suffers from a major mental illness. He does not accept that he needs medication. Dr. Sheppard testified that Mr. Horvath’s acceptance of medication is totally externally motivated.
Dr. Sheppard then stated his opinion of events that would follow should Mr. Horvath receive an Absolute Discharge at this time. Dr. Sheppard believes that immediately following an Absolute Discharge, Mr. Horvath would start to drink alcohol again. Once he started with alcohol, there would be a declining trajectory including stopping medication, and thereafter, Mr. Horvath would move out of his current residence and would most likely be unable to find any other residence and would wind up living on the streets in Thunder Bay. Dr. Sheppard opined that thereafter, Mr. Horvath would likely act out and engage in assaultive behaviour.
Dr. Sheppard noted that the last actual violent conduct by Mr. Horvath occurred when Mr. Horvath attempted suicide in 2009. Mr. Horvath was detained in hospital for approximately one year after the attempted suicide.
Dr. Sheppard is of the opinion that Mr. Horvath meets the threshold for a finding of significant threat. Dr. Sheppard notes the very serious nature of the events of the index offence and notes also the very serious self-harm conduct in 2009.
In response to questions from Crown counsel, Dr. Sheppard noted that the staff of the CCST are involved in ensuring medication compliance. Dr. Sheppard believes that there is a staff person at this housing facility from 9 to 5 on weekdays. Dr. Sheppard believes that it is the staff of the CCST that ensures medication compliance with Mr. Horvath’s oral medication. It appears a member of the F.O.S. team administers the injectable medication.
In response to questions from Mr. Agostino, Dr. Sheppard agreed that there is no issue concerning medication compliance. Dr. Sheppard also stated that there has been no apparent improvement in Mr. Horvath’s insight and that the doctor did not expect to see any improvement in his insight.
Once again, the doctor repeated that Mr. Horvath is externally motivated to accept medication.
In response to questions from Mr. Agostino, Dr. Sheppard advised that the Forensic Outpatient Team would remain involved until such time as a civil team could take responsibility for this patient. Dr. Sheppard commented that an ACT team would be a better candidate than continuing with CCST.
Dr. Sheppard stated that the risk factors set out above are unlikely to resolve.
In response to questions from Mr. Agostino, Dr. Sheppard acknowledged that his patient has little or no contact with family members. Apparently, Mr. Horvath has no interest in being involved with any type of activities or programs. His residence is operated by Habitat. Habitat does provide some occasions for social activities, but Mr. Horvath simply states he has “no interest” in such activities.
In response to questions from panel members, Dr. Sheppard repeated his opinion about Mr. Horvath’s lack of insight, addiction to alcohol, and that Mr. Horvath suffers from a treatment resistant mental illness. Dr. Sheppard went on to state that Mr. Horvath does not really understand the dangers involved with the use of alcohol. When questioned by another panel member, Dr. Sheppard repeated that left to his own devices, Mr. Horvath, if he receives an Absolute Discharge, would likely return to the use of alcohol, seek to move out of the Habitat residence, likely discontinue medication, and that there would likely be significant destabilization and acting out in an aggressive manner.
In response to a question from a panel member, Dr. Sheppard acknowledged that for a period of time Mr. Horvath fixated on the victim of the index offence. Dr. Sheppard, however, does not believe that Mr. Horvath now has that same fixation on the victim of the index offence.
Finally, in response to a question from another panel member whether Mr. Horvath would likely commit a serious and harmful criminal offence if no longer under the Board’s jurisdiction, Dr. Sheppard was not so certain on this particular issue.
No other evidence was heard at this hearing.
Final Submissions
At the conclusion of the evidence, the parties were once again canvassed as to their positions.
Ms. Davidson asked the panel to accept Dr. Sheppard’s evidence and the evidence contained in the hospital report.
Ms. Derouard, for the Attorney General, maintained her original position that Mr. Horvath remains a significant threat to public safety. Ms. Derouard reminded the panel of questions and answers Ms. Derouard received from Dr. Sheppard that this patient still has significant ongoing delusions and still occasionally has ongoing hallucinations and continues to hear “voices.”
Mr. Agostino submits that his client no longer remains a significant threat to public safety. He noted that his client is apparently no longer fixated on the victim of the index offence. Mr. Agostino emphasized that his client follows his disposition and there has been a number of years without any violent conduct. Mr. Agostino noted that his client has lived in the community since 2010 without any problems. Mr. Agostino noted that his client has not used alcohol since under the Board. Mr. Agostino submits that his client should receive an Absolute Discharge.
Findings of the Board
Significant Threat
The Board considered this matter at length. We note and accept that Mr. Horvath’s adherence to medication is externally driven. We accept Dr. Sheppard’s evidence that should Mr. Horvath receive an Absolute Discharge, it is likely that Mr. Horvath will resume the use of alcohol. We also accept the likelihood of Mr. Horvath leaving his current residence, discontinuing his medication, and his mental status deteriorating.
The panel accepts Dr. Sheppard’s evidence and the evidence contained in the Hospital Report. In particular, we accept the evidence that Mr. Horvath remains a significant threat to public safety. We do so notwithstanding the length of time since the date of the index offence.
In response to a question from a member of the panel concerning whether Mr. Horvath, should he receive an Absolute Discharge, would likely commit a serious criminal offence, Dr. Sheppard considered the question and responded by saying that he could not conclude that it would be likely. On the other hand, we note the Hospital Report and repeat part of the Report that was referred to above, and in particular:
If Mr. Horvath were not under the jurisdiction of the ORB he would, in all likelihood, stop his antipsychotic medication and use substances, probably alcohol, at the earliest opportunity. As indicated above, his psychiatric illness remains active despite fairly aggressive pharmacological treatment. The stopping of medication, particularly if accompanied by the abuse of alcohol or other substances, would undoubtedly result in intensification of his psychotic symptoms. When acutely psychotic, particularly if also under the influence of alcohol, Mr. Horvath would be at high risk of aggressive behaviour, which would be likely to result in harm to members of the public, and to himself.
- This panel accepts without reservation the comments of Dr. Sheppard in his written report. Accordingly, we have no hesitation in accepting that evidence. As a result, we do find Mr. Horvath to remain a significant threat to public safety.
Risk Assessment
- In last year’s disposition, the following appeared: “An updated psychological risk assessment would assist the Board at Mr. Horvath’s next annual review.” Dr. Sheppard apologized for the fact that a risk assessment had not been completed. This panel is of the view that such a Risk Assessment is necessary for Mr. Horvath’s next hearing.
. We did not have the benefit of a fulsome risk assessment of the type the panel strongly encouraged the hospital to obtain in last year’s reasons. That risk assessment, had it been carried out, would hopefully have considered both actuarial and structured professional judgment factors and could have provided further layers of nuanced data that we suspect would have helped us in better understanding what level of risk Mr. Horvath poses. We anticipate that the next panel to hear Mr. Horvath’s case will have this information, for both Mr. Horvath’s and the public's benefit.
Early Review
- This panel directs that Mr. Horvath’s next hearing be conducted no more than six months from today’s date. We think this is enough time for the hospital to complete a fulsome risk assessment. In this regard, we would also direct a pre-hearing conference to take place approximately 3 or 4 months from now simply to ensure that a risk assessment will be available for that hearing.
[S. 672.5(10)](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html#sec672.5subsec10_smooth)(a) of the [Criminal Code](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html)
- In today’s hearing, we exercised our discretion and permitted Mr. Horvath to be absent from the hearing. We did so based upon advice from Mr. Agostino that Mr. Horvath finds these hearings to be “stressful.” Dr. Sheppard also understands that Mr. Horvath feels attending at O.R.B. hearings to be “stressful.” We would hope and expect that Mr. Horvath attend at his next hearing. We think he should attend the hearing and if during that hearing Mr. Horvath appeared to be stressed, or for any other reason, an application for exclusion could be made at that time.
Conclusion
- We have found Mr. Horvath to remain a significant threat to public safety. The parties jointly agree that in that event, there should be a continuation of a Conditional Discharge, and we have no hesitation to do so. As indicated, we direct the next hearing to be no more than six months from today’s date and expect and hope that there will be a fulsome risk assessment available for the panel hearing that case at that time
DATED this 27th day of May 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. J. Goldenberg
Alternate Chairperson
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board