Ontario Review Board
Re: Dazel Henry
ORB File No: 8473
Hearing held on: Wednesday, April 9, 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 Ms. C. Young Hon. C. Nelson Ms. B. Naegele
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Dazel Henry Counsel: Mr. A. Ostroff
The Person in charge of Hospital: Counsel: Mr. K. Dow
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. V. Culp
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated June 2, 2025)
Introduction
On November 24, 2023, Dazel Decosta Henry was found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder on a charge of second-degree murder, contrary to the Criminal Code. He is currently subject to a disposition dated May 10, 2024, detaining him on the secure forensic unit of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (“CAMH” or “hospital”) with privileges up to and including accompanied passes onto hospital grounds and accompanied passes to enter into the City of Toronto. The disposition also contains restrictions including that he abstain from the use of substances and submit urine for uranalysis and possess no weapons.
On April 9, 2025, the Board convened a hearing at CAMH to review that disposition. Mr. Henry was present and represented by counsel, Mr. Ostroff. The purpose of the hearing was to determine if Mr. Henry represents a significant threat to the safety of the public, and if so, to order the disposition that is necessary and appropriate, as well as least onerous and restrictive in consideration of the factors of s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as to their initial positions. Mr. Dow, counsel for the hospital, indicated that Mr. Henry represents a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the appropriate and necessary disposition is a detention order. He proposes expansion of privileges in the current order to include entry into the community of Toronto indirectly supervised. Ms. Culp, on behalf of the Crown, indicated that she wished to hear the evidence before making that determination whether to support the hospital position. Mr. Ostroff, counsel for Mr. Henry, indicated that, in light of his client’s progress. he was supporting the position of the hospital and conceding significant threat.
Index Offence
- The details of the index offence, which took place on August 24, 2019, are set out in last year’s Reasons for Disposition, as follows:
“According to his cell phone activity, Mr. Henry went from York University area to Vaughan and then in the region of Oakville Place Mall. At 3:49 pm, he exited the vehicle at Gairloch Gardens in Oakville. Mr. Henry left Gairloch Gardens at 4:22 pm and drove to Oakville to the intersection at Allan and Church Street. He parked on Allan Street, left the running vehicle, and retrieved something from the interior of the vehicle. He walked across Church Street on a trajectory that would intercept Mr. Ferrari, who was outside at the time. His hoodie was pulled over his head and he was wearing the gloves and had a knife. There was no argument, and Mr. Henry thrust the knife into Mr. Ferrari’s chest. Mr. Ferrari collapsed against the bushes. Mr. Henry ran to the vehicle and threw the knife onto the passenger seat and drove away – all within 69 seconds of exiting the car.”
- It is noted that the victim of the index offence, Mr. Ferrari, was a senior citizen living in the Revera Churchill Retirement Residence. He is reported to have left the residence for a short walk on August 24, 2019. He had no prior contact with Mr. Henry.
Diagnoses
- Mr. Henry’s diagnoses include:
a) Unspecified Schizophrenia Spectrum and Other Psychotic Disorder
b) Substance Use Disorder, in sustained remission in a controlled environment.
c) Substance Induced Psychotic Disorder
d) Query Antisocial Personality Disorder
Background:
The evidence at the hearing included the Hospital Report dated March 31, 2025, exhibit 1 and the testimony of Dr. Kravtsenyuk. Mr. Henry’s background is set out in the Hospital Report. Briefly summarized, he is presently 33 years of age. He moved to Canada from United States as a child. His mother was deported to United States when he was 12 years of age and there were possible issues of violence and her suffering from schizophrenia. His father remarried. He has a brother who is five years older. It is reported by Mr. Henry’s stepmother that he suffered OCD from the age of 10. He had a history of being in fights as a youth, carrying a knife since the age of 14 and being associated with a gang, the Crips, until age 20 or 21.
It is reported cannabis use as a teenager resulted in Mr. Henry becoming more paranoid and he continued his cannabis and alcohol use after he became homeless in 2018 and showed signs of paranoia. When incarcerated in 2019, he presented with psychotic symptoms and was admitted to the Waypoint Centre. He reported that his cannabis consumption was up to 1/4 ounce daily. He engaged in the use of magic mushrooms (psilocybin) that caused him to have delusions and he has reported that his alcohol consumption was up to 6 to 20 beers of day or a “mickey” or large bottle of hard liquor. He has indicated that he used drugs and alcohol as a coping mechanism for his anger and paranoia.
Mr. Henry was subject to criminal charges in 2018 and 2019 for offences including assault with a weapon and aggravated assault. He was involved in an August 2019 offence involving stabbing of a person with a box cutter near a children's playground and hitting a taxi driver with a gas can. Once released on bail on these charges he stabbed his stepmother when she was driving him to his father. The results of these proceedings are unknown. He had been homeless leading up to the index offence.
Mr. Henry was transferred to CAMH on March 7, 2024.
It is reported that in 2024, Mr. Henry presented as stable with no psychotic symptoms. He is of the opinion that these have ceased since he stopped using drugs and while the psychiatric medications he received have helped him, he will not require them on a long-term basis. Mr. Henry was trialed on injectable medication but returned to an oral medication regimen. He has been engaged in programs and has achieved up to level 4 hospital and ground privileges. The Hospital Report notes that the recommendations are based on his positive shift in the past year wherein he has shown some insight into his mental illness and has remained stable and without incidents.
Mr. Henry's family is quite involved. His brother, with whom he has a close relationship, and sister-in-law have visited him and he has regular visits with his father as well as phone contact.
The Hospital Report notes that his psychological assessment suggests attempts at impression management as well as severe anger pathology. With respect to risk, he has a PCL-R score of 29 out of 40 which places him in the high range of psychopathy traits.
Dr. Kravtsenyuk testified that she has been Mr. Henry's most responsible physician since his transfer to her unit last year and she adopts the contents of the Hospital Report. Mr. Henry meets the threshold of a significant threat to the safety of the public though at present his mental status is stable. He has required no seclusions and he has engaged in no serious incidents on the unit. There is no evidence of any use of illicit substances while on the secure forensic unit.
She testified that Mr. Henry has had a good year with good control of his psychiatric illness. At the beginning of the year, based on conversations she had with Mr. Henry, he agreed to switch from oral to medication by injection. She believes that this is a good risk strategy. Mr. Henry, she testified, gave it a “good try” but he complained of side effects which he felt he could not tolerate. His family, who are very involved and supportive of him, further corroborated his side effect complaints. As a result, the injectable medication trial was paused and he was reverted back to receiving oral antipsychotic medication. Mr. Henry had been given three injections over a 30-day period of the prior medication, Invega. Since that time, in November 2024, Dr. Kravtsenyuk has provided Mr. Henry with education in urging him to give injectable medications another try. He is, she reports, considering it. In response to questions, she indicated that she has been engaged in this process of trying to convince Mr. Henry to do so for the past six months.
As per his disposition, he has remained on the secure forensic unit throughout the past year. Dr. Kravtsenyuk testified that she believes he continues to require placement on the secure forensic unit at this time but that, with further optimization of treatment, he will be suitable for eventual transfer within the upcoming year to the general forensic unit.
She has not observed any overt positive psychotic symptoms or delusions but prominent negative symptoms of psychosis and social withdrawal, which his family also observes. He is fairly withdrawn and quiet and needs encouragement. He has shown fair engagement in the programming available to him on the unit and some therapeutic neighbourhood programs (which are mostly educational programs with respect to the Ontario Review Board system, recovery and social skills). She testified that his treatment would be optimized if he were taking injectable antipsychotic medications. She hopes that these will address some of his ongoing symptoms as well as ensuring consistent compliance as he transitions to having greater liberty.
With respect to insight, Mr. Henry knows that he suffers from a mental illness and requires medication and that without same he could decompensate and become again involved in aggressive acts. Mr. Henry is taking his current oral medication olanzapine with no side effects. She testified that she has no concerns about his oral medication compliance on the secure forensic unit but she feels that the depot medication regimen would be important to ensure compliance if he were transferred to a general forensic unit. There he would have more liberties and potentially extended passes with exposure to risk factors when engaging in community programming. Her position is that depot medication would be important to ensure his medication compliance.
She submits that it will be suitable to transition Mr. Henry to the general forensic unit and expand his unit programming and community access in the upcoming year. She testified that allowing him indirectly supervised community access must be done very cautiously with the assurance that he is being optimally treated. The hospital must do so in a very gradual way with oversight. Regular uranalysis will be necessary, as well as his engagement in substance use and relapse programming.
Since the time of last year’s hearing the team has had a longer period to observe Mr. Henry and seen his consistent stability on the unit. He attends all unit meetings. Mr. Henry is generally very responsive when the team offers him programming, which includes dealing with issues of attitudes towards violence and antisocial traits.
Dr. Kravtsenyuk was asked about the reference in the Reasons of last year's Disposition about the team’s concerns about a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder and malingering. She testified that clinically this remains a differential diagnosis. It is not seen prominently based on the observations from multiple team members, however, it will be important to observe Mr. Henry's behaviours in a more open environment than a secure forensic unit.
His current privilege level includes escorted or accompanied passes off the unit for programming. He has no indirectly supervised passes on the hospital grounds on his disposition and has reached the maximum privilege level of his disposition.
He has engaged in no substance use. He has very limited access to substances on the secure forensic unit but Dr. Kravtsenyuk noted that other patients who have significant cravings have been able to access substances even when accessing only escorted and accompanied passes. There has been no evidence of this with respect to Mr. Henry. There is drug and relapse prevention programming elements incorporated into his current programs. Dr. Kravtsenyuk testified that Mr. Henry does understand the connection between substance use and risk based on their discussions.
Dr. Kravtsenyuk believes that Mr. Henry will be suitable for transfer to the general forensic unit after he has completed the training program of how to use indirectly supervised hospital grounds privilege This is undertaken on the secure forensic unit. If this privilege is included in the upcoming disposition, he would start training which takes approximately four to five weeks. He is not eligible to be accepted onto the general forensic unit until he has completed this training.
Dr. Kravtsenyuk testified that in making further assessments of diagnosis she continues to be aware of and concerned with the severity of violence engaged in by Mr. Henry during the index offence and the degree of manipulation which has been reported. A prominent feature of antisociality has not been seen in the past year but the team remains alert to the differential diagnosis. She noted that it will be important to see how he manages in the further transitions within the hospital.
Dr. Kravtsenyuk indicated that the other-long acting injection medications that are being offered to Mr. Henry for trials have less side effects than that on which he was initialled trialed. However, all injectable medications have some side effects. The team seeks to find medication that is tolerable for Mr. Henry and there are also other medications available which mitigate the resulting side effects. She will continue to work to get more information to Mr. Henry with respect to other medications. He has been consistently compliant with taking his oral medication.
To his credit in the past year Mr. Henry has been subject to some conflict on the unit but has been able to walk away and ignore it. He has handled this well. However, in his background there is a great deal of violence, more than one stabbing, etc. Dr. Kravtsenyuk was asked whether these issues have been discussed with Mr. Henry. She indicated they have talked generally about violence and his risk of same if he is not treated. Dr. Kravtsenyuk has not reviewed the facts of the past incidents with Mr. Henry but he has been able to recognize that at the time of the index offence he was suffering from mental illness and that substance use contributed.
Dr. Kravtsenyuk was asked how it will impact Mr. Henry being transferred to a general forensic unit if he continues to resist a trial of depot medication. She testified that it would slow it down. The general forensic unit team may find that he is not acceptable until he is on depot medication. She testified that it is her strong position that his taking antipsychotic medication by injection is necessary prior to his being transferred to a general forensic unit. She noted, however, that the ultimate decision to recommend the transfer is that of the treatment team and not hers alone.
Dr. Kravtesenyuk was asked if Mr. Henry’s family, who are notably supportive, have become approved persons. She testified that she believes that they are suitable and that they have tried to convince him to take the injectable medications. She noted that she believes that Abilify is the one option for him and she would anticipate that he will require both the depot medication and oral medication. She is unaware if Mr. Henry has any insight into his likely indefinite need for medication.
With respect to his insight into substance relapse, Dr. Kravtsenyuk testified that Mr. Henry believes that he can abstain from substance use because he is taking medications and that medications help him control this. While he gives a lot of credit to oral medications keeping him safe from decompensation Dr. Kravtsenyuk indicated that she explains to him that injectable medications would be better.
Counsel for Mr. Henry asked Dr. Kravtsenyuk for potential timelines before he would be eligible for indirectly supervised community passes if these were included in his disposition. Dr. Kravtsenyuk testified that it would be difficult to put a timeline but noted in particular that a high degree of caution would be required given the potential risk of serious violence if Mr. Henry were to decompensate. Were indirect community passes to be allowed for Mr. Henry, Dr. Kravtsenyuk agreed that putting in a time limit such as up to two hours would be a wise and safe approach.
Dr. Kravtsenyuk was asked for the location of the index offence and its proximity to the hospital. Counsel for the hospital was able to provide the information that the index offence took place in Oakville.
Submissions
Mr. Dow on behalf of the hospital submitted that Mr. Henry has had a very good year. He has used his privileges appropriately with no incidents. He submitted that it is appropriate to include in the disposition at this time the privileges up to and including indirectly supervised community privileges, which would be gradually introduced.
Ms. Culp, on behalf of the Crown, submitted that she agrees that a detention order is the necessary and appropriate disposition. She does not take issue with the disposition being of a hybrid nature, or to the Forensic Service because it is within the realm of possibility that Mr. Henry could be transferred to the general forensic unit in the upcoming year. She submitted that it is necessary that the hospital take cautious approach with respect to privileges and recommends the outer envelope of privileges be indirectly supervised hospital and grounds privileges. Ms. Culp submitted that granting indirectly supervised community privileges is not appropriate at this time given the severity of the index offence and Mr. Henry's prior violent antecedents. He has not been tested with respect to access to substances with greater privileges or in the community. There are other risk factors, as well, in the differential diagnosis. She submitted that it is unclear based on the timeline whether Mr. Henry would attain the ability for indirectly supervised community privileges within the upcoming year. She noted that if he does very well and progresses with a different long-acting injectable medication and limited side effects that the hospital could request an early hearing to expand the privileges if they deemed that appropriate. Ms. Culp also requested the inclusion of a prohibition condition that Mr. Henry have no contact, directly or indirectly, with immediate family members of the index offence deceased victim. She acknowledged that there was no evidence before the Board on that issue.
Mr. Osteroff, on behalf of Mr. Henry, submitted that his client has had a good year and joins the hospital position as being the appropriate disposition. He noted that the treatment team will have the ability to assess Mr. Henry's progress and determine when it is appropriate to grant that privilege of indirectly supervised community access.
Analysis and Conclusion
In consideration of the evidence before us and the submissions of the parties, the Board finds that Mr. Henry remains a significant threat to the safety of the public. We recognize that that was a joint position of the parties and we make that finding independently including the severity of the index offence and Mr. Henry’s violent antecedents.
In consideration of the necessary and appropriate disposition the Board agrees with the position that his disposition should be a detention order on the Forensic Service of CAMH He has at this stage maintained himself well but only on a secure forensic treatment unit to date. This disposition will allow for Mr. Henry's continued progress and reintegration by allowing the treatment team to transfer him to the general forensic unit at such time as that is deemed appropriate. There are steps in the evidence that he will have to undertake first including training for indirectly supervised use of hospital grounds privileges which will be included in this disposition.
We find that it is appropriate to further expand the disposition to also include escorted and accompanied passes into the community. These will further allow for Mr. Henry's reintegration and progress as deemed appropriate by the treatment team.
However, it is the unanimous view of the panel that it is not appropriate to include indirectly supervised passes into the community at this time, for the following reasons. Mr. Henry engaged in the most serious of violent offences. He has a high PCL-R which speaks to a high degree of psychopathy. His diagnosis remains uncertain. He has for the past six months not been willing to undertake a trial of injectable medications that his doctor encourages and which she has described to him as being better able to control his mental disorder. It is the opinion of Dr. Kravtsenyuk his treating psychiatrist whose uncontroverted evidence we accept that until such time as he does commence a trial of that medication, he is not yet ready for transfer to the general forensic unit.
There are a number of steps that need to be undertaken in a very cautious and careful manner as the hospital team gets to know Mr. Henry more fully. We sincerely hope that he continues to work well with his treating psychiatrist and accepts her suggestion for a retrial of medications that could benefit him and assist in his progress and community reintegration. The expansion in the disposition as is being ordered will give Mr. Henry a lot of room for further access to programming and activities. It is positive that he has had a good year with no incidents of violence and has shown growing insight into his illness and treatment needs.
For all these reasons we make the disposition of a detention order to Forensic Services of CAMH and expand the existing privileges to now include Hospital and Grounds indirectly supervised. We do so recognizing the prime factor of protection of public safety as well as Mr. Heny's mental condition, his reintegration into society 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