Re Jeffery Weber, 2025 CanLII 52815

Ontario Review Board

Re: Jeffery Weber

ORB File No: 4683/5033/6398/7041

Hearing held on: Wednesday, April 30, 2025

Place of hearing: Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences 700 Gordon Street, Whitby

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

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. G. Beasley Members: Dr. R. Kunjukrishnan (via Zoom) Dr. W. Loza Ms. C. Murray Mr. A. Bouvier

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Jeffery Weber Counsel: Ms. M. Perez

The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. A. Marshall

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. N. MacDonald

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated June 4, 2025)

Introduction

1. On January 24, 2007, Jeffery Weber was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of carrying a concealed weapon and possession of weapon for dangerous purpose, all contrary to the Criminal Code.

2. On February 22, 2008, Jeffery Weber was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of attempt abduction of a person under 14 and assault, all contrary to the Criminal Code.

3. On December 1, 2011, Jeffery Weber was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder in Kamloops, British Columbia, on charges of aggravated assault, unlawful confinement, assaulting a peace officer and robbery, all contrary to the Criminal Code.

4. On September 29, 2016, Jeffery Weber was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of aggravated assault and possession of weapon for dangerous purpose, all contrary to the Criminal Code.

5. By reason of a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB”) dated May 16, 2024, Mr. Weber was ordered to be detained within the General Forensic Unit of the Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (“Ontario Shores” or the “hospital”). Mr. Weber's Disposition included privileges up to residing in the community in supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge. On April 30, 2025, the ORB convened a hearing at Ontario Shores for the purpose of the annual review of Mr. Weber's Disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Weber was present and represented by counsel, Ms. Perez. Counsel for the Attorney General of Ontario was Ms. MacDonald and counsel for the hospital was Ms. Marshall.

Index Offences

6. As set out above, Mr. Weber has been found not criminally responsible on four separate occasions between the years 2007 and 2016. The full details of the circumstances leading to each finding are set out in the Hospital Report but will not be repeated in these Reasons. A concise summary of the four index offences was outlined in last year's Reasons for Disposition as follows:

“The Index Offences of September 24, 2006 concerned an incident in which Mr. Weber became aggressive with a mother and daughter he encountered while casually taking a walk. The victims became fearful, locked themselves in their car, and called police, who tasered Mr. Weber when he resisted arrest. He was carrying a knife at the time.

Following his first NCR verdict he was detained at Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre.

The second set of Index Offences occurred in Toronto, on September 3, 2007 when Mr. Weber approached a 10-year-old female in a hotel lobby and led her past her mother to the elevators. After a period at CAMH on a Treatment Order, Mr. Weber was returned to the Royal Ottawa. He was discharged to the community on June 30, 2009 and was granted a conditional discharge on May 5, 2010. He was readmitted to hospital in December and after being discharged again fled to British Columbia in February 2011.

The third set of Index Offences occurred on February 7 and 8, 2011, in Kamloops BC, when he attacked a woman in the parking lot of a fast food restaurant. Once again, Mr. Weber resisted arrest. He was again found NCR and admitted to the Forensic Psychiatric Hospital in BC; Mr. Weber stayed there until he was returned to the Royal Ottawa in June 2012. He spent a year at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care, from November 2012 to November 2013, returning again to the Royal Ottawa. At this point Mr. Weber did well, re-establishing contact with his sister Greta, committing to his medication, and planning a program of study. The Royal Ottawa discharged him to the Grove group home on October 1, 2014.

The fourth set of NCR Index Offences occurred on December 9, 2014, when Mr. Weber committed a random and violent attack with a hammer.

Mr. Weber was transferred from the Royal Ottawa to Brockville Mental Health Centre on December 22, 2016. On November 21, 2017 he was transferred again, from Brockville to Ontario Shores. The Reasons for Disposition dated June 19, 2017 are clear that Mr. Weber was transferred because of a lawsuit against Royal Ottawa (with which Brockville is affiliated), stemming from the December 2014 Index Offences."

Current Diagnoses

7. The current diagnoses as taken from the Hospital Report is as follows:

Schizophrenia

Panic Disorder

Alcohol Use Disorder, in sustained remission, in a controlled environment

Cannabis Use Disorder, in sustained remission, in a controlled environment

Criminal Record

8.

DATE AND LOCATION	CHARGE(S)	SENTENCE
23-02-2001 Pembroke ON (Youth Court)	Assault Fail to Comply with Recognizance	9 months’ probation and 21 days pre-sentence custody on each charge
17-08-2001 Pembroke, ON (Youth Court)	Personation with Intent Uttering Forged Document	30 days on each charge
08-12-2005	Mischief Under $5000	Conditional Discharge and 12 months’ probation
08-06-2006 Sudbury, ON	Fail to Comply with Probation	1 day & Probation 12 months and 30 days pre-sentence custody
08-06-2006 Sudbury, ON	Fail to Attend Court	1 day concurrent & probation 12 months concurrent
08-06-2006 Sudbury, ON	Fail to Comply with Recognizance Carrying a Concealed Weapon	1 day & 30 days pre-sentence custody on each charge concurrent & 12 months’ probation)
08-06-2006 Sudbury, ON	Dangerous Operation of a Motor Vehicle Flight While Pursued by Peace Officer Possession of Property Obtained by Crime	1 day and 4 months presentence custody & 12 months’ probation on each charge concurrent
08-06-2006 Sudbury, ON	Fail to Comply with Probation Order Assault with a Weapon	(time served (1 day) & 12 months’ probation on each charge concurrent

Background and Personal History

9. Mr. Weber's personal background and history are set out in detail in the Hospital Report and will not be repeated. Briefly summarized, Mr. Weber was born in North York, Ontario as a middle child with two sisters. He also has an older step-sister and older stepbrother. Following the passing of his mother when he was young he was placed into foster care. It is reported that Mr. Weber was the victim of significant sexual abuse by his foster mother and her children when he was five to six years old. This information was corroborated by a neighbour. At age 13, Mr. Weber left his foster home and at age 14 began residing with his older stepbrother before moving to a new foster care home. He resided there until age 18 when he joined the military. He was discharged from the military after 10 months due to non-disclosure of his previous criminal record.

10. Following his discharge from the military, Mr. Weber completed his grade 12 diploma in 2004 and then attended a course at Carlton University. He has only held short-term employment over the years, usually no longer than six to eight months. He has had no notable romantic relationships and has no children. Mr. Weber is supported by the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP).

Position of the Parties

11. At the outset of the hearing, counsel for the hospital, Ms. Marshall, stated that in the opinion of the treatment team Mr. Weber continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a continuation of the current detention order. Ms. Marshall sought a number of amendments to the existing Disposition including a deletion of the clause requiring the hospital to perform random urine drug screens and clarification of the hospital’s opportunity to provide overnight passes to Mr. Weber to the community for the purposes of discharge planning. Ms. MacDonald supported the recommendation of the hospital and the proposed amendments. Ms. Perez also supported the recommendations and sought clarification of the issues surrounding overnight passes. All counsel agreed that there would be no challenge to a finding that Mr. Weber continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public.

Evidence

12. The evidence on behalf of the hospital was presented by Dr. Alioglu. She is a Clinical Fellow working under the supervision of Dr. Hartfeil who was also in attendance at the hearing. Dr. Alioglu stated that there were no updates to the Hospital Report which had been filed as an exhibit. She testified that Mr. Weber had generally had a good year. There had been no attempts at elopement, no substance use and no violent behaviour. However, Mr. Weber continued to suffer from frequent panic attacks. These generally arose when even minor changes to activities led to an increase in his anxiety level. The anxiety attacks notably increased and were more pronounced when Mr. Weber was participating in outings scheduled for the afternoon and when traveling further away from the hospital or to less familiar locations. Dr. Alioglu stated that Mr. Weber has been working with his psychologist to help him deal with these outings as part of his exposure therapy.

13. Dr. Alioglu stated that Mr. Weber still suffers from bizarre and delusional thinking. However, there have been no active psychotic symptoms in the past reporting year. The treatment team are working on community options in order to prepare Mr. Weber for transfer to community living. At the present time, Mr. Weber is only able to spend three to four hours in the community. The treatment team would like to see him be able to spend longer hours in the community and show progression before he can be discharged to community living. Ms. Marshall directed Dr. Alioglu to the clinical assessments of risk found on pages 56 and 57 of the Hospital Report. Dr. Alioglu stated that she endorsed the assessment of risks as continuing to be accurate.

14. Dr. Alioglu stated that Mr. Weber has not had any substance use for the past 10 years. He has followed the rules with respect to abstinence from the use of substances. Nevertheless, the hospital have found it to be necessary to conduct urine drug screens every few weeks in order to comply with their interpretation of the terms of the Disposition. She stated that Mr. Weber feels insulted by this ongoing intrusion in the form of the urine drug screens. Dr. Alioglu stated that the hospital would conduct tests if they suspected substances had been used but wished to have the mandatory requirement for testing removed from the Disposition.

15. In response to questions from Ms. MacDonald, Dr. Alioglu stated that at the present time the “random” testing followed a pattern of occurring every 12 days. Dr. Alioglu did not know if this pattern was a result of adherence to a particular hospital guideline. Dr. Alioglu agreed that as set out in the Hospital Report and the re-offense scenario previously referred to, substance use remains a risk factor for Mr. Weber. When asked if it was likely or unlikely that Mr. Weber would be moved to the community this year, Dr. Alioglu stated that he continues to need improvements in his ability to enter the community. The treatment team have put Mr. Weber on waiting lists for community living. Dr. Alioglu agreed that any accommodation would need to be supervised.

16. Ms. Perez also asked about the “random” testing found in the current Disposition. Dr. Alioglu agreed that there were two reasons for requesting its removal: the first being that it was in the opinion of the treatment team not necessary, and the second that Mr. Weber requested its removal as he found it insulting. Dr. Alioglu stated that while it would be premature to consider Mr. Weber ready for discharge to the community at this time, once suitable accommodation has been identified it would be helpful to be able to have him visit overnight at any proposed residence in order to reduce his level of anxiety.

17. Dr. Alioglu confirmed that Mr. Weber is capable with respect to consenting to treatment with antipsychotic medications. She agreed that Mr. Weber acknowledges that his auditory hallucinations have been reduced on his current medication. He has also demonstrated improvements in managing anxiety and panic attacks without resorting to PRN medication. This is a result of the psychotherapy treatment that he is receiving. His coping strategies include relaxation techniques, music, and breathing techniques. There has been a corresponding increase in Mr. Weber's confidence in the community. Overall, compared to last year, the frequency of his panic attacks have been reduced. Dr. Alioglu confirmed that Mr. Weber had volunteered in the gift shop and has expressed an interest in working in the community. She stated that the hospital will assist him to look for a job, but he will need to be able to spend longer hours in the community before that can become a reality.

18. In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Alioglu stated that initially the treatment team would be hoping to have Mr. Weber go into the community one night at a time for the purposes of discharge planning. Any housing that they do consider would have to be 24-hour supervised. This is because Mr. Weber will require intense support both for medication compliance and staff able to observe any developing symptoms of psychosis. As previously stated, even minor changes in routine can lead to increases in Mr. Weber's stress level, the possibility of psychosis and resultant violent behaviour. Dr. Alioglu said that Mr. Weber had not expressed any desire to use cannabis but was curious about the necessity of the clause. She said that in the event that Mr. Weber were to use cannabis, there would be decompensation in his mental status. Dr. Alioglu stated that in the opinion of the treatment team the series of re-offences which had led to multiple findings of not criminally responsible were typically the result of stressors in the community resulting in psychosis.

19. Dr. Alioglu said that Mr. Weber does not have any financial stresses at this time as he is supported by OSDP. Again, she indicated that he is interested in working in the community. With respect to the random drug testing, Dr. Alioglu reiterated that the testing was taking place every 12 days as the hospital believed that this was required by the Disposition. She said that there was no evidence of substance use for a number of years. Dr. Alioglu did not see any need for any clauses relating to non-contact with children since any contact which had occurred in the different index offences was a result of Mr. Weber’s delusions.

20. In response to a question in re-examination from Ms. Perez, Dr. Alioglu agreed that during the indirectly supervised passes and community outings to the mall and library in St. Thomas, Mr. Weber had been in situations where there were, was or could have been potential contact with children. Dr. Alioglu agreed that no incidents of concern had taken place during any of the exercise of Mr. Weber's privileges. Mr. Weber's delusions are typically of grandiosity and bizarre thoughts and not specifically related to children.

Submissions

21. Ms. Marshall commenced her submissions by stating that it had been a positive year for Mr. Weber and he was to be commended for the work he had done with his psychologist to prepare him for discharge to the community. As a result, the hospital is now exploring possible housing options for Mr. Weber in the community. Ms. Marshall submitted that in the event the Board felt it was necessary; the Disposition should include a provision which permitted overnight stays for the purposes of discharge planning in the privileges. Ms. Marshall also reiterated her submission that it was not necessary and appropriate for the Disposition to require random testing by the hospital.

22. Ms. MacDonald submitted that on the basis of the evidence from the hearing, the community living clause should specify that any residence be 24-hour supervised accommodation. Ms. MacDonald submitted that she did not interpret the random drug testing clause in the same fashion as the hospital and that there was in fact no need for the hospital to conduct tests in the fashion in which they had in the past. She submitted that random testing could occur at any time and need not be considered a requirement of the Disposition. She submitted that there would be no reason to remove the clause from the current Disposition. Ms. MacDonald also supported the inclusion of a clause which would prevent Mr. Weber from being in contact with any females under the age of 14.

23. Ms. Perez supported Ms. Marshall’s submissions with respect to the removal of the random testing clause from paragraph 3 of the Disposition. She reminded the panel that the Disposition must be the least onerous and least restrictive and that paragraph 4(b) of the current Disposition provided sufficient protection to the hospital to allow for substance use testing. With respect to the issue of overnight passes, Ms. Perez invited the panel to make it clear in the Reasons that paragraph 2(f) of the current Disposition would include overnight passes for the purposes of discharge planning. Finally, Ms. Perez stated that there was no specific concern with respect to contact with children and that the panel should not find it necessary or appropriate to include any restrictions of that kind. Ms. Perez did not support the inclusion of any term restricting the type of housing beyond that to be approved by the person in charge. She submitted that to include any restrictions by way of 24-hour supervised accommodation would unduly restrict the opportunities of finding housing for Mr. Weber in the community.

Analysis and Disposition

24. The threshold decision to be made by the panel is whether or not Mr. Weber represents a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined by s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code. At the outset of the hearing counsel acknowledged that there would be no challenge to a finding by the panel that Mr. Weber continues to represent a significant threat. The panel is unanimous in accepting this joint submission on significant threat as well founded based on the evidence found in the Hospital Report and the evidence of Dr. Alioglu. Mr. Weber has a significant history with the Ontario Review Board. He has been found not criminally responsible on four separate occasions: three times in the Province of Ontario and once in the Province of British Columbia. The activities which formed the basis for these findings stretch from 2006 to 2014. As set out in the Hospital Report and confirmed by Dr. Alioglu in her evidence, Mr. Weber is acutely sensitive to changes in routine. Such changes result in increased stress which causes significant anxiety for Mr. Weber. Without adequate support and supervision, it is likely that Mr. Weber will become overwhelmed by even relatively minor stress leading to a rapid deterioration in his mental state as his residual psychotic symptoms escalate into florid psychosis. In such circumstances, Mr. Weber would be at a high risk of resorting to violent, threatening and/or abducting behaviour, acting in perceived self-defence or in a misguided attempt to protect someone he perceives as vulnerable, ultimately posing a serious risk of physical and/or psychological harm to members of the public.

25. To his credit, Mr. Weber has been working with a psychologist to learn techniques to help him control his stress and corresponding anxiety. As a result, he has shown progress in his ability to manage minor changes which had previously caused him considerable distress. It is important to note that the gains Mr. Weber has made have all been with the highly supervised and supportive environment of the hospital.

26. Section 672.54 of the Criminal Code establishes the factors to be considered by the panel in drafting a Disposition that is necessary and appropriate. The paramount concern is the safety of the public, followed by the reintegration of Mr. Weber into the community and his other needs. None of the parties submitted that a Conditional Discharge should be considered. The panel agrees. At this stage in his treatment there is no air of reality to allowing Mr. Weber to reside in the community in anything other that accommodation which can provide the level of support and supervision he requires to manage his gradual reintegration into the community. The panel is unanimous in accepting the evidence of Dr. Alioglu that this transitional housing will need to provide 24 hour per day supervision.

27. The hospital requested the removal of the “random” testing clause from the Disposition on the basis that it imposed a positive obligation on the treatment team to test. While not necessarily agreeing with this interpretation, the panel accepts that to the extent the testing as imposed by the hospital was not necessary and that Mr. Weber found it to be insulting, the “random” testing provision should be removed, but the treatment team will have the authority to demand samples from Mr. Weber included in the amended Disposition.

28. The panel is unanimous in finding that the current privileges with respect to passes and residing in the community provide the hospital with the authority to allow Mr. Weber overnight passes to the community for the purpose of discharge planning.

29. Ms. MacDonald submitted that the Disposition should include a clause prohibiting Mr. Weber from being in the presence of any females under the age of 14 unless in the company of an adult. The panel rejects this submission. There is no basis in the evidence to support such a clause.

30. Finally, during the course of the evidence the idea of requiring the hospital to notify the ORB of its intention to discharge Mr. Weber to community living was advanced. The panel acknowledges the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Sookram (Re), 2024 ONCA 823, but distinguishes that case as being specific to the particular facts before the court and declines to include a clause to that effect in the Disposition.

DATED this 4th day of June 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.

Mr. G. Beasley Alternate Chairperson

Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board