Re: Jevonne Pollard-Wilson
ORB File No: 8643
Hearing held on: Wednesday, March 19, 2025
Place of hearing: Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care Via Zoom Video-conference
Pursuant to: Sections 672.48(1) and 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. L. Banks
Members: Dr. P. Prendergast Dr. J. C. Rose Ms. C. Murray Ms. K. Brisson
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Pollard-Wilson, Jevonne Counsel: Ms. C. Whillier
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Lefebvre
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. J. Armenise
REASONS FOR DECISION
(Dated June 3, 2025)
Introduction:
On October 1, 2024, Mr. Pollard-Wilson was found unfit to stand trial on charges of failure to comply with an order under the Sex Offender Information Registration Act (“SOIRA”), contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”). Mr. Pollard-Wilson is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB” or the “Board”) dated November 26, 2024, ordering that he be detained at the Secure Forensic Service of the Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (“Ontario Shores”). The Disposition provides that until Mr. Pollard-Wilson’s transfer to Ontario Shores, he shall remain detained at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care – High Secure Provincial Forensic Programs, Penetanguishene (“Waypoint”). Pursuant to this Disposition, while detained at Waypoint, Mr. Pollard-Wilson is granted hospital and grounds privileges, beyond the secure perimeter, escorted by staff.
By letter dated February 7, 2023, Waypoint notified the Board that, pursuant to s. 672.56(2) of the Criminal Code, Mr. Pollard-Wilson’s liberty had been restricted as he entered seclusion on January 30, 2025. He remained in seclusion as at the hearing date.
On March 19, 2025, a panel of the Board convened a hearing by Zoom video-conference to review the restriction of Mr. Pollard-Wilson’s liberty, pursuant to s. 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Pollard-Wilson was present at the hearing and was assisted by his counsel, Ms. C. Whillier.
The issue at this hearing is whether the hospital decision to restrict Mr. Pollard-Wilson’s liberty was warranted at the time of its imposition and whether the ongoing restriction was also warranted, necessary and appropriate as well as the least restrictive and least onerous intervention available in the circumstances.
For the reasons set out below and based on the expert evidence and opinions before it, the Board concluded that the initial restriction of liberty was warranted, necessary and appropriate, as is his ongoing restriction of liberty. The Board found these restrictions were necessary for public safety, and they represented the least onerous, and least restrictive, intervention available.
Position of the Parties:
- At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as to their positions. Counsel for both the hospital and the Attorney General submitted that the initial restriction of liberty was warranted, necessary and appropriate, as was the ongoing restriction of Mr. Pollard-Wilson’s liberty.
- Counsel for Mr. Pollard-Wilson advised that she was not contesting the hospital’s position regarding the initial and ongoing restriction of her client’s liberty.
- All parties confirmed that there was no need to review the terms of Mr. Pollard-Wilson’s current Disposition. Further, all parties maintained their initial recommendations to the Board in closing submissions.
Personal History:
- Mr. Pollard-Wilson’s background and personal history are set out in detail in last year’s ORB Reasons for Disposition dated November 26, 2024 and are summarized as follows:
- Mr. Pollard-Wilson is a 29-year-old man who was born and raised in Brampton, Ontario but has also lived in the Greater Toronto Area. His stepmother, who entered his life when he was two years old, was in a common-law relationship with his father and had two children of her own. Mr. Pollard-Wilson has a biological sister. His father died by suicide in 2003, but Mr. Pollard-Wilson only learned this in early 2018.
- Mr. Pollard-Wilson graduated from Grade 12; however, he began using marijuana in high school and there is also a history of alcohol use.
- He supported himself through the years by doing various jobs. Reports indicate that Mr. Pollard-Wilson experienced significant instability in his living situation throughout his adult life. He lived with various family members, including an aunt, his stepmother, and his biological mother. He also spent time homeless, in shelters, incarcerated, and in mental health facilities.
Legal History and Index Offence:
- Records found on the Canadian Police Information Centre database indicate that Mr. Pollard-Wilson incurred charges from 2014 to 2018 that had been withdrawn. He also had criminal convictions in 2019 for assault, theft over $5000, sexual assault and robbery and he received concurrent custodial sentences in lieu of pre-sentence custody time served, plus a two-year probationary period. In 2021, he was convicted of criminal harassment and fail to comply with probation, and he received concurrent conditional sentences for both. In 2022 he was convicted of robbery and received a custodial sentence of 90 days.
- On July 4, 2019, Mr. Pollard-Wilson was convicted of sexual assault and was ordered to comply with the requirements of SOIRA for ten years. He initially registered with the Peel Regional Police Sex Offender Registry on August 4, 2019, and last reported on January 5, 2021. His next due date for registration was extended to August 26, 2022. After his release from custody, he did not register as required. As a result, a warrant for Mr. Pollard-Wilson's arrest was issued on November 7, 2022. On February 2, 2024, Halton Regional Police informed the Peel Regional Police that Mr. Pollard-Wilson was in their custody on unrelated charges. Peel Regional Police arrested him on the outstanding warrant.
Psychiatric History:
Mr. Pollard-Wilson has been found not capable of making decisions about his medical treatment, but he is capable of managing his finances. His mother is his substitute decision maker (“SDM”).
In early 2018, Mr. Pollard-Wilson was admitted to Brampton Civic Hospital on three occasions. He was taken to the emergency room by police for depression, suicidal thoughts, and deliberate self-harm. Health records revealed he exhibited paranoia, was not eating or sleeping, and wandered the streets at night. Grieving his father's death, he increased his use of cannabis and alcohol and had conflicts with his family. He reported hearing voices from his father and Satan and expressed a desire to obtain a gun for protection. Family and friends stated he believed they were against him and responsible for his hospital visit. Despite denying suicidal or homicidal intentions, he presented with signs of paranoia and was hesitant to take medication, fearing poisoning. He was discharged, and encouraged to avoid cannabis use while being open to psychiatric and addiction treatment.
In April 2018, he was admitted to Ontario Shores to the Forensic Assessment Unit under a Treatment Order due to multiple criminal charges. Throughout his stay, he exhibited psychotic symptoms such as auditory hallucinations and delusions of grandeur. He resisted medication. His behaviour became increasingly bizarre, leading to a transfer to the Psychiatric Intensive Care area. He was started on antipsychotic medication, which improved his condition.
Over time, his thought processes became more organized, and he recognized the benefits of medication. Psychoeducation about cannabis use was provided, and he was eventually deemed fit to return to court.
In June 2018, Mr. Pollard-Wilson was transported to the emergency room at Mackenzie Health, by police. He was experiencing bizarre behaviour during a break and enter and placed on a Form 1 for assessment under the Mental Health Act. Initially non-verbal and uncooperative, he later became more social and adhered to his medication regimen. He showed improved cognition and mood, denied having any hallucinations, and acknowledged cannabis might have impacted his symptoms.
In March 2021, Mr. Pollard-Wilson was transferred from the Niagara Detention Centre to St. Joseph’s Health Care Hamilton for a psychological assessment in respect of criminal charges. During his stay at St. Joseph’s, he displayed inconsistencies in reporting auditory hallucinations. Additionally, he frequently altered details about his personal history, such as whether he had children, and became irritable when questioned about these contradictions.
Mr. Pollard-Wilson was admitted to Waypoint on a Warrant of Committal on October 2, 2024. When he was first admitted on a Treatment Order, on August 1, 2024, he was compliant with his medication regimen, however when he returned, he refused all oral medications. He was assessed as incapable to consent to treatment on October 7, 2024.
On October 29, 2024, the ORB ordered he be detained at at the Secure Forensic Service of Ontario Shores subject to a variety of terms and conditions. Pending Mr. Pollard-Wilson’s transfer to Ontario Shores, he was ordered detained at Waypoint’s High Secure Provincial Forensic Programs where he remained as at the hearing date.
Current Diagnoses:
- Mr. Pollard-Wilson’s current diagnoses are:
Schizophrenia; and
Cannabis Use Disorder, in remission in a controlled environment.
Evidence at the Hearing:
The evidence at this hearing consisted of the ROL Hospital Report dated as well as the viva voce evidence of Dr. W. Komer, who has been Mr. Pollard-Wilson’s attending psychiatrist and is a co-author of the Amended Restriction of Liberty Hospital Report dated March 7, 2025 (“ROL Report”) which was filed as an exhibit. Dr. Komer stated that there have been no material updates since the date of the preparation of the ROL Report.
Dr. Komer advised that Mr. Pollard-Wilson continues to be assessed as incapable of consenting to his treatment. He is prescribed a twice daily dose of an oral antipsychotic medication, Olanzapine, under the authority of his SDM; however, he has been consistently refusing this medication since October 2024.
On February 7, 2025, the Board was notified by way of a letter that Mr. Pollard-Wilson was subject to a significant restriction of his liberties as a result of his seclusion which commenced on January 30, 2025.
Immediately prior to being placed in seclusion, Mr. Pollard-Wilson’s security level was a C3, allowing him privileges on the unit where he could attend the lounge areas, corridors, dining room, courtyard and socialize with co-patients at his discretion, as well as independent off-unit access, where he could attend the canteen and central recreation activities.
The ROL Report indicates that on January 30, 2025, Mr. P, while in the dining area, was not following staff direction and attempted to leave the ward. He was informed he could not leave the unit; however, he disregarded staff and became “challenging”. He returned to his room but refused to close his door, as requested. He was defiant in his responses to staff requests and he took an aggressive stance and then refused to speak to staff and continued staring in a hostile manner. Dr. Komer testified that staff had concerns that Mr. Pollard-Wilson was likely experiencing paranoia at that time and was at greater risk of becoming physically aggressive despite the fact that he had never been assaultive to staff or co-patients since he had been detained at Waypoint. Eventually, staff were able to close Mr. Pollard-Wilson’s door to his room. The duty doctor was contacted and a seclusion order obtained. Later that evening, Mr. Pollard-Wilson again refused his medications and was not receptive to health teaching.
Dr. Komer advised that Mr. Pollard-Wilson has been secluded in his own room on the Forensic Assessment unit.
The ROL Report indicates that; “At Waypoint, seclusion orders are reviewed daily. To ensure objectivity, secluded patients are seen by an independent psychiatrist (not the patient’s most responsible physician) for review and assessment at the 72-hour post-seclusion mark, seven days post-seclusion, and every 28 days thereafter. All seclusion consultations have opined that Mr. Pollard-Wilson’s seclusion has been necessary to mitigate his risk.”
Dr. Komer testified that Mr. Pollard-Wilson has been assessed for seclusion relief on a near daily basis, often on several occasions throughout each day. Unfortunately, based on his mental status and his behavioural presentation, he has not been able to exercise seclusion relief. Dr. Komer testified that most often Mr. Pollard-Wilson has either refused relief when offered or has been assessed as inappropriate for seclusion relief due to an unstable mental status. There have also been two instances where seclusion relief was unable to be facilitated due to operational needs related to staffing.
From February 2 - 5, 2025, Mr. Pollard-Wilson was assessed as not appropriate for seclusion relief. Clinical notes indicate that he would not respond or acknowledge the presence of staff, or was dismissive in his demeanor. On some occasions, he was unable to follow staff direction and was observed responding to internal stimuli. He was unable to contract to safety and health teaching provided was ineffective.
On February 6, 2025, Mr. Pollard-Wilson exercised seclusion relief and showered and started laundry before he decided to return to his room. He was also approached by the unit social worker, who inquired if he would like to speak with the patient advocate, however he refused.
From February 7-13, Mr. Pollard-Wilson either refused or was assessed as inappropriate for relief. Again, he typically refused to communicate with staff, was dismissive and waved away staff members, and/or would not contract to safety. Staff were unable to complete a mental status to adequately assess his risk.
On February 14, 2025, Mr. Pollard-Wilson engaged in seclusion relief. He showered, and completed laundry, however, after only 20 minutes, he chose to return to his room. He refused relief the following day, and on February 16th, briefly participated in seclusion relief engaging in the aforementioned activities, before choosing to return to his room. From February 17-19, Mr. Pollard-Wilson refused seclusion relief.
On February 20, 2025, Mr. Pollard-Wilson exercised seclusion relief. He again showered and completed laundry, and was calm and cooperative throughout the relief period. The following day, he refused a period of relief when approached. On February 22 and 23, Mr. Pollard-Wilson again participated in seclusion relief, however declined to watch television or spend time outside his room aside from showering and doing laundry. Despite encouragement and health teaching, during the latter relief period he spent only 10 minutes outside of his room.
From February 24-27, Mr. Pollard-Wilson refused or was assessed as not appropriate for seclusion relief as he was noted to be loud, boisterous, responding to unseen stimuli, and was unable or unwilling to follow staff direction.
On February 28, 2025, Mr. Pollard-Wilson was assessed as appropriate for seclusion relief. He contracted to safety, came out for a shower, and followed direction without issue. The following day, he refused seclusion relief when offered, and instead indicated his preference to listen to music at his room door.
Mr. Pollard-Wilson, engaged in seclusion relief on March 2 and 5, however, he declined on March 3, 4th, and 6, indicating he did not wish to come out of his room.
Dr. Komer indicated that subsequent to the preparation of the Amended ROL Report, Mr. Pollard-Wilson has only been able to exercise seclusion relief on three occasions for approximately 35 minutes in duration on each occurrence. These periods of seclusion relief were exercised on March 7, 11 and 17 and were used to access shower facilities.
Dr. Komer stated that on the morning of the hearing, he attended at Mr. Pollard-Wilson’s room and it was one of the first occasions that Mr. Pollard-Wilson actually engaged in a discussion with Dr. Komer. The doctor testified that it is very difficult to evaluate Mr. Pollard-Wilson’s mental state because he does not converse with staff. In addition, although he denies experiencing internal stimuli, he has been observed by staff to be responding to internal stimuli. As well, he has been noted to be hostile and dismissive to staff. Dr. K reported that Mr. Pollard-Wilson told him that he had been regularly exercising seclusion relief although Dr. Komer noted that the clinical notes do not at all confirm that. The doctor stated that this is indicative of Mr. Pollard-Wilson’s lack of insight.
Dr. Komer outlined what would assist the team in assessing Mr. Pollard-Wilson’s suitability for a discontinuation of his seclusion status. Specifically, the doctor commented that if Mr. Pollard-Wilson were to make regular use of seclusion relief and was successful in this endeavor, it would provide the team with additional data to inform their opinions of his risk to others.
Dr. Komer stated that Mr. Pollard-Wilson has been consistently refusing to take his oral antipsychotic medication. He advised that this has been the case for at least the past six months. Dr. Komer stated that his medication is intended to treat the symptoms of schizophrenia, including psychosis and paranoia. Presently, Mr. Pollard-Wilson appears to be experiencing active psychosis (for ex., at times, he has been observed to be laughing to himself, stomping his feet, and gesturing aggressively). Dr. Komer stated that it is not necessary that Mr. Pollard-Wilson become medication compliant for his seclusion status to be discontinued but that it would be helpful in terms of the treatment of his mental illness. Of note, Dr. Komer stated that Mr. Pollard-Wilson also refuses all prn medication offered to him.
To date, Mr. Pollard-Wilson’s SDM will not consent to administration of a long-acting injection (“LAI”) of antipsychotic medication. Dr. Komer has recently attempted to revisit this issue with the SDM; however, he has not been successful in his efforts to connect with her over the past few days. Dr. Komer advised that he will continue to reach out to the SDM to discuss the issue of the possible administration of a LAI for Mr. Pollard-Wilson.
Mr. Pollard-Wilson has a Crisis Prevention Plan which outlines a de-restraint process. Dr. Komer stated that to his knowledge when Mr. Pollard-Wilson exercises seclusion relief, he does so in the presence of staff and he is not in physical restraints. On those occasions, the unit is locked and Mr. Pollard-Wilson is not in proximity to co-patients. Mr. Pollard-Wilson typically briefly accesses the shower and laundry facilities on these occasions.
Dr. Komer reiterated that Mr. Pollard-Wilson has not been aggressive nor has he made any threats of aggression throughout his period in seclusion. However, the doctor stated that given Mr. Pollard-Wilson’s history of violence and the team’s inability to assess his mental state due to his refusal to engage, his seclusion has been necessary for safety of staff and co-patients.
In response to a question posed, Dr. Komer advised that when Mr. Pollard-Wilson’s seclusion is concluded, he will have A0 privileges and will have to work up the privilege ladder to regain his privileges.
Dr. Komer underscored that the fact that the challenges in assessing Mr. Pollard-Wilson’s mental state due to his inability or refusal to communicate with staff makes it exceptionally difficult to assess his level of risk to others. The doctor commented that he is uncertain as to whether or not Mr. Pollard-Wilson’s non-engagement with staff is driven by his major mental illness or whether it might be, in part, volitional.
No further evidence was called by the parties.
Analysis and Conclusion:
Pursuant to the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Regina vs. M.L.C. (2010 ONCA 843), the Board must consider not only the reason for the restriction and the initial decision to impose a restriction but also the ongoing circumstances of the accused for the period of time that the restriction remains in place including up to the time of review. The initial restriction of liberty and ongoing restriction of liberty must be the least onerous and least restrictive necessary for public safety and for the accused.
The Board finds that while secluded at Waypoint, Mr. Pollard-Wilson’s liberty status is such that he is unable to leave his seclusion room without being permitted to do so by staff. He is unable to move around the unit freely. The Board finds that Mr. Pollard-Wilson’s inability to exercise his discretion and to move freely out of the seclusion room within the unit is a significant increase on the restriction of his liberties and it has remained so for the duration of his time in seclusion.
The Board finds that Mr. Pollard-Wilson’s initial placement in seclusion was warranted, necessary and appropriate, as well as the least restrictive and least onerous intervention available in the circumstances to safely manage his risk of harm to others. Mr. Pollard-Wilson was unresponsive to staff direction and was posturing aggressively and presented as dismissive and hostile to staff. We note that Mr. Pollard-Wilson has a documented history of aggression and, at that time, had been non-compliant with his prescribed antipsychotic medication.
While being detained in seclusion, Mr. Pollard-Wilson has been offered seclusion relief on a near daily basis, typically on more than one occasion daily, and he has most regularly declined seclusion relief. One some occasions, he has been assessed as unable to safely exercise seclusion relief due to his behavioural presentation or the inability of staff to conduct a mental status assessment because Mr. Pollard-Wilson will not interact with staff. At times, he presents with active symptoms of psychosis and can be dismissive and hostile to staff.
The panel notes that throughout Mr. Pollard-Wilson’s seclusion, the hospital’s seclusion protocols have been implemented and Mr. Pollard-Wilson’s seclusion has been reviewed regularly by an independent psychiatrist in accordance with those protocols. On all reviews, Mr. Pollard-Wilson’s seclusion has been found to be necessary and appropriate to safely manage his risk of harm to others.
The expert evidence also establishes that while in seclusion, Mr. Pollard-Wilson is supported by regular staff interaction at his door daily. He has been offered leisure resources including access to music on many occasions. Mr. Pollard-Wilson has been supported by nursing and has had contact with social work staff. In addition, he has been in contact with Dr. Komer on a weekly basis and has been regularly assessed by the hospital’s independent psychiatrists.
It is the hope of the panel that the treatment team will employ all resources at their disposal, including the use of a behavioural therapist, to devise and implement a plan to incentivize Mr. Pollard-Wilson to utilize seclusion relief at all opportunities in order to demonstrate his ability to do so safely. This will assist Mr. Pollard-Wilson to progress to a point where his seclusion can be terminated. It would be of serious concern to all if Mr. Pollard-Wilson’s extended time in seclusion at Waypoint were to jeopardize in any way his pending transfer to Ontario Shores.
In conclusion, the Board finds that the initial restriction of Mr. Pollard-Wilson’s liberty on January 30, 2025, by placing him in seclusion was necessary and warranted and that the actions taken by the hospital at that time were the least restrictive and least intrusive intervention in the circumstances in order to safely manage his risk. We further find that Mr. Pollard-Wilson’s ongoing detention in seclusion remains the least restrictive and least intrusive intervention in the circumstances in order to safely manage his risk.
In reaching our decision the Board considered public safety, Mr. Pollard-Wilson’s mental condition, his integration into society and his other needs.
DATED this 3rd day of June 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. L. Banks
Alternate Chairperson
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board