Ontario Review Board
Re: Lemar Campbell
ORB File No: 7005
Hearing held on: Tuesday, April 8, 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. C. Fromstein
Members: Dr. L.E. Cappe Dr. C. Young Hon. C. Nelson Ms. B. Naegele
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Lemar Campbell Counsel: Mr. J. DiCecca
The Person in charge of Hospital: Counsel: Mr. J. McIntyre
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. M. Feindel
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated June 2, 2025)
Introduction
On August 16, 2016, Lemar Campbell was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of assault, aggravated assault, assault police officer, obstruct police, utter threats and failure to comply with probation, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. He is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (ORB) dated May 1, 2024, detaining him on the Forensic Service of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) with privileges up to and including to live in the Greater Toronto Area in approved accommodation and when doing so, to report to the hospital not less than once per week.
On April 8, a panel of the Review Board convened at CAMH to review that disposition. Mr. Campbell was present, represented by counsel, Mr. DiCecca.
At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as to their initial positions. Mr. McIntyre, on behalf of the hospital, submitted that Mr. Campbell remains a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the current disposition is that which is necessary and appropriate. Mr. Feindel, on behalf of the Crown, concurred with the hospital position. Mr. DiCecca, on behalf of Mr. Campbell, indicated that he concedes the issue of significant threat and joins the hospital position.
Index Offence
- The details of the index offence are as follows:
“On Sunday 05 April, 2015 at approximately 18:00 hrs, the first victim (FW) was walking southbound on Yonge St. with his wife. Prior to arriving at the crosswalk, the couple noted the accused punching store windows and knocking over Christmas decorations. They observed the accused kick a Christmas ornament onto the street, step on it, and then return to the sidewalk where he continued to punch windows.
The victim and his wife waited for the light to change from red to green then crossed Yonge St. with a group of three or four pedestrians. As they walked, the accused walked behind them and to their left. As the victim and his wife reached the midpoint of the crosswalk, the accused lowered his hood and ran toward them, then suddenly and without provocation, punched the victim in the right side of the face. The victim was knocked to the ground by this punch, and required assistance to get back to his feet.
After punching the victim, the accused continued to run southbound where the second victim (EF) was walking. The accused approached her from behind and, as she turned to her left, the accused suddenly punched the victim in the face, knocking her to the ground. As she lay there, the accused kicked her in the back and struck her again in the face.
While still on the ground, the victim kicked up both her legs in an effort to defend herself. She then attempted to get to her feet. As she did that, the accused punched her in the face again, this time knocking her unconscious. The victim fell to the ground on her back.
A group of pedestrians, including the first victim, attempted to assist EF while the accused returned, stood over her and picked up the cup of coffee she had been holding. The accused began to walk away, then turned around and rushed at the group of pedestrians, throwing the cup toward them. The pedestrians retreated to the roadway.
The accused ran southbound on Yonge St. The victim, EF lay unconscious and bleeding from the head. Within seconds of the assault, she suffered a full body seizure as bystanders assisted. Several witnesses called 9-1-1. An ambulance arrived shortly after 18:00 hrs and EF was taken to St. Michael’s Hospital.
One witness followed the accused, who was ultimately arrested a short distance away. During the arrest, he verbally identified himself as “Shaka Burke”, date of birth 27 September 1990. He was transported to 52 Division, where he was booked in under that name. Officers took the accused for fingerprinting and during that process, the accused turned to police and said “I’m going to kill you” and he called the officer a “fat fuck”. The accused turned to a second officer and spat in his face. He was then taken to the ground, where he began to resist, refusing to put his hands behind his back. There was a brief struggle before he was ultimately handcuffed.
Five hours after his arrest, the accused’s true identity of Lemar Campbell was obtained. It was discovered that on 23 December 2013, the accused had been found guilty of Assault CBH and was placed on probation for a period of two years. One of the conditions was that he keep the peace and be of good behaviour, thus the above incident resulted in a Fail to Comply with Probation charge.
Victim #1 (FW) suffered redness and swelling to the right side of his face. Victim #2 (EF) suffered a seizure, a cut to her scalp and bruising to the left side of her face and to her left wrist. She indicated that she had no memory of the assault, and reportedly experienced dizziness, disorientation and vomiting while at the hospital."
Evidence at the Hearing
The evidence at the hearing was comprised of the Hospital Report dated March 26, 2025, and the testimony of Dr. Van, Mr. Campbell’s most responsible treating psychiatrist. The hospital sets out in detail Mr. Campbell's background so it need not be repeated. Of note, Mr. Campbell is presently 34 years of age. He moved to Canada from Jamaica in 2000. His first psychiatric hospital admission took place in 2012 after his stepmother called the police. This was followed by a pattern of admissions, treatment in hospital, discharges and readmissions. Mr. Campbell did not show insight into his mental illness at that time. In 2013 it was reported that he assaulted both his mother and a co-patient.
Mr. Campbell was admitted to CAMH on August 16, 2016. Over time he was transferred to the general forensic unit. It is reported that he is engaged in volunteering at the hospital greenhouse. The treatment team has continued to look for high support housing but initially was faced with refusals when openings came up.
He is reported to have a positive relationship with staff and good program attendance. Mr. Campbell was reported to have agreed to receiving his medication by injection. He had indicated that he would continue with medication so as “not to get into trouble”. Mr. Campbell suffers from diabetes and exhibited poor self-control in the past. He requires support to treat his diabetes.
Mr. Campbell’s diagnosis are schizophrenia, cannabis use disorder (in remission in a control setting), rule out unspecified personality disorder (with mixed avoidant and premorbid schizoid personality traits). Over the past treatment year Mr. Campbell has exhibited no positive symptoms of his illness. He does suffer from negative symptoms including poverty of thought, asociality, restricted affect and avolition.
On June 28, 2024, Mr. Campbell had one positive urine screen for cannabis. This resulted in his privileges being restricted. He refused to engage in substance abuse counseling and denies craving a return to use. Following this incident, Mr. Campbell renewed his program engagement. He is reported to be motivated and has a positive relationship with select staff which motivates him to attend outings.
The Hospital Report sets out a risk summary that indicates on the HCR-20 Version 3 that Mr. Campbell represents a low risk for imminent or future violence on the recommended detention order disposition. There is a high risk that future violence would result in serious physical harm. His risk is to be re-evaluated in 12 months. Future risk concerns involve his history of noncompliance and substance abuse. Despite his adherence to medication, he is still subject to negative symptoms of his mental illness and is generally reported to be withdrawn.
Dr. Van testified she has been Mr. Campbell’s inpatient psychiatrist since his transfer to the general forensic unit on July 19, 2023.
Mr. Campbell was accepted to Bailey House, a male-only residence that offers seven day a week support, with his own bedroom, a shared kitchen, meals provided and medication supervision. Mr. Campbell had been set for discharge following this acceptance but he had a brief visit there on March 31st, and as a result expressed that he did not want to move to that residence. He had gone previously to Baily House for lunch in the company of a staff member. An overnight visit was scheduled for March 31. He attended on his own. Apparently the housing staff were not prepared for his visit as it was a last minute plan. The housing supervisor was not present. Mr. Campbell felt unwelcome at the residence and after a few hours he returned to hospital. He has since indicated that he does not want to move into that residence.
Dr. Van expressed that is the view of the treatment team that Bailey House was a very suitable residence for Mr. Campbell. It is known for its ability to manage diabetic care. There is a nurse practitioner who attends several times a week at the house in this regard. Mr. Campbell has been readmitted to hospital in the past due to his mismanagement of his diabetic care. Bailey House is situated proximate to the hospital. Dr. Van indicated that if Mr. Campbell moves to Bailey House he could continue to participate in volunteer work that he enjoys. The treatment team, in preparation for such a move, signs people up for outpatient programs. Mr. Campbell has been engaged in the core stable program already and attends Thursday outings that outpatients go to as well. It is anticipated that were he to be discharged he would have a full week with groups on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and his volunteer work on Fridays.
Mr. Campbell is not on any other housing waitlists. It took a long time for the treatment team to get Mr. Campbell accepted for community housing. If he declines to move to Bailey House they would have to begin from scratch. The hospital has made clear to him, however, that if he does not wish to live there, he will be able to continue to reside at the hospital. There are other high support housings available in the catchment area but nowhere that has specific diabetic management and diet for persons with diabetes that Bailey House has. The treatment team are maintaining the placement at Bailey House at this time and have not declined it but indicated that it cannot be maintained for a great deal of time. It is hoped that Mr. Campbell will reconsider another visit and thereafter a move to Bailey House.
Dr. Van reiterated her position that Mr. Campbell represents a significant threat to the safety of the public. His main risk factor is that without adequate supervision he is likely to stop taking medication, consume cannabis, both of which will cause a deterioration in his mental state and increase his risk of violence. A conditional discharge is not appropriate because Mr. Campbell has remained in hospital. It remains unclear whether he has the skills to manage in the community and maintain adherence to medication, mental stability, and abstinence from substances. The hospital further must be in a position to approve his housing that has appropriate supervision to meet Mr. Campbell’s needs and risk. Dr. Van indicated that if Mr. Campbell was on a conditional discharge it would be questionable whether the Mental Health Act would be sufficient to manage his risk because she does not think he would be able to be certified long enough to manage his risk needs. He is medication capable so Box B would not be available for readmission.
After Mr. Campbell’s substance use in the past year his level of privileges was severely curtailed but he was able to build back up on the pass level to now be at the highest privilege level. He is stable and doing well and it is hoped that that continues towards community discharge.
Dr. Van was asked about Mr. Campbell’s diabetes treatment. She noted that he is aware of the medical risk factors but remains mostly passive with respect to treatment, allowing staff to treat him as necessary but he is not openly concerned. He was on insulin in the past which requires more care. While he is not presently on insulin if his diabetes became worse he would require more clinical support which the Bailey residence is able to provide. There was concern when he showed a deterioration in his mental health in June 2024, that this could have been related to an elevated glucose level. That had been highlighted just prior to his prior hospital admission. After his use of cannabis in June 2024, there was not an immediate change in his mental state. A week later the team started to notice a very significant shift in his anger. He apologized for this. It is possible that this could have resulted from either recent cannabis use and cravings that followed, a loss of his high privilege passes or possibly poor glucose control.
In response to questions, Dr. Dr. Van indicated that should Mr. Campbell agree to another visit to Bailey House that the treatment team could certainly send someone with him to facilitate his comfort level and they have suggested even a lunch visit.
It was pointed out in questioning to Dr. Van that in past years Mr. Campbell did attend voluntarily twice for readmission.
Submissions
Mr. McIntyre, on behalf of the hospital, maintained his initial position. He submitted there is no air of reality to a conditional discharge due to the high need for supportive housing and the hospital’s need to approve Mr. Campbell’s accommodation. He submitted that the disposition be maintained on the same terms as being that which is necessary and appropriate.
Mr. Feindel, on behalf of the Crown, continued to support the hospital position. He noted that the team was working hard to get Mr. Campbell integrated into the community into appropriate housing. It sounded like Bailey House was possibly a good fit and this option will remain open to Mr. Campbell at this time for his reconsideration.
Mr. DiCecca maintained the joint submission. He noted that Bailey House unfortunately made a bad first impression on Mr. Campbell but that the team hopes that he will change his mind and there are ongoing discussions in that regard. He noted that his client has enjoyed a positive year and has been very active in volunteering. Mr. Campbell, he noted, is on the right trajectory.
Deliberation
In consideration of the evidence and the submissions before us, the Board is unanimous in accepting the joint position of the parties that Mr. Campbell remains a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a continuation of his current detention order disposition. We rely on Dr. Van’s expert evidence and on the risk assessment in the Hospital Report. which outlines the risk concerns if he was not subject to supervision of the Ontario Review Board. with respect to noncompliance with treatment and abstinence from substance use. It notes, positively that that he is a low risk of future violence on the recommended disposition.
Mr. Campbell has had a very positive year which laid the foundation for his hoped for discharge into the community. It is quite regrettable that his visit to Bailey House did not go well and it appears that the house had not been fully prepared for the visit. The Board appreciates that the hospital will keep that option for Mr. Campbell open for a period of time. Hopefully, he will be willing to consider another visit to Bailey House. Should he feel comfortable, a discharge to Bailey House would appear to well meet Mr. Campbell’s needs. He could continue with a full schedule of activities that he enjoys. Should Mr. Campbell decide that this housing is not what he wishes, we anticipate that the team will continue their hard work towards transitioning him to the community.
We make this disposition in consideration of the primary factor of the risk to the public, Mr. Campbell’s mental condition, his reintegration to the community and his other needs.
DATED this 2nd day of June, 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. C. Fromstein Alternate Chairperson
__________________
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board