Ontario Review Board
Re: Sylvio Beauvais
ORB File No: 6152
Hearing held on: Monday, May 12, 2025
Place of Hearing: Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care St. Thomas
Pursuant to: Section 672.81 (1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. G. Beasley
Members: Dr. R. Chandrasena Dr. S. Wiseman Mr. E. Siebenmorgen Ms. M. McKinnon
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Sylvio Beauvais Counsel: Ms. N. Circelli
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Zamprogna
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. D. Rows
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION (Dated June 20, 2025)
Introduction
On June 27, 2012, Sylvio Beauvais, now 43 years old, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCR) on charges of assault (x2) and failure to comply with probation (x2), contrary to the Criminal Code. Mr. Jansen was most recently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB” or “the Board”) dated May 21, 2024, detaining him at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care (“Southwest Centre” or “the Hospital”) with privileges up to and including living in the community of Elgin and Middlesex Counties, in approved supervised accommodation.
On Monday, May 12, 2025, a panel of the Board convened in person at the Southwest Centre to conduct a review of the Disposition pursuant to s. 672.81 (1) of the Criminal Code and to make a new Disposition. Mr. Beauvais was present and represented by his counsel, Ms. Circelli. The issues at the hearing were whether Mr. Beauvais represents a significant threat to the safety of the public within the meaning of s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code, and if so, the determination of the necessary and appropriate Disposition that is the least onerous and least restrictive, having regard to the criteria in s. 672.54 of the Code.
Positions of the Parties
- At the start of the hearing, the parties were asked to provide their initial and tentative positions. The parties jointly submitted that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a continuation of the Detention Order with no changes. The parties maintained this position at the conclusion of the evidence.
Evidence at the Hearing
- The evidence at the hearing consisted of the Hospital Report, dated April 17, 2025, the oral testimony of Dr. N. Mokhber, Mr. Beauvais’ attending psychiatrist, and the oral testimony of Amy Bennett, a Recreational Therapist and the team organizer for Mr. Beauvais.
Findings
- For the Reasons that follow, the panel found that Mr. Beauvais represents a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a continuation of the Detention Order in accordance with its existing terms and conditions.
Index Offences
- The index offences are described in the synopsis contained within the Hospital Report. They are summarized as follows, with modifications from last year’s Reasons for Disposition:
On November 7, 2011, Mr. Beauvais attended the emergency department at Bluewater Health Alliance, seeking medical treatment. When he was advised that he would be admitted on a Form 1 under the Mental Health Act, he became increasingly challenging and agitated, flipped over a desk, and then struck a security staff individual in the forehead and neck area approximately five times with a closed fist. Hospital staff then gained control and restrained him. In the course of this, he spat into the face of the same security staff person. He was charged with one count of assault in respect of the hospital staff involved at that time.
Mr. Beauvais had been placed on probation on November 24, 2010, and again on March 7, 2011. He breached the term requiring him to keep the peace and be of good behaviour by committing the assaults noted above.”
Current Diagnoses
- Mr. Beauvais’ current diagnoses are:
(i) schizophrenia, paranoid type;
(ii) substance use disorder;1 and
(iii) antisocial personality disorder.
Background Information
The Hospital Report contains considerable information concerning Mr. Beauvais’ personal background, criminal history, and psychiatric history prior to the commission of the index offences. This information is in evidence, as the Hospital Report is an Exhibit at the hearing. It is unnecessary, for the purpose of these Reasons, to review that information in detail. Several brief highlights will suffice.
In brief, Mr. Beauvais is 43 years old. He was born in Sarnia. He has two siblings with whom he has no contact. Mr. Beauvais has a grade 12 education, which he obtained as an adult. He has a history of substance use, which began when he was 13 years old. Mr. Beauvais is single but has two children with whom he has no contact. He has a limited employment history and is currently supported by ODSP.
Prior to the index offences, Mr. Beauvais had a criminal record that commenced in 1998 when he was a youth and includes convictions for failing to comply with court orders, break and enter, possession of stolen property, uttering threats, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, resist peace officer, and public mischief. He also has a conviction for assault, in April of 2013, arising from an incident that occurred while he was living in the community prior to his initial Review Board hearing.
Mr. Beauvais’ first psychiatric admission was in 2005. He has had multiple admissions throughout his adult life. The circumstances of those admissions are summarized in detail in the Hospital Report. Of note, during two of those admissions prior to the index offences (in 2008 and 2011), Mr. Beauvais was noted to have engaged in physical assaults against hospital staff.
Course at Southwest Centre
Mr. Beauvais’ course in hospital was a lengthy one, due primarily to the serious nature of his ongoing active symptoms. After being found NCR, Mr. Beauvais was ordered by the Board to be detained at the Southwest Centre on January 24, 2013. For several years, he engaged very little with his treatment team and was assessed as a high risk for violence even within the Hospital. He exercised staff-accompanied community privileges only occasionally and was thought to be too paranoid to be in the community due to his ongoing active symptoms.
Mr. Beauvais’ symptoms fluctuated a great deal during his 2020-2021 reporting period. He sometimes complained that his hallucinations (including command hallucinations directing him to attack others) had become unbearable, and his general physical self-care suffered. He only went on two community outings during the entire period, once to get a new photo card and the second time to get a new debit card. His medication was adjusted, producing some benefit. He was placed on a personal hygiene plan, which allowed him to attend cooking groups. He voiced that he wished to remain in the hospital indefinitely.
Mr. Beauvais began to participate significantly in in-hospital programme activities toward the end of the 2021-2022 reporting period. He reported being “scared” of being in the community and continued not to use his indirectly supervised privileges. He was, however, encouraged to explore supported community options such as CHO or Indwell housing to provide supportive housing with increased opportunity to practice life skills and responsibilities within the home as a gradual reintegration plan. While he continued to express anxiety about being in the community, he did express a long-term goal of living in an apartment in St. Thomas. For the first time since coming under the Board’s jurisdiction, his psychological risk assessment reflected a lower risk: he presented a moderate risk of violent reoffending in the next 12 months if he remained on a detention disposition and resided in a supervised setting (e.g. hospital, group home).
Mr. Beauvais began to participate more in community-based activities in the 2022-2023 year than in previous years. He regularly used his indirectly supervised community privileges, with parameters, and also participated in some community housing assessments. He was placed on a housing waiting list. On July 24, 2023, Mr. Beauvais transitioned from the Hospital’s Forensic Rehabilitation Readiness Unit (A1) to a group home in St. Thomas, managed by Community Homes for Opportunity (CHO), a program operated by the Canadian Mental Health Association (CMHA).
Mr. Beauvais’ course during his first year of community living in over 10 years reflected a very positive transition, as summarized in last year’s Reasons for Disposition. In particular, at para. 32 of the Reasons, last year’s panel wrote:
“The Board congratulates Mr. Beauvais for the significant progress he has made in the past year. He has done well in his transition to community. He has demonstrated adaptive coping skills. He has done well controlling impulses and not relapsing into substances. We commend Mr. Beauvais on being open with his treatment team.”
Evidence at the Hearing
Dr. Mokhber testified at the hearing to supplement the evidence contained in the Hospital Report. She has been Mr. Beauvais’ attending psychiatrist on several occasions during his hospitalization, and more recently since March of 2025.
The Hospital Report notes that at his group home, Mr. Beauvais has been sharing a room with an individual who has both physical and cognitive disabilities. He has been cooperative with this arrangement. According to group home staff, Mr. Beauvais has not posed any management concerns and is considered a valued member of the home.
Dr. Mokhber began her evidence by addressing Mr. Beauvais substance use over the reporting period, as it required a change in the substance use diagnosis. Despite having been abstinent for many years, including during his first year of living at the group home, his substance use disorder could no longer be said to be in remission. Dr. Mokhber noted that Mr. Beauvais exhibited rapid speech, elevated mood, and appeared unsettled. The Hospital Report noted that he appeared to experience a small decompensation during his period of cannabis use, which by Mr. Beauvais’ admission was for approximately six weeks before his drug screen tested positive.
Dr. Mokhber stated that after his cannabis use was discovered, Mr. Beauvais, on his own, started attending Narcotics Anonymous. Working with Mr. Beauvais, the treatment team managed the situation without requiring his readmission. He was not, however, interested in attending a formal substance abuse program.
Dr. Mokhber stated that Mr. Beauvais promised not to use drugs again as he does not want to come back to the Hospital. His insight into the risks presented by substance abuse is an area for future work. In response to a later question from Mr. Beauvais’ counsel, Dr. Mokhber confirmed that there was no indication of violence to other residents accompanying his cannabis use. She attributed the lack of a serious incident to the treatment team’s proactive response.
Dr. Mokhber said that Mr. Beauvais amotivation for change is another risk factor. While in the past, he had experienced many delusions and hallucinations, he was still experiencing delusions but not acting on them except in relation to his family, with whom he wanted no contact. [It is noted that over his course under the ORB, Mr. Beauvais has expressed the delusional belief that his parents are not his real parents, but that he was kidnapped by them.] Dr. Mokhber stated that Mr. Beauvais does not wish to live independently and is not motivated for either gainful or volunteer work. To his credit, however, he has become more sociable, and his living skills have improved. In response to a later question by Mr. Beauvais’ counsel, Dr. Mokhber agreed that his delusions have become less frequent and less intense than they were in the previous year.
Responding later to a panel member’s question about Mr. Beauvais’ daily routine, Dr. Mokhber said that he is generally not very active. He watches television and goes for walks. If there is a planned community activity, he will attend. Dr. Mokhber hastened to add that considering his major mental illness, she believes that Mr. Beauvais is doing his best. She stated that his presentation is “the best that I have seen him”.
Dr. Mokhber commented briefly on Mr. Beauvais’ medications, which are many. They are administered by staff at the group home. Mr. Beauvais is treatment-capable and refuses to take long-acting injectable medication because he hates needles. Similarly, because of the regular bloodwork involved, the treatment team is unable to administer clozapine. Mr. Beauvais takes his oral medications because he is asked to do so, and because he sees their benefits. He does, however, need reminders to take his medication, so one area of further testing will be his ability to manage his medication.
Dr. Mokhber testified that Mr. Beauvais is still working toward getting a family doctor. One positive development in terms of his community professional support is that he now has a nurse practitioner.
Dr. Mokhber spoke to the need for a continued Detention Order, stating that Mr. Beauvais’ risk currently cannot be managed under any other Disposition. The Hospital continues to need the ability to approve his accommodation. Without the supervision provided by such a Disposition, Dr. Mokhber believed that Mr. Beauvais would return to drug use, and that with such use, his decompensation would be very quick.
In response to questions from counsel for Mr. Beauvais as to his level of understanding related to his medications, Dr. Mokhber said that he knows his medications, their purpose, and the consequences of not taking them. He verbalizes that they help him settle down and to be calmer.
Dr. Mokhber noted, in response to further questions from counsel, that Mr. Beauvais needs to develop skills to remain abstinent of drugs, even though he is not interested in formal rehabilitation programs. Formal education in this regard is not usually provided through Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous, but the treatment team is able to do some work in this regard through psychotherapy.
Dr. Mokhber confirmed that she foresaw no reason to change Mr. Beauvais’ living situation. She also updated the panel to state that his family had not recently reached out to the Hospital. They cannot contact her without Mr. Beauvais’ consent. [The Hospital Report for previous reporting periods noted that his mother had telephoned the Hospital at least annually, always to be told that without consent, they could not provide her with any information concerning Mr. Beauvais.]
A panel member asked Dr. Mokhber whether Mr. Beauvais’ risk could be managed under a Conditional Discharge that specified a residence address. She responded in the negative, stating that under a Conditional Discharge, the treatment team could not immediately readmit him to the Hospital.
In response to a panel member’s question concerning the statement at p. 182 of the Hospital Report that random urine testing was not enforced earlier due to Mr. Beauvais’ 10 years of abstinence, Dr. Mokhber did not have direct information beyond what was stated, as Mr. Beauvais’ cannabis use predated her recent assumption of his care. Concern was expressed that random testing was not done despite the provision in the Disposition requiring the Hospital to obtain samples on a random basis, and according to the Hospital Report, Mr. Beauvais acknowledged that he was able to adjust his cannabis consumption according to the schedule of his appointments with outreach team staff.
Amy Bennet, a Recreational Therapist who was present during the hearing, testified briefly to address the “random testing” issue. She stated that previously, urine drug screens were generally performed when the outreach staff visited Mr. Beauvais, so he knew when they were coming. In addition, the team “sprinkled” in occasional random screens, but they did not catch his drug use.
Responding to panel members’ questions, Ms. Bennett stated that the term “random” in a Disposition was interpreted as “unscheduled”. The “unscheduled” screens taken from Mr. Beauvais during the reporting period were obtained on days when the outreach staff were at the home visiting with other residents.
No further evidence was led following Ms. Bennett’s testimony.
Analysis and Conclusions
Although the “significant threat” issue was not in dispute, the panel found, independently on the evidence, that Mr. Beauvais represents a significant threat to the safety of the public.
First, Mr. Beauvais suffers from a severe and treatment resistant form of schizophrenia and continues to experience both positive and negative symptoms. During periods of increased symptoms, Mr. Beauvais experienced auditory command hallucinations instructing him to harm others, leading to acts of aggression and physical violence, including several assaults on peers in the Hospital during his years under the Board’s oversight.
Second, even though Mr. Beauvais has been under the Board’s jurisdiction for over 12 years, his transition to community living occurred only recently, in 2023. His severe symptoms essentially prevented him from safely exercising his community privileges for years prior to that transition. Although he is functioning reasonably well at his group home, this is a supervised environment that provides significant support, including the administration of his medication which is essential to maintaining his stability. Even in that environment, however, Mr. Beauvais was able to access and use cannabis undetected for at least six weeks over the past reporting period. While he did not experience a complete decompensation, some mental status changes were observed.
The panel expressly adopts the re-offence scenario articulated at pp. 188-189 of the Hospital Report. The scenario was almost completely reflected in Dr. Mokhber’s testimony, which we accept. In addition, the panel finds that the Clinical Assessment of Risk at p. 189 of the Hospital Report provides an excellent explanation of the basis for our finding that the likelihood of Mr. Beauvais’ mental status deterioration, followed by the commission of criminal acts, rises to the level of a substantial likelihood in the absence of Board oversight and the consequent care and supervision provided by forensic services. Such criminal acts, based upon their inherent potential for harm and Mr. Beauvais’ own history, carry the potential for serious physical and/or psychological harm.
As for the matter of the Disposition, the panel was satisfied that, in accordance with the parties’ joint submission, a Detention Order continues to be necessary. Although no party suggested a less restrictive Disposition, the panel expressly found that there is simply no air of reality to a Conditional Discharge on the evidence. While Mr. Beauvais did not require readmission to the Hospital in response to his use of cannabis in the past year, that use reinforces the importance of close ongoing monitoring of Mr. Beauvais’ ability to function safely in the community, particularly following his lengthy hospitalization and limited use of both accompanied and indirectly supervised community privileges.
Accordingly, the panel concluded that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Detention Order containing the same terms and conditions as contained in the previous Disposition.
In closing, the panel commends Mr. Beauvais on his recent progress in moving into community living while continuing to adhere to his treatment team’s medication recommendations. We would encourage him, over the next year, to continue working with Dr. Mokhber and the rest of his treatment team in enhancing his skills to remain abstinent from substances in the community and in working at his overall successful reintegration.
DATED this 20th day of June 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Eric Siebenmorgen Legal Member
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board