Ontario Review Board
Re: Peter Huk
ORB File No: 1579
Hearing held on: Friday, April 11, 2025
Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health 1001 Queen Street West, Toronto
Pursuant to: Sections 672.81(2.1) and 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before: Alternate Chairperson: Ms. C. Fromstein Members: Dr. L.E. Cappe Dr. C. Young Hon. C. Nelson Mr. S. Duffy
Parties Appearing: Accused: Peter Huk Counsel: Ms. C. Whillier The Person in charge of Hospital: Counsel: Ms. M. Warner Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. V. Culp
REASONS FOR DECISION AND DISPOSITION
(Dated June 3, 2025)
Introduction
1On January 18, 1993, Peter Huk was found not criminally responsible (NCR) on a charge of arson, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. He is currently subject to a Decision and Disposition dated March 5, 2024. The Board therein held that the restriction of liberty had been warranted. The Disposition put in place was detention at the Forensic Service of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) with privileges up to and including to live in the community in 24 hour a day supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge.
2On March 7, 2025, the hospital notified the Ontario Review Board of a restriction of liberty on Mr. Huk by his readmission to hospital on February 27, 2025 where he has remained to the present time.
- On April 11, 2025, a panel of the Ontario Review Board met in person at the hospital for the annual review of Mr. Huk’s disposition of February 21, 2024 as well as to review whether the most recent ROL was warranted and represented the least onerous and least restrictive action.
3Mr. Huk was not present at the hearing. Ms. Whillier, counsel for Mr. Huk, advised the parties that she had met with Mr. Huk on the unit and he had provided instructions to her to proceed on his behalf. He was aware that he could, if he wished, join the hearing. No parties objected to Mr. Huk not attending his hearing and accordingly, an order was made under s. 672.5(10) permitting him to be absent at the hearing.
4Ms. Warner represented the hospital and Ms. Culp represented the Crown Attorney.
5The evidence at the hearing was comprised of the notice of the ROL and the hospital report dated April 1, 2025 (exhibit 1) and the expert testimony of Dr. Kravtsenyuk.
6At the outset of the hearing the parties were canvassed as to their initial positions. Ms. Warner indicated the hospital’s position that the restriction of liberty was warranted and continues to be so and that the previous disposition should be continued without change. Ms. Culp, on behalf of the Crown, joined that position. Ms. Whillier, on behalf of Mr. Huk indicated that her position on the restriction of liberty is that it was warranted initially but his continued detention is no longer necessary. Her client wishes to be returned to his community residence. She did not contest the issue of significant threat and agreed to the terms of the detention order that were put forward.
Index Offence
7The details of the index offence are taken from last year’s Reasons for Decision and Disposition, as follows:
“On October 14, 1992 Mr. Huk attended a Subway sandwich store and asked for a coffee. He left the store, picked up a bag of garbage outside the store and placed it behind the owner’s car. He collected three other bags of garbage and set them with the first bag