Re: Andrew Slocum
ORB File No: 6373
Hearing held on: Wednesday, June 4, 2025
Place of hearing: Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. L. Banks
Members: Dr. S. Chatterjee Dr. M. Kalia Mr. D. D’Intino Mr. S. Duffy
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Andrew Slocum Counsel: Ms. S. Dubb
The person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. J. Pytyck
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. N. MacDonald
REASONS FOR DISPOSITON
(Dated June 18, 2025)
Introduction:
On July 15, 2013, Andrew Slocum was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on charges of sexual assault and fail to comply with probation order, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (the “Criminal Code”). Since his NCR finding, Mr. Slocum has been subject to Dispositions of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB” or the “Board”), most recently a Disposition dated June 1, 2024, pursuant to which he is detained in the Forensics Program of Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (“Ontario Shores” or the “hospital”), with privileges up to and including living in the community in supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge of the hospital.
On June 4, 2025, a panel of the Board convened at Ontario Shores in order to hold a hearing to review Mr. Slocum’s current Disposition pursuant to Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Slocum was present with his counsel, Ms. Dubb.
The issues to be determined at this hearing are whether Mr. Slocum poses a significant threat to the safety of the public, and if so, the necessary and appropriate Disposition to manage that risk having regard to the criteria set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
For the reasons set out below, the Board finds that Mr. Slocum continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition to manage that threat while meeting his needs is a continuation of his existing Detention Order.
Index Offences:
- The details of the index offences are extracted from the Hospital Report to the ORB dated May 2, 2025 (the “Hospital Report”) as follows:
“This incident took place on a crowded Toronto Transit Commission bus #7544. It was during rush hour, and the bus was eastbound on Lawrence Avenue East. The bus left the subway station on Eglinton Avenue East, Kennedy Subway Station.
The victim, C.S., was riding the bus on her own and she did not know the accused, Mr. Andrew Slocum.
On May 10, 2013, Mr. Slocum, was convicted of assault, fail to attend court and fail to comply with probation. Mr. Slocum was placed on probation for 12 months with various conditions, including but not limited to: Keep the peace and be of good behaviour.
On Monday June 17, 2013 at approximately 6:00pm, the victim, C.S. boarded TTC bus #7544. The bus was full and she sat in the only available seat that was next to Mr. Slocum. Mr. Slocum began to ask Ms. C.S. about her cell phone. Ms. C.S. answered briefly and then put her earphones in her ears. Mr. Slocum began to move closer to Ms. C.S., touching her leg with his arm. Mr. Slocum was closing in on the space between them and Mr. Slocum was pushing Ms. C.S. towards the window and side of the bus. Mr. Slocum was beginning to take up her seat, so Ms. C.S. put her bag down between them to block Mr. Slocum from touching her.
On two separate occasions, Mr. Slocum dropped something right in front of the victim. Mr. Slocum would lean in really close to Ms. C.S.’s legs, making Ms. C.S. uncomfortable. Ms. C.S. noticed a seat open up in another area of the bus, but when she tried to leave, Mr. Slocum grabbed Ms. C.S. in the centre of her buttocks. Ms. C.S. yelled out and moved to the front of the bus.
A witness made the bus driver aware of the incident. The bus was stopped and police were contacted. Mr. Slocum was arrested on scene without incident. Mr. Slocum was transported to 41 Division, investigated and held pending a show cause hearing.”
Background and History:
Mr. Slocum’s background and personal history are set out in detail in the Hospital Report, which was admitted as an Exhibit at the hearing, and need not be repeated at length here. Briefly summarized, Mr. Slocum was born in Toronto and raised in Bracebridge, Ontario. He began to use alcohol in his early adolescent years and began gravitating to a negative peer group.
Part way through grade 8, he was asked to leave the public school system and subsequently attended the Robert Land Academy, a private residential military boarding school. Mr. Slocum completed grade 9 at this school but then came home and returned to the public school system and started to get into conflicts with the law and was using drugs and alcohol. Mr. Slocum has a history of abusing numerous illicit substances including cocaine, ecstasy, LSD and opiates.
Mr. Slocum lived an itinerant lifestyle on the streets. In 2006, he attended the Portage Addiction and Rehabilitation Program for Adolescents in Guelph, but while in their program, Mr. Slocum was transferred to Homewood Health Centre due to the emergence of psychotic symptoms.
Between 2014 and 2020, Mr. Slocum moved back and forth between the hospital and various residences in the community. Since August 24, 2020, he has been an inpatient on three different secure units within the hospital’s Forensic Program, following relapses to substance use in the community within a period of roughly seven weeks.
Mr. Slocum has a criminal record beginning in 2012, which includes, among other charges, convictions for assault, mischief under $5,000, theft under $5,000 and multiple failures to comply with court orders.
According to the Hospital Report, Mr. Slocum’s psychiatric history began in 2006, and included admissions in that and following years, to Homewood Health Centre, Royal Victoria Regional Health Care Centre, Soldiers Memorial Hospital, North York General Hospital, and North Bay Regional Health Centre, before he was found NCR, in 2013. Details of these hospital contacts and admissions are included on pages 3-5 of the Hospital Report. The discharge diagnoses over those years included polysubstance abuse and dependency, drug-induced psychosis, antisocial personality traits, bipolar disorder, antisocial personality disorder, substance use disorder, schizoaffective disorder-bipolar type, substance induced psychotic disorder and polysubstance use disorder.
Current Diagnoses:
- According to the Hospital Report, Mr. Slocum’s current diagnoses are as follows:
Schizophrenia Alcohol Use Disorder, Moderate Cannabis Use Disorder, Moderate Cocaine Use Disorder, Moderate Other Hallucinogen Use Disorder, Moderate
Positions of the Parties:
At the outset of the hearing the parties were canvassed as to their recommendation to the Board.
The hospital’s representative recommended that Mr. Slocum continue to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that he should remain bound by his existing Detention Order Disposition.
Counsel for the Attorney General supported the hospital’s recommendation.
Ms. Dubb advised the Board that her client was in agreement with the recommendation of the hospital. Counsel further advised that she was conceding the issue of significant threat for the purposes of this hearing.
All parties maintained their respective initial recommendations in closing submissions.
Evidence at Hearing:
The Board heard evidence from Dr. J. Pytyck to supplement the evidence contained in the Record and Exhibits. Dr. Pytyck advised that she has been Mr. Slocum’s attending psychiatrist since March 2021. The doctor endorsed the contents of the Hospital Report which highlights, among other things, the factors contributing to the treatment team’s unanimous finding of significant threat at the present time.
Mr. Slocum is currently assessed as incapable to consent to his treatment and he is treated under the consent of his father who acts as his substitute decision-maker (“SDM”). The doctor advised that over the year in review he has been treated with daily oral doses of the antipsychotic medications, Clozapine and Aripiprazole. He has been compliant with his medications within the supervised setting of the hospital.
Dr. Pytyck stated that Mr. Slocum’s illness is considered brittle and treatment-resistant. His illness is prone to rapid deteriorations, particularly in the context of substance use. Mr. Slocum continues to suffer from residual symptoms. While he has not presented with any overt hallucinations or delusions over the year in review, he continues to present as mildly disorganized at times, with occasional thought-blocking. He has not presented with any active suicidal or homicidal ideation. The doctor stated that Mr. Slocum has not complained of any concerning side effects from his medications.
Over the past reporting year, Mr. Slocum has remained on the Forensic Transitional unit (“FTU”), a general forensic unit. To his credit, he has not been involved in any violent behaviour, did not pose a management problem, and he did not engage in elopement attempts.
Mr. Slocum had five incidents of concern over the past reporting year. Three incidents involved substance use, one involved contraband being found in his room and the last incident was a late check when he was on a leave of absence.
On July 8, 2024 Mr. Slocum’s urine drug screen (“UDS”) tested positive for the presence of THC. The following month on August 12, 2024, his UDS tested positive for a metabolite of cocaine. On September 19, 2024 a search of his room was conducted and many items of contraband were found. These included cigarettes and loose tobacco. Finally, on September, February 18, 2025 his UDS returned positive for cocaine metabolites, and his privileges were placed on hold for one week.
On December 28, 2024, Mr. Slocum was utilizing an Approved Person pass when he returned to the unit one hour late after his father had reported that he had slept in and they were on their way. Health teaching was provided about the importance of adhering to an approved itinerary.
Dr. Pytyck stated that despite his occasional substance used (cocaine and cannabis), Mr. Slocum did not suffer a decompensation his mental state.
Except as noted above, Mr. Slocum used his privileges appropriately and was generally on time for unit check-ins. He is typically able to use two hours indirectly supervised hospital privileges that can be used an unlimited number of times daily. As well, he is able to access 4 hours indirectly supervised in the community on a daily basis, with two-hour check-ins. Mr. Slocum has also been using overnight passes to his father’s house and these have been managed without incident.
Mr. Slocum has been attending his Empowering Progress Encouraging Connections (“EPEC”) programming and has successfully completed two programs. In the fall of 2024, he completed Perceptions and Perspectives group in the Forensic EPEC Program, focusing on topics of understanding mental illness, promoting autonomy, challenging suicidal stigmas related to mental health illnesses. He also e completed the Tech Connect Group in the Forensic EPEC Program, having attended 5 of 6 sessions. In this six-session group, members were asked to explore their relationship with technology, with a focus on its risks and benefits. Topics included safety measures, including spotting scams, phishing, clickbait, and sexting. More recently, he has pulled away from his programming involvement.
Mr. Slocum continues to express partial insight into his mental illness, its historical manifestations, or its relationship to his future risk to public safety. As well, he has underdeveloped insight into the need for antipsychotic and mood-stabilizing medication. He has superficial insight into the need to abstain from substance use in order to progress through the ORB system; however, Mr. Slocum continues to engage in intermittent use of cocaine and cannabis, likely driven by impulsivity and opportunity.
Both of Mr. Slocum’s parents have been designated as Approved Persons and Mr. Slocum is in regular contact with them. They are important supports for him.
The Clinical Assessment of Risk in the Hospital Report indicates that:
“Clinically, over the past reporting year, Mr. Slocum has demonstrated partial evidence for recent problems with instability, active symptoms of major mental disorder, insight and treatment or supervision response. He continues to have limited appreciation of his major mental illness, its historical manifestations, its relationship to his future risk to the public. Despite his superficial understanding of the need to abstain from substance use in order to progress through the ORB system, Mr. Slocum continues to engage in intermittent use of cocaine and cannabis. His pattern of use appears to be impulsive and in the context of opportunity, although self-sabotage has also been suspected by the treatment team given his lengthy hospitalization and his reluctance to live in a group home near the hospital.”
The Hospital Report indicates that “Absent the involvement of the ORB, and specifically without the presence of a detention order, Mr. Slocum would likely opt to leave hospital and move to inappropriate housing where he would experience problems with stress and coping, as well as problems with his treatment and supervision response. He would be highly likely to resume using substances in an unregulated fashion and would decompensate psychiatrically as a result, given his brittle and treatment-resistant illness. Absent an appropriate level of professional support and supervision, he would likely revert to non-compliance with his oral medication, clozapine, which would lead to rapid decompensation in his mental status, with re-emergence of paranoia and disorganized and bizarre behavior, which would generate a high risk of aggression towards others around him.”
Dr. Pytyck reminded the panel that five years ago Mr. Slocum had two failed attempts at community living. She noted that he had been transferred to Scott House, a 24-hour supervised residence operated by DMHS in the summer of 2020 but had relapsed to substance use on both occasions prompting his return to the hospital. The dates of Mr. Slocum’s failed community living attempts: July 6 - August 7, 2020 and August 12- 24, 2020.
Dr. Pytyck provided an update to the Hospital Report and advised that in a recent meeting between Mr. Slocum and a representative of Durham Mental Health Service (“DMHS”) in April or May 2025, Mr. Slocum reportedly presented as evasive and unengaged. DMHS reported that during the meeting, he left for an extended period of time to use the bathroom. When he returned to the meeting, he was noted to be in an “altered mental state” and drug use was suspected. Mr. Slocum allegedly commented to the DMHS representative that if returned to the community he would likely test positive for substance use. DMHS contacted the hospital to update the team regarding the meeting and DMHS indicated to the treatment team that in their assessment Mr. Slocum was not ready for placement in the community within their program.
Mr. Slocum was encouraged by the treatment team to reach out to DMHS to clarify what he thought was their misunderstanding of his comments at the meeting and to advise them that he had not engaged in substance use at that time. Mr. Slocum decided that he was no longer interested in DMHS housing. Dr. Pytyck advised that Mr. Slocum is no longer on the DMHS housing waitlist; however, he could potentially reapply in approximately three months. Dr. Pytyck expressed her concern that Mr. Slocum is quite comfortable in the hospital and he may be vulnerable to institutionalization.
The doctor indicated that the team will consider other housing options but she noted that Mr. Slocum requires high support housing to closely monitor his adherence to prescribed medications given his history of medication noncompliance and the fact that he is on oral medications. As well, he requires close monitoring to ensure that he remains abstinent from illicit substance use.
In response to a question from a panel member as to whether or not a psychosexual assessment was necessary, the doctor responded that to her knowledge she had been assessed in the past, and that when his psychosis was well managed so was his risk of sexual offending. The doctor noted that he has not presented with any sexual behaviours while in hospital over the years and that there were no concerns regarding his ability to be placed in coed housing when discharged to the community.
In the doctor’s assessment, the hospital requires the authority of a Detention Order Disposition for two key risk management reasons. The treatment team is of the opinion that the hospital must have the authority to oversee Mr. Slocum’s placement in the community when he is ready for discharge to ensure that his housing provides him with the necessary degree of structure support, supervision, and monitoring. It will be necessary for there to be eyes on him to monitor his mental state, ensure compliance with his prescribed medications and assess him if there are concerns that he has relapsed to alcohol or illicit substance use. Additionally, the hospital requires the authority to intervene or dinner only juncture in rapidly readmit Mr. Slocum to the hospital should he suffer any decompensation in his mental state weather as a result of his experience of stressors, breakthrough symptoms, noncompliance with medications, relapse to substance use, or otherwise.
Mr. Slocum’s risk for future violence as per the HCR-20V3 falls in the low range should he be under his current Disposition (Detention Order with community living approved by the hospital) and the moderate range should he be under a Conditional Discharge.
No other evidence was heard at this hearing.
Analysis and Conclusions:
The Board finds that Mr. Slocum poses a significant threat to the safety of the public. He continues to suffer from a treatment-resistant major mental illness, Schizophrenia. While his mental status has continued to be stable over the past year in review, this has been in the context of the highly structured environment of the hospital with intensive oversight and supervision. Historically, Mr. Slocum’s major mental illness has been treatment-resistant and prone to rapid decompensations, particularly when he has relapsed to substance use. Absent a Disposition of the ORB, Mr. Slocum would likely leave the hospital and move to inappropriate housing, and fall away from treatment and supervision. In that context, his likelihood of relapse would be high and, over time, he would be prone to a significant deterioration in his mental status, with re-emergence of paranoia and disorganized and bizarre behaviour. In that state, Mr. Slocum would be at high risk of causing physical harm to members of the public.
The Board accepts that the necessary and appropriate Disposition at this juncture is a Detention Order on the terms of his existing Disposition.
Mr. Slocum has had a variable year in review. Unfortunately, he has relapsed to cannabis and cocaine use on a few occasions although he has not suffered an overt decompensation. To his credit, he has not engaged in any aggressive conduct.
At the present time, he requires ongoing inpatient admission while his medications are optimized and the team waits for appropriate supervised community housing to become available.
In this Board’s opinion, in order to safely manage Mr. Slocum’s risk to the public, the hospital requires the ongoing authority of a Detention Order. At such time that housing becomes available for Mr. Slocum, the hospital must have the ability to approve his housing placement to ensure that it provides him with the necessary support, structure, and supervision to manage his risk factors. Further, the second risk management tool that a Detention Order affords is that it allows the hospital to intervene at a very early juncture to act expeditiously should Mr. Slocum show signs of a decompensation in his mental status that increases his risk to the public (whether as a result of reactivity to stressors, breakthrough symptoms, medication non-compliance, relapse to substance use, or otherwise). Should he relapse to substance use as he has in the past when discharged to the community, it will be necessary to act early to interrupt his substance use and return him to the hospital for re-stabilization before he might meet criteria for certification under the Mental Health Act.
In light of the evidence provided by Dr. Pytyck, this panel finds that it is both necessary and appropriate that Mr. Slocum continue to be found by his existing Disposition.
In this panel’s assessment, a less restrictive Conditional Discharge Disposition would be insufficient to manage Mr. Slocum’s risk to public safety were he to decompensate. It is clear from his history that when decompensated, Mr. Slocum can pose a threat to public safety. Further, it is unlikely the Mental Health Act could be relied upon to achieve either his prompt readmission to hospital or a more prolonged detention in hospital at an early enough juncture to safely manage his potential for significant harm to others.
In reaching our Disposition, the Board has taken into account the need to protect the public from dangerous persons, Mr. Slocum’s mental condition and his other needs, and Mr. Slocum’s reintegration into society.
DATED this 18th 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