Ontario Review Board
Re: Jason Bernard Bakker
ORB File No: 6500
Hearing held on: Thursday, June 2, 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: Ms. L. Banks
Members: Dr. P. Prendergast
Dr. M. Kalia
Ms. C. Murray
Mr. S. Duffy
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Jason B. Bakker
Counsel: Ms. J. Boissonneault
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Mr. K. Dow
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. N. MacDonald
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated June 10, 2025)
Introduction:
On March 19, 2014, Jason Bakker, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on two charges of assault and one charge of failure to comply with a probation order, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. By reason of a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB” or the “Board”) dated June 7, 2024, Mr. Bakker was ordered to be detained within the Forensic Program at Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (“Ontario Shores” or the “hospital”) with privileges up to and including residing in the community in 24-hour supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge.
On June 2, 2025, the ORB convened a hearing at Ontario Shores for the purposes of the annual review of Mr. Bakker's disposition pursuant to s. 672.81 of the Criminal Code. Mr. Bakker was in attendance at the hearing and was represented by counsel, Ms. Boissonneault.
Index Offences:
- The circumstances of the index offences are extracted from the Hospital Report dated May 22, 2025 (the “Hospital Report”), as follows:
“Assault January 27, 2014
On January 27, 2014 at 1828 hrs, Ms. Saina Saedi Kendelati and Mr. Kyle Simmons were working their normal shifts as Security Officers at the Peterborough Regional Health Centre (PRHC) when they were called to the Crisis Unit in the Emergency Department to assist crisis staff with a patient, Mr. Jason Bakker. On arrival in the Crisis Unit, Ms. Kendelati and Mr. Simmons attended Room #1 and prepared a hospital bed with restraints.
It should be noted that Ms. Kendelati and Mr. Simmons were called to the Crisis Unit to prepare the restraints due to Mr. Bakker’s increasingly aggressive behaviour. Mr. Bakker was yelling loudly inside the Crisis Unit advising staff that he was not going to be taking any medication. Crisis staff had attempted to ask Mr. Bakker on multiple occasions to take his medication with negative results.
On Kendelati and Simmons’ arrival, PC Courneya and PC Maxwell were watching Mr. Bakker. Mr. Bakker had been apprehended on a Form 47 under the Mental Health Act.
Upon preparing the hospital bed with restraints, both Ms. Kendelati and Mr. Simmons moved into the main hall of the Crisis Unit. At that time, Mr. Bakker was pacing from one end of the hall to the other. Mr. Bakker was then handcuffed to the front. Shortly after Ms. Kendelati exited Room #1, Mr. Bakker began to walk past her in the hallway towards PC Courneys’s location. As Mr. Bakker passed Ms. Kendelati, he stopped abruptly, approximately three feet from Ms. Kendelati’s location and turned to face her. At that time, Mr. Bakker yelled, “Have you lost your mind” and he reared his head and spit at Ms. Kendelati’s face striking her on the right cheek and the right side of her head. Ms. Kendelati quickly moved towards Mr. Bakker and PC Courneya also moved in to take control of Mr. Bakker to prevent him from spitting on anyone else.
It should be noted that prior to Ms. Kendelati attending the Crisis Unit, Mr. Bakker was sitting in a chair next to PC Courneya. At that time, PC Courneya heard Mr. Bakker collecting saliva inside his mouth. Before PC Courneya could react, Mr. Bakker spit, striking PC Courneya on the left arm and left side of his head. At that time, PC Courneya warned Mr. Bakker in regards to his actions.
Upon restraining Mr. Bakker, officers decided to place him face down on the floor. Mr. Bakker continued to spit into his jacket as PC Courneya and PC Maxwell placed him face down. At that time, crisis staff attended and administered a sedative to Mr. Bakker in attempts to calm him down. PC Courneya, PC Maxwell, Ms. Kendelati and Mr. Simmons assisted staff in removing some of Mr. Bakker’s clothing so he could be placed onto the hospital bed. Upon the removal of Mr. Bakker’s clothing, he was placed onto the hospital bed, which Ms. Kendelati and Simmons had prepared with restraints. Mr. Bakker was restrained to the bed and moved into room #1 in the Crisis Unit.
Mr. Bakker continued to spit as he was placed into Room #1.
Upon securing Mr. Bakker in room#1, PC Courneya spoke to Ms. Kendelati regarding the incident. Ms. Kendelati was visibly upset over Mr. Bakker’s actions and she advised that she would contact PC Courneya if she wished to press charges.
On January 28, 2014 at 19:15hrs, PC Courneya re-attended PRHC to follow-up with Ms. Kendelati. At that time, Ms. Kendelati advised that she wished to press charges in relation to the incident.
Ms. Kendelati was not injured as a result of the incident; however, it should be noted that in her written statement to police that Mr. Bakker’s actions were degrading and disgusting.
A written statement was also collected from Mr. Simmons who witnessed the incident.
Assault & Breach of Probation January 28, 2014
On January 28, 2014, Mr. Bakker was a patient at the Crisis Unit at PRHC and was under the supervision of nurse Christine Staples. Ms. Staples was familiar with Mr. Bakker as he had been at the crisis Unit at PRHC many times before.
At approximately 1000hrs, Mr. Bakker became agitated while in his room and started yelling. Ms. Staples went to check on Mr. Bakker and when she arrived at his room, Mr. Bakker looked directly at her and spat on her. Mr. Bakker spat a large amount of sputum directly at Ms. Staples, covering her face, getting into her eyes and her upper shirt. Mr. Bakker was yelling at Ms. Staples during the time he was under her care.
As a result of the spit entering Ms. Staples’ eyes, she underwent medical attention. At that time, it was unknown if Mr. Bakker had any infectious diseases that may have been passed on to Ms. Staples.”
Current Diagnoses:
- Mr. Bakker's current diagnoses are as follows:
Schizophrenia; and
Antisocial Personality Disorder.
Criminal History:
DATE AND LOCATION
OFFENCE(S)
SENTENCE
01/10/2014 Peterborough, ON
Fail to comply with conditions of undertaking
Suspended sentence 12 mo probation reporting
01/08/2014 Peterborough, ON
Theft Under $5000
Fine $50.00 (+$15.00 victim surcharge)
01/06/2014 Peterborough, ON
Theft Under $5000
Fine $50.00 (+$15.00 victim surcharge)
01/06/2014 Peterborough, ON
Theft Under $5000
Fine $50.00 (+$15.00 victim surcharge)
Personal Background:
Mr. Bakker's personal history is set out in the Hospital Report and last year’s Reasons for Disposition, both of which were included in the Record provided to the parties. Briefly stated, Mr. Bakker is a 46-year-old man born in Brampton, Ontario. He has two siblings, a brother and a sister. Mr. Bakker's mother suffered from a major mental illness and was unable to provide adequate care for him and his siblings. His father was also absent leaving the children to be self-sufficient. According to his sister this created a very difficult childhood.
As a teenager Mr. Bakker lacked supervision and began to experiment with drugs. He began to show signs of his major mental illness in his early twenties and had numerous psychiatric hospital admissions. It was reported that he had limited insight into his illness and was noncompliant with his medication and follow-up treatment and support. He presented with significant instability in terms of housing and maintaining positive relationships with his family due to his illness. He had a history of being transient and living in shelters in Peterborough and London, Ontario. His employment history was also transient with a number of jobs but many years of unemployment. He was supported through the Ontario Disability Support Program.
Mr. Bakker had a number of admissions to hospital for psychiatric assistance in both London and Peterborough. He had a number of admissions due to re-emergence of psychotic symptoms. He would either leave hospital against medical advice or be discharged and fail to follow-up with treatment and antipsychotic medications. He has been on a Community Treatment Order (“CTO”) in the past.
Immediately prior to the index offences, he was admitted to Ontario Shores from September 23, 2013 to December 6, 2013. The purpose of this admission was for stabilization of psychotic symptoms of schizophrenia and medication review. When he was discharged it was felt that his symptoms were sufficiently well controlled that he would not be a danger to himself or others.
Of significance, Mr. Bakker was detained in seclusion at Waypoint for extended periods of time totalling approximately 333 days in 2015 and 2016.
Positions of the Parties:
Counsel for the hospital stated that Mr. Bakker continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition was a continuation of the Detention Order, without amendment.
Counsel for the Crown supported the recommendation of the hospital.
Ms. Boissonneault stated that her client was requesting an Absolute Discharge as he submitted that he no longer represents a significant threat to the safety of the public.
All parties maintained their initial positions in closing submissions.
Evidence at the Hearing:
The evidence on behalf of the hospital was presented by Dr. Chuong. She is the co-author of the Hospital Report which was filed as an exhibit. Dr. Chuong stated that the treatment team do not believe that Mr. Bakker is a suitable candidate for being conditionally discharged to the community. She stated that she has been Mr. Bakker’s psychiatrist since 2024.
Over the year in review, Mr. Bakker has continued to reside in the hospital on the Forensic Community Reintegration Unit. (“FCRU”), a general forensic unit. He has not lived in the community for many years. His presentation has remained very similar to previously years.
Mr. Bakker has not exercised the full range of privileges available to him under his existing Disposition and this makes it challenging for the treatment team to assess his suitability for transition to the community difficult.
Dr. Chuong also stated that the treatment team do not believe that the provisions of the Mental Health Act would be sufficient to allow the team to return and detain Mr. Bakker in the hospital in the event that he was to decompensate and become a risk to the safety of the public. The team also need the ability to approve housing in order to ensure that he receives the adequate level of supervision and support.
Dr. Chuong elaborated by testifying that Mr. Bakker is diagnosed with a treatment resistant form of schizophrenia. He continues to experience paranoid, grandiose, persecutory and delusional thoughts. He is observed near daily gesturing, talking and laughing to himself in response to internal stimuli. Thought form ranges from tangential to completely derailed. He has denied any suicidal or violent ideation, intent, or plan. The doctor stated that Mr. Bakker remains symptomatic despite receiving an optimal dose of the antipsychotic medication, Clozapine, augmented by a mood stabilizer. He remains incapable to consent to psychiatric treatment and his sister acts as his substitute decision maker (“SDM”).
Mr. Bakker continues to express underdeveloped insight and has challenged the need for medications. He often refuses his medications and at times, becomes paranoid towards the nurses stating that he feels they are trying to poison him. Over the review period, nursing staff observed him throwing medication out or attempting to pocket medication on a few occasions. There were numerous other times where staff approached him repeatedly and only through repeat encouragement were they able to ensure he took his medications. He has refused medications on at least 52 occasions. On at least two occasions, there were concerns that his clozapine would have to be restarted because he had missed two consecutive daily doses.
In light of his ongoing symptom load, Mr. Bakker was referred to the CAMH’s Medication Assessment Program for Schizophrenia (“MAPS”) for a consultation in October 2024. Per the MAPS recommendations, his aripiprazole was discontinued, and it was noted that there was limited change in his presentation following its discontinuation. Mr. Bakker also received a consultation for electroconvulsive therapy (“ECT”) in March 2025. Mr. Bakker was assessed to be incapable to consent to ECT treatment, and his sister acts as his SDM in this regard. ECT treatment was commenced on May 23, 2025. He has had three sessions to date. The ECT is expected to involve 20 sessions in total. By July 2025, it is hoped he will receive three sessions weekly (he is presently receiving two weekly ECT sessions). Mr. Bakker has been observed to be a bit calmer and quieter since commencing ECT.
The Hospital Report indicates that Mr. Bakker engaged in 31 documented incidents of violence and aggression (verbal and aggression to property) over the past reporting period; however, there were no incidents of physical aggression. The Report states: “There were numerous incidents where Mr. Bakker was documented as verbally aggressive towards staff. During those incidents, he would often be calling staff inappropriate names, yelling profanity, accusing staff of committing actions that were not based in reality, and slamming the doors on the unit throughout the night.”
Over the year in review, he required four brief periods of locked seclusion to manage his aggressive behaviours and allow him to settle in a secure environment. On all occasions, his behaviour did not escalate to the point of physical aggression.
Mr. Bakker used indirectly supervised privileges on hospital grounds and in the community (level 6). He has used his privileges without incident. He also used accompanied privileges in the same settings, without incident.
On December 21, 2024, Mr. Bakker went on a leave of absence with his sister and mother to Peterborough. Although he missed his scheduled phone check-in the following day, there were no concerns about his behaviour while in the community. This is the first overnight he has enjoyed in many years.
Mr. Bakker is supported and is regular contact with his mother and sister and their support is a protective factor for him.
To his credit, all of Mr. Bakker’s urine drug screens returned negative for the presence of substances of abuse although he was often unable to provide a urine sample.
In terms of his transition to community living, Mr. Bakker was on the waitlist for the Community Homes for Opportunity (“CHO”) program through the Canadian Mental Health Association (“CMHA”) Durham. However, due to his lack of readiness for discharge, he was officially removed from the waitlist in February 2025. Mr. Bakker will need to be re-referred for housing when he becomes an appropriate candidate for discharge.
Dr. Chuong stated that the treatment team attempted to work collaboratively with CMHA’s team to get to know Mr. Bakker. Meetings in the hospital occurred on at least two occasions. After these interactions, the CMHA Durham team advised that their housing was insufficient to support his current needs. The team is in the process of exploring other housing opportunities that would be suitable for Mr. Bakker.
The plan going forward is to continue to complete the ECT sessions and engage a Forensic Transitional Case Manager to assist him in moving toward community reintegration. Mr. Bakker has been reluctant to consider alternative housing options. There are concerns that Mr. Bakker is at risk of becoming institutionalized.
When addressing the rationale for a continuation of the existing Detention Order, Dr. Chuong noted that in the past, Mr. Bakker has demonstrated rapid decompensation when non-compliant with his medication. In order to protect the safety of the public the team needs the ability to rapidly readmit him to the hospital in the event of decompensation. Dr. Chuong reiterated that there have been multiple occasions of noncompliance with medication over the past reporting year.
Dr. Chuong stated that if Mr. Bakker were given a Conditional Discharge, she speculated that he would be unlikely to return to the hospital voluntarily. He has poor insight into his major mental illness.
Dr. Chuong stated that if Mr. Bakker were to receive an Absolute Discharge, he would be likely to stop his medications over time. He has mentioned a variety of locations where he might want to live but his plans are not very detailed or well-thought out, nor has he articulated any plan for psychiatric follow-up. In terms of his risk of violence in the context of an Absolute Discharge, Dr. Chuong expected that there would be a worsening of his psychotic symptoms of persecutory and paranoid delusions and he would be likely to act out with physical violence to anyone in his proximity. In response to questions posed by a panel member, Dr. Chuong stated that Mr. Bakker’s risk of both verbal and physical harm is assessed as “high” in the context of an Absolute Discharge.
Dr. Chuong stated that she agreed with the risk assessment found in the Hospital Report which notes that:
“Mr. Baker’s primary criminal genic factors are his major mental disorder, namely schizophrenia, history of violence, nonadherence to treatment and supervision, lack of insight. His psychotic illness is considered treatment – resistant despite treatment with medications. He has symptoms including command auditory hallucinations, grandiose and persecutory delusions, and disordered thought processes. When Mr. Bakker has been psychiatrically and well, he has engaged in violent behaviours such as making threats and becoming physically assaulted. Even with antipsychotic treatment, some of the symptoms and behaviours have presented themselves over his time under the okra, as they have over this review period. Absent appropriate support, structure and supervision, he is likely to become non-adherent with treatment, leading to a rapid re-emergence of his psychotic symptoms and as a result, become an acute risk of violence to others.” Dr. Chuong stated that Mr. Bakker remains a significant threat to the safety of the public at this time.
In summary, Dr. Chuong confirmed that the clinical team requires the ability to approve his housing in the community at such time as he is ready for discharge to ensure that it will provide him with sufficient support, structure and monitoring to manage his risk. Further, the treatment team requires the ability to rapidly readmit him to the hospital should medication non-adherence be of concern. It is the opinion of the treatment team that civil commitment measures under the Mental Health Act (“MHA”) would not adequately address these risks. The doctor expressed her opinion that Mr. Bakker would be unlikely to comply with a request from the treatment team to return to the hospital voluntarily. Dr. Chuong stated that in her opinion Mr. Bakker's risk to the safety of the public would be high were he could be conditionally discharged.
In response to questions from the Board, Dr. Chuong agreed that there was a historical diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder in spite of the facts that Mr. Bakker had no criminal record prior to 2014 and that there was no documented history of a conduct disorder. It was suggested that this diagnosis requires reassessment as its continued inclusion could potentially inflate risk level. Dr. Chuong agreed that Mr. Bakker’s presentation may be more accurately described by antisocial traits rather than a personality disorder.
When asked about the likelihood of him being ready for discharge to community living within the next reporting year, Dr. Chuong stated it was likely “nil” or at least, very unlikely. Dr. Chuong stated that in the event of decompensation it would be quite rapid, and his risk would be increased within days.
In response to a question posed by a panel member, the doctor responded that the team has not considered changing Mr. Bakker to a depot antipsychotic medication because his SDM is reluctant to consent to same and because he is on Clozapine, the gold standard medication for treatment -resistant Schizophrenia.
Mr. Bakker gave evidence on his own behalf. When asked why he believes he is entitled to an Absolute Discharge, Mr. Bakker he stated that he would go to a hospital in Mississauga. He was unable to directly answer questions put to him. He stated that he would like to live at the hospital for a few years and eventually get an independent apartment and would like to become a police officer, like his sister.
He stated that he is not verbally abusive and he is found it difficult to hear about all of the negative things that were said about him.
No further evidence was called by the parties.
Analysis and Conclusions:
The Board is unanimous in agreeing with the submission of the hospital and the Crown that Mr. Bakker continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. Mr. Bakker suffers from a treatment resistant form of schizophrenia. Notwithstanding his regimen of antipsychotic and mood stabilizing medications, he remains symptomatic. His capacity for violence and a risk to the safety of the public is amply demonstrated by the unprovoked assault on a co-patient in February of 2024. He has required four brief periods of seclusion over the past reporting year to manage his risk of aggression.
Mr. Bakker has a history of noncompliance with antipsychotic medication while living in the community. Were he to decompensate this would lead to an intensification of his baseline psychotic symptoms associated with his paranoia. The most likely victims of his violent threats or behaviour would be anyone in his proximity. There is sufficient evidence in the Hospital Report about Mr. Bakker's past aggressive and violent threatening behaviour to support the conclusion that he continues to represent a threat to the safety of the public.
Having come to a finding of significant threat, we must now shape a Disposition which is necessary and appropriate, as well as least restrictive and least onerous. In our assessment, there is much merit in the hospital’s recommendation that at the present time, Mr. Bakker requires ongoing detention in the hospital in order to stabilize his presentation. A trial of ECT treatment has just been initiated and the team is hopeful it may attenuate his symptoms.
At the present time, we find that a Detention Order Disposition remains necessary from a risk management perspective for the reasons outlined in paragraphs 31 and 35 above.
We note the Hospital Report wherein it indicates that, “He would remain a low to moderate risk for violence under the recommended Disposition. In contrast, should he be subject to a Conditional or Absolute Discharge, the risk of future violence would be high.”
The Board is unanimous in concluding that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a continuation of the current Detention Order without amendment.
In making this Disposition, the panel reviewed the provisions of section 672.54 of the Criminal Code and carefully considered the need to protect the public from dangerous persons, Mr. Bakker’s mental condition, his reintegration into society, and his other needs.
DATED this 10^th^ 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