Re Gordina Edwards, 2025 CanLII 52786

Ontario Review Board

Re: Gordina Edwards

ORB File No: 6538

Hearing held on: May 14, 2025

Place of hearing: North Bay Regional Health Centre – North Bay

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

Before: Alternate Chairperson: Mr. R. Steinberg Members: Dr. M. Kalia Dr. P. Prendergast Hon. A. Sosna Ms. D. Smith

Parties Appearing: Accused: Gordina Edwards Counsel: Mr. C. Bracken

The Person in charge of Hospital: Representative: Mr. R. Holden Counsel: Mr. P. Trenker

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. D. McCaig

AMENDED REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated June 5, 2025)

Please see underlined change made on June 9, 2025 at paragraph 23 of the original reasons.

Introduction:

1Gordina Edwards was found not criminally responsible on May 27, 2014, of arson and failure to comply with a probation order. She has remained under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board since that time and is presently subject to a disposition dated May 9, 2024, that orders her detention at the Forensic Programs of the North Bay Regional Health Centre and grants her privileges, the most liberal of which permits her to live in the community within the catchment area of the hospital in supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge.

2The Board convened a hearing at the hospital on May 14, 2025, to review the disposition, as required by section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. At the outset of the hearing counsel for all parties stated their support for the hospital recommendation that the necessary and appropriate disposition for the coming year was continuation of all terms of the present disposition.

Index Offences:

3The facts of the index offences are set out in the April 15, 2025, hospital report, which was marked as Exhibit 1 at the hearing. Briefly stated, they are that on March 15, 2014, Ms. Edwards, a resident in a quadraplex owned by the Canadian Mental Health Association in Timmins, Ontario, went to the common area of the basement to do laundry. While there she set fire to a pair of socks and a blanket and threw those items onto an armchair, watched while the chair was engulfed in flames, and then left the basement. In doing so she passed her roommate and failed to warn her about the fire. She exited the building without warning any of the tenants.

4Following her arrest, she admitted starting the fire and stated she did not feel badly for having done so and would start more fires if released from custody. She indicated she was aware others were present in the building when she set the fire and stated she did not care if any were hurt as a result of her conduct. She told police she had no intention of calling 911.

5On February 18, 2024, Ms. Edwards was convicted of a charge of breach of probation and was sentenced to a further term of 12 months probation, one term of which was to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, which she breached by committing the arson offence.

Background and History:

6Ms. Edwards is presently 30 years of age. She is diagnosed with Schizophrenia, Paranoid Type, Alcohol Use Disorder, in sustained remission, Cannabis Use Disorder, in sustained remission, Methamphetamine Use Disorder, in sustained remission, and Mild Intellectual Delay. She is capable to consent to psychiatric treatment but incapable of managing her finances, which are managed by the Public Guardian and Trustee.

7The hospital report describes Ms. Edwards as a poor historian. She has reported that she was born in Moose Factory and moved with her parents and three siblings to the Timmins area when she was in grade four. Her upbringing was very chaotic, as both her parents had severe substance abuse disorders. Her parents separated when she was approximately six years of age; her father died when she was in her early teens; and her mother died in January 2012.

8Ms. Edwards’ older sister assumed the parental role and the siblings continued to reside together; however, she became increasingly rebellious, and her mental health continued to deteriorate. In 2012, after arguing with family members, she set fire to a sweater and threw it into the garage, causing fire damage to the garage.

9Her criminal record includes convictions in 2012 for obstructing a police officer, causing a disturbance, and arson, and in 2014 for failing to comply with probation. Her mental health history commenced in the fall of 2011 when she was admitted under a Mental Health Act Form 1 to the Attawapiskat First Nation for bizarre behaviour. Further Form 1 admissions followed in 2012 and early January 2013.

10Ms. Edwards began to use substances, including alcohol, cannabis, methamphetamine, and cocaine, when she was aged 15 or 16. She did not complete grade nine and has no history of employment. No collateral information suggests she has ever been involved in a relationship. She is said to lack the support of family members and there has been no known contact with extended family members in the James Bay Coast area.

11The hospital report traces Ms. Edwards’ course of treatment while under the jurisdiction of the Board and details her treatment in the past year. She moved to the Dual Diagnosis Transitional Rehabilitative Housing Program (DD-TRHP) on January 12, 2022. In October 2023 she transitioned to more independent living by moving into a basement apartment within the same home, allowing her increased autonomy while still receiving staff support.

12Dr. Le assumed the role of Ms. Edwards’ forensic psychiatrist in January 2025 and meets with her on a regular basis. She continues to engage with the Forensic Outreach Team for additional support and her clinical status is described as having remained stable, although she continues to struggle with chronic auditory pseudo-hallucinations, which tend to intensify when she is feeling anxious or stressed.

13She has demonstrated some improvement in her insight concerning her condition and has developed better coping strategies for managing her psychotic symptoms. She has worked diligently with her treatment team to develop coping strategies such as distraction techniques and using PRN (as needed) medication. She continues to require staff support in areas such as stress management, social skill building, and coping strategy implementation.

14The hospital report notes that while she continues to face challenges relating to auditory hallucinations, anxiety, and emotional regulation, she has demonstrated progress with her insight and now recognizes triggers and seeks assistance when needed. She has become more independent, has developed improved coping strategies, and has continued to work with her care team to manage her symptoms and navigate the challenges associated with her mental health.

15Ms. Edwards has not had a positive urine drug screen while living in the community. She is said to be a very social individual and regularly visits with staff at the Minowacihewin – Regional Service for Indigenous People (MINO). Although her involvement in the program is sporadic, staff continue to offer her opportunities to participate in cultural activities in the community. She has also continued working at the hospital’s Snack Shack.

16The Hospital Report notes that Ms. Edwards has not presented any significant management issues. Being without family support, she relies heavily on members of her treatment team.

17On November 15, 2024, Ms. Edwards was approved for a placement with KARIS (a supportive independent living agency) in a building in North Bay which is presently under construction and is expected to be completed in the spring or summer of 2025. The facility is staffed 24 hours per day. Ms. Edwards received a generous donation of household furnishings from an anonymous community member and was very gratified with the donation. She is looking forward to moving to her new independent accommodation.

18The authors of the hospital report conclude that Ms. Edwards continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public, as she suffers from Schizophrenia, Paranoid Type, characterized by chronic, command auditory hallucinations and disorganized, unpredictable and self-injurious behaviour; continues to experience break-through symptoms regularly; has a history of non-compliance with anti-psychotic medication when living in the community prior to her 2014 admission; has a history of substance abuse that may exacerbate the underlying symptoms of her psychotic disorder; suffers from affective, behavioural, and cognitive instability; and continues to present with impatience, impulsivity and problems maintaining interpersonal boundaries.

19The treatment team opines that if left to her own devices, with her limited insight, Ms. Edwards will likely disengage from appropriate mental health supports and be at high risk to discontinue taking her medication. She is also said to lack insight into the level of support she requires to manage her illness and medication, and the treatment team believes there is a relatively high probability she would revert back to substance use, which would cause rapid decompensation in her mental state and an increased level of risk toward others and herself.

20The treatment team is of the view that it is imperative that support remains available to monitor Ms. Edwards’ mental status and assist in managing anxiety as she continues to progress in her community integration, particularly as she is soon moving to new and independent accommodation. In the result, they maintain the hospital must have authority to approve any of her future placements in the community and to return her to hospital promptly should she experience a decompensation in her mental state that could result in increased risk to the safety of the public. Accordingly, they suggest the necessary and appropriate disposition that is the least onerous and restrictive in the present circumstances is continuation of all terms of her present disposition for the coming year.

Evidence at the Hearing:

21Dr. S. Le, Ms. Edwards’ treating psychiatrist since January 2025, testified on behalf of the hospital at the hearing. She confirmed the details of Ms. Edwards’ accommodation as set out above and noted that hospital staff liaise with the DD-TRHP personnel regularly. The residence is staffed 24 hours a day. Dr. Le indicated that Ms. Edwards continues to show improvement in treatment and of late has been able to manage the voices she hears and to function despite their presence.

22She described the accommodation to which Ms. Edwards will be moving as a duplex with access to staff when it is needed. She was unaware if staff is available 24 hours a day but indicated that very comprehensive support will continue to be available to Ms. Edwards from her outreach team, which Ms. Edwards contacts on a continually frequent basis.

23Ms. Jen Guillemette, a program manager at DD-THRP, informed the panel that Ms. Edwards will be able to remain in her new housing indefinitely. Although excited about moving into the new residence, Ms. Edwards still experiences anxiety about the change in circumstances, and staff support will be required as she continues to struggle with change and anxiety, which could result in re-emergence of her symptoms.

24Dr. Le supported the view of the authors of the hospital report and agreed that continuation of the present disposition in all respects is necessary for the coming year, as the hospital wants to maintain the present situation, which it is thought will assist the stability of Ms. Edwards’ mental state during the upcoming period of transition into her new accommodation.

25Dr. Kalia noted that the last cognitive testing was conducted in 2014 and found Ms. Edwards functioned within the mild intellectual disability range. However, Dr. Le believes that Ms. Edwards currently appears to be functioning within the borderline intellectual range. Given that she has undergone treatment and her psychotic symptoms are now stabilized, Dr. Le agreed that repeating cognitive testing would be clinically useful. Dr. Le also acknowledged that the PCL-R score in her case may be misleading, as the combined effects of schizophrenia and intellectual limitations could inflate the score, and repeating the PCL-R may result in a more accurate assessment.

26No evidence was adduced by counsel for the hospital or the accused. In their final submissions all counsel supported the hospital recommendation that there be no change in the terms of the disposition for the coming year. Mr. Bracken commented that his client understood the graduated approach being applied by the treatment team. He stated she was quite content to work with her treatment team and was looking forward to the greater independence that will be available in her new accommodation.

Conclusion:

27Having heard the evidence and considered the exhibits and the submissions of the parties, the panel concludes that Ms. Edwards continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. She remains subject to psychotic symptoms, her mental state deteriorates in stressful and anxiety-inducing situations, and she has a history of non-compliance with anti-psychotic medications when living in the community. Although she has progressed significantly in treatment, she still requires continual oversight and support from treatment providers. She has a history of substance abuse, a criminal record that includes a conviction for arson, and continues to suffer from affective, behavioural, and cognitive instability, as well as presenting with impatience, impulsivity, and problems with maintaining interpersonal boundaries.

28As indicated in the hospital report, if not subject to supervision, with her limited insight into the level of support she requires to manage her illness and medication, we conclude it is expected that she would disengage from appropriate mental health supports and be at high risk to discontinue taking her medication. In view of her history, it is likely she would revert to substance use, which would cause rapid decompensation in her mental state and an increased level of risk toward others and herself.

29The panel agrees with the hospital recommendation that the present level of support needs to be continued in the coming year as Ms. Edwards transitions to more independent living circumstances. The transition will be stressful and anxiety inducing, and the hospital needs to maintain the authority to approve her community accommodation and to return her to hospital promptly if a decompensation in her mental state occurs. A conditional discharge is not realistic in the present circumstances, as the evidence demonstrates her need for the high levels of supervision that can only be provided under the authority of a detention order.

30Accordingly, having considered the factors set out in Section 672.54 of the Criminal Code, public safety being paramount, the panel concludes continuation of all terms of the disposition of May 9, 2024 is necessary and appropriate for the coming year.