Ontario Review Board
Re: Roger A. Page
ORB File No: 7002
Hearing held on: Wednesday, May 14, 2025
Place of Hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. P. Capelle
Members: Dr. R. Kunjukrishnan Dr. G. Boulais Ms. M.L. Bridger Ms. N. Lemieux-McKinnon
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Roger A. Page Counsel: Mr. G. Murray
Person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. J. Gojer
Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. M. Dufort
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated June 4, 2025)
Introduction:
On August 12, 2016, the accused, Roger A. Page, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of causing disturbance in a public place contrary to the Criminal Code. Mr. Page is currently subject to an Ontario Review Board Disposition of May 21st, 2024 which discharges him on certain terms and conditions.
On May 14th, 2025 the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre to conduct Mr. Page’s annual review hearing pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Page was present at his hearing and was represented by his counsel, Mr. G. Murray. Also in attendance at the hearing was Mr. Page’s CMHA worker, Michele Girdwood and RN, Ina Aleksandrova. A hospital report dated April 24th, 2025 was entered as Exhibit No. 1.
The issues for this hearing are whether Mr. Page continues to meet the threshold for significant threat to the safety of the public and, if so, to determine the Disposition that is necessary and appropriate in all the circumstances.
Preliminary Matters
At the outset of the hearing Mr. Murray asked for an appointment as counsel which the Board so ordered.
Mr. Page came into the hearing very upset. He continually repeated that Dr. Gojer had promised him an absolute discharge and he was expecting an absolute discharge. In fact, there was truth to that and that was the expectation last year. Unfortunately, Mr. Page has become ill in a manic state and was admitted to the Royal Ottawa Hospital. Two orderlies were also in attendance in case there were issues with security. There were no issues but Mr. Page was clearly upset at times and then would calm down.
Dr. Kunjukrishnan advised the hearing that he had previously treated Mr. Page in 2019 or 2020 for six months to a year. The Alternate Chair asked counsel, Mr. Murray, if he had any concerns or if there was a conflict. Mr. Murray had no issue with Dr. Kunjukrishnan appearing on behalf of the Board.
Position of the Parties
Dr. Gojer, on behalf of the hospital, stated that he had been suggesting an Absolute Discharge but in light of the recent admission he was now advocating for the Conditional Discharge to be extended.
Ms. Dufort, on behalf of the Attorney-General, was ad idem with the hospital but would have questions for the Doctor.
Mr. Murray, on behalf of Mr. Page, conceded significant threat.
Index Offences
- The details of the index offences are described in the hospital report and can be summarized as follows:
“On Friday, January 29, 2016, Roger PAGE left a downtown Ottawa shelter and got into an OC Transpo bus bound for Stittsville.
Once there on the bus PAGE, who has a long history of mental illness, and is not taking his medication, felt that a female was being harassed by a male. He claimed to have challenged the male, however other passengers on the bus stated they saw PAGE punch a female passenger in the back. This female did not stay for police to attend. PAGE had also made claims to bus passengers that he had killed police.
Page then made his way to the Brown’s Independent Grocer located at 1251 Stittsville Main St. in Ottawa. There, dressed in full length black leather coat, and unkempt appearance, he followed a mother with a young boy around the store at a close distance for several minutes, causing this woman to be fearful and also drawing the attention of others in the store. The female was afraid to leave until police attended.
Police arrived on scene and took Page into custody, and discovered that he had recently been released from jail in Brockville, and gotten into another altercation just last night at the homeless shelter. Page admitted to having been awake for five days, and it was determined he was off prescribed medication for a week. He was taken into custody for causing a disturbance, to prevent continuation of the offences, and also for not having a fixed address. Police attended the pharmacy to obtain his prescribed medications.”
Background
Mr. Page’s personal history is set out in detail in the hospital report. Briefly summarized, Mr. Page is 55 years of age and was born and raised in Ottawa by his single mother and his grandparents. When he was three years old, his mother remarried and Mr. Page apparently suffered some physical abuse from his stepfather.
According to his own reports, Mr. Page was rebellious at home and got into trouble with the law beginning at the age of 12, mostly for stealing and shoplifting. He did not complete high school but returned to complete grade 12 at the age of 23.
Mr. Page’s employment history consists mainly as a labourer. Prior to the index offences, he had been receiving Ontario Disability support benefits for approximately the last 10 years.
Mr. Page has a daughter and a son from two previous relationships.
Criminal History
Between 1991 and 2015, Mr. Page had many convictions for theft, sexual assault, assaults (many counts), assault causing bodily harm, forcible confinement, uttering threats, assault with a weapon and criminal harassment.
The last conviction was in 2015 for criminal harassment and he served a term of incarceration and was placed on probation for three years.
Psychiatric History
From the age of 15, Mr. Page had a number of admissions to hospital with diagnoses including chronic schizophrenia, substance abuse, and antisocial personality disorder.
Mr. Page has a long history of substance abuse from a young age. He started using cannabis at the age of 11. He reportedly used cocaine until 2008, and his diagnosis includes a history of alcohol abuse.
Mr. Page’s current diagnoses are:
Schizoaffective Disorder
Cannabis use disorder
Antisocial personality disorder
Evidence at the Hearing
The hospital’s evidence was presented through its report, as well as through the oral testimony of Dr. Julian Gojer, Mr. Page’s attending psychiatrist. This evidence is summarized below.
Dr. Gojer stated that Mr. Page was admitted to the Civic Hospital, the psychiatric ward, between the 16th and the 23rd of April. The psychiatrist there felt he could not put him on a Form 3. He allowed the accused to sign himself out against medical advice.
On Wednesday, May 7th, 2025, the accused came in and saw Dr. Gojer. Mr. Page was grandiose. Dr. Gojer prescribed him medication and he was to go and pick it up which he did not. So, on May 9th, 2025 Dr. Gojer decided to bring him in on a Form 1. He was picked up by the police and brought to the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre.
Dr. Gojer said Mr. Page threatened him. Mr. Page became upset by that and he said audibly at the hearing that Dr. Gojer was lying. Dr. Gojer told us that the accused’s belief system is that former inmates with whom he served time are threatening him in the community. He told us that the accused had not assaulted anyone in the past year. He had subsidized housing. He has a good relationship with his Case Manager. He is usually a homebody and not difficult to reach. The accused accepts that he has an illness. He takes his medication most of the time. Dr. Gojer felt he could be managed under the Mental Health Act. He felt the least onerous disposition would be a conditional discharge.
In response to questions by counsel for the Attorney-General, Ms. Dufort, emphasized that Mr. Page is on the Crisis Unit and Dr. Gojer said he was hoping to keep him on the Crisis Unit even though the Crisis Unit wants him off the Unit and over to Forensics. but Dr. Gojer wants to keep him on the Crisis Unit because he is hoping it can be a very short stay. He said when a patient is admitted to the Forensic Unit sometimes that can be a long drawn out process. Dr. Gojer is not actually treating Mr. Page in hospital as the other doctors on the Crisis Unit are treating him but he said he agrees with their treatment so far.
Dr. Gojer said he did not know why he decompensated. He does smoke cannabis. She asked if there had been blood work and the accused was very vocal that he was afraid of needles and he does not want blood work taken. He had not had any bloodwork since arriving at the hospital.
Dr. Gojer talked about matters that were in the Reasons of last year and in the hospital report about the theft of a bicycle that ended up being worth $5000 and it had a GPS. The accused took it into his apartment and then subsequently got caught with it. He took a package that was supposed to be for a neighbour and said later that he was just taking care of the package until he could take it to the neighbour, but these are things that the landlord does not like. Sometimes he plays his music too loud. Dr. Gojer was asked by Ms. Dufour if Mr. Page could be managed on a community treatment order and he said perhaps. She asked if once a month reporting was sufficient and he said that is a minimum. She asked does he show up when he is told to show up. He says however he might not come in on the day he is supposed to. He emphasized there has been no assaults since he has been under the jurisdiction from the Board.
In response to questions from Mr. Murray, Dr. Gojer stated that on May 7th he was quite manic. He also stated that Mr. Page is sleeping well in response to the medication. He said we do not know what happened. He said lots of patients have manic episodes. There is some suggestion it might be seasonal.
Mr. Murray asked about the use of cannabis and Dr. Gojer said that if he tried to stop him from using cannabis it would be a losing battle. The accused piped up and said for three weeks he had no cannabis and he does not use other drugs. Dr. Gojer says he tweaks it a little bit. He lets him use his cannabis if he will take his medication.
Questioned by a panel member Dr. Gojer was asked if allowing him to use cannabis was really the best thing for somebody who has been diagnosed with cannabis use disorder, but Dr. Gojer said essentially that “you have to pick your battles”.
In response to questions from another panel member, Dr. Gojer was asked if it was a restriction of liberty given that he is suddenly out of his apartment and into the Crisis Unit. Dr. Gojer replied that if he is admitted not to a forensic unit, it is not considered a restriction of liberty.
Mr. Page asserted that he does not use hard drugs. There was no evidence called by the Crown. Mr. Page wanted to have 30 seconds to speak to his lawyer.
The hospital risk assessment is set out in the hospital report at pages 66 and 67 and is summarized as follows:
“Mr. Page continues to use cannabis. While it is a concern that this drug can trigger a psychotic or manic state, while using medication, his has been relatively stable. Ongoing mild thought disorder persists.
Mr. Page’s most recent admission occurred between the 16th and 23rd of April, 2025 when he had a short lived manic episode that needed admission to a psychiatric facility on a form 1. No violence was noted and he seemed to settle. His treating psychiatrist allowed him to leave against medical advice. He had two appointments scheduled but missed both of them. He has not been answering his phone.
Mr. Page’s illness and cannabis use are both chronic. This is unlikely to change. It is expected that he will have more episodes of decompensation over the years. It is likely that his episodes will be managed under the Mental Health Act if he is on a conditional discharge or an absolute discharge.
Mr. Page is likely to continue to take medication and seek help from psychiatric services as he is dependent on his medication for sleep and wellbeing. He recognizes that medication benefits him. Treatment is expected to be beneficial in keeping him relatively stable. He will continue to have the services of CMHA and he relates well to his workers and accesses them when needed. However, when ill, he is uncooperative and it is somewhat difficult to engage with him.
Mr. Page remains a risk of decompensation and having some contact with the law in the future. It appears that the Mental Health Act will be able to manage his risk in the community to a substantial degree but oversight under the jurisdiction of a disposition order is still needed to ensure that he remains compliant with treatment, uses the services of a CMHA worker, and maintains his apartment in a proper condition. I believe that he remains a significant threat but approaching his management from a least restrictive and least onerous perspective and balancing the risk to the public, the present disposition order coupled with use of the Mental Health Act will suffice. No changes are recommended.”
- No other evidence was presented by the parties, however, Mr. Page wanted to speak to the panel for 30 seconds, according to his lawyer. He began to talk about this situation where he was on a bus and he felt that these guys were harassing woman and he helped the women or saved them from being raped. He expressed grandiose ideas about that. He also stated that five to six years ago he was in prison with guys from Ramsey Crescent. He believes these inmates are now trying to harm him. He also believes in black magic and white magic. Mr. Murray stopped his client after about a minute. Mr. Page was not cross-examined by any party.
Submissions of the Parties
The Board was presented with a joint submission by all parties that Mr. Page continues to meet the threshold for significant threat to the safety of the public and that a conditional discharge remains the necessary and appropriate disposition. Dr. Gojer stated Mr. Page has done very well. He has complied with treatment, however, he still needs to be maintained under a conditional discharge disposition.
Mr. Murray, on behalf of Mr. Page, stated he has been Mr. Murray’s counsel for a long period of time and that he was now instructed to agree, which was surprising because the accused had said otherwise during the hearing.
Conclusion and Disposition
Having considered all of the evidence presented at the hearing and the joint submission of the parties, the Board does find that Mr. Page poses a significant threat to the safety of the public as set out in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code of Canada and as further defined in the Winko decision. The Board considered all of the evidence before it, including that contained in the Hospital Report, and most poignantly, the obvious state of mania and paranoia which the accused presented to the Board throughout the hearing. This included, but was not limited to, his labile mood–for example, he was very angry at Doctor Gojer’s testimony and accused him of lying, but he hugged Dr. Gojer after the hearing. Further, he expressed paranoid delusions about inmates he was incarcerated with 5 to 6 years ago following him and wishing him harm. It was obvious to us that if he were not hospitalized at this time, he would be getting into trouble and probably arrested in the community. The Board was in agreement with the joint recommendation that the conditional discharge is the necessary and appropriate disposition at this time on the same terms and conditions.
We considered the four factors set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, namely the protection of the public, which is the paramount consideration, the mental condition of the accused, his reintegration into society and his other needs. We were aware that last year the possibility of an absolute discharge had been discussed for this year, and Mr. Page felt deeply disappointed that was not considered realistic at this time. Dr. Gojer does not know why Mr. Page had a relapse into mania and it is unfortunate. However, Mr. Page is complying with treatment and if he continues to do so, he will get better as he has in the past. The Board finds that a conditional discharge is the necessary and appropriate, least onerous and least restrictive disposition in all of the circumstances.
DATED this 4th day of June 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. M.L. Bridger
Legal Member
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board