Re: Ryan Woolnough
ORB File No: 8245
Hearing held on: Thursday, May 15, 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: Ryan Woolnough
Counsel: Mr. W. Murray
The person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. A. Sandhu
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. J. Ramsay
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated June 16, 2025)
Introduction:
On March 1st, 2023, the accused, Ryan Woolnough, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of resisting or obstructing the public or a peace officer, and use of a firearm while committing an indictable offence contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. Mr. Woolnough is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB”) dated May 14, 2024 which discharges him on certain terms and conditions.
On May 15th, 2025, a panel of the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, hereinafter referred to as the hospital, to conduct Mr. Woolnough’s annual review hearing pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Woolnough attended his hearing and was represented by counsel, Mr. William Murray. Also in attendance was the social worker, Mr. Richard Robins. A hospital report dated May 8th, 2025 was marked as Exhibit No. 1.
The issues to be determined at this hearing are whether the threshold for significant threat to the safety of the public is met and, if so, what is the necessary and appropriate disposition.
Position of the Parties
- The hospital’s position was that Mr. Woolnough no longer meets the threshold of significant risk to the safety of the public and that he should be granted an absolute discharge. Both Mr. Ramsay, on behalf of the Attorney-General, and Mr. Murray, on behalf of Mr. Woolnough, supported the absolute discharge.
Index Offences
- The index offences under the Criminal Code which occurred on June 2nd, 2022, can be summarized as follows:
Use Imitation Firearm/Commit Indictable Offence
Point a Firearm
Possess Weapon, etc./Dangerous To Public Peace
Obstruct/Resist a Public Officer
Assault Peace/Public Officer and Carry/use or Threaten to Use a Weapon or Imitation Weapon
On June 2, 2022, Mr. Woolnough was visiting his friend, Mr. Andre Gfeller. The friend called the police to have Mr. Woolnough removed from his residence. Mr. Gfeller stated that Mr. Woolnough was not himself and his behaviour became erratic and aggressive. Mr. Woolnough appeared to want to fight with him.
When the female police officer arrived alone at the residence, Mr. Woolnough was outside of the house. He had his right hand held up at his chest level and was holding and pointing an object at her. She determined that the object in his hand was a handgun pointed at the centre mass of her body. On the police officer’s command Mr. Woolnough dropped the gun and raised both arms. The weapon seized upon Mr. Woolnough’s arrest was pellet gun modified to look like a firearm.
While being searched, Mr. Woolnough stated to the police officer that he should have pulled the trigger and then said that he was just kidding. Throughout the interaction with the officer he made jokes, was rambling nonsense and refused to answer questions.
On Mr. Woolnough’s own account, leading up to the June 5, 2022 incident he was not doing well. He felt paranoid and was not sleeping well. Mr. Woolnough stated that he was cutting himself in attempts to gather the courage to end his life. He was suicidal and wanted his friend Mr. Gfeller to look after his dog when he was gone. In the months and weeks prior to the index offences he was using cocaine, smoking cannabis, drinking six to twenty beers and using an amphetamine (speed). On the day of the index offences, he drank alcohol but was not sure of the amount.
Background Information:
Mr. Woolnough’s background information is extensively set out in the Hospital Report and only summarized in these Reasons.
Mr. Woolnough is 33 years old. He was born and lives in Ottawa. He is single with no children. He is the youngest of three biological children. He has a younger sister from his mother’s second relationship.
His parents separated when he was 5 years old, and he lived with his mother and visited with his father on alternate weekends and on Wednesday nights. Being a high energy child, Mr. Woolnough did not get along well with father who was very strict. He found the separation of his parents difficult, and he struggled with anxiety and difficulty in focusing.
According to Mr. Woolnough, his childhood was turbulent as both his parents struggled with mental health and substance use issues. Following their separation, Mr. Woolnough felt neglected by his mother and found his father verbally abusive. At the age of 17 he moved out of his mother’s house but sometimes came back home.
Mr. Woolnough does not receive financial assistance and has his own roofing business.
Mr. Woolnough attended high school but had difficulty focusing with periods of depression, bouts of high energy, difficulty sleeping and then a hard time to get to school. He decided to leave in Grade 12 after being confronted for missing too many classes.
According to Mr. Woolnough he started using tobacco, cannabis and alcohol in the fifth grade. In his late teens, early twenties he began using cocaine and was using cocaine intermittently prior to the index offences. He switched to crack cocaine when he developed lesions in his nostrils. He has tried methamphetamines and hallucinogenic mushrooms. He does not have a history of intravenous drug use.
Mr. Woolnough attended various treatment programs including the men's recovery program at Brock College, Camillus Centre, Meadow Creek, the Dave Smith Youth Treatment Centre, and Allwood in Carleton Place. He currently attends AA meetings and has a sponsor.
Legal History:
- Mr. Woolnough’s legal history dates back to 2017 when he was found driving under the influence of alcohol. In 2018 he was convicted of theft under $5000, for break and enter and fail to attend court. In 2019 he was convicted of fail to comply with his probation order. There are a numerous earlier contacts in the police information going back to 2014.
Psychiatric History:
Mr. Woolnough’s current diagnoses as set out in the Hospital Report at page 26 and reads as follows:
Bipolar Disorder, Type 1, most recent episode manic with psychotic features, currently in full remission
Cannabis Use Disorder, moderate, in sustained remission
Alcohol Use Disorder, moderate, in sustained remission
Stimulant Use Disorder, moderate, in sustained remission
Antisocial personality traits
I considered whether Mr. Woolnough has antisocial personality disorder. He showed signs of conduct disorder (without meeting full criteria) prior to the age of fifteen including stealing items without confronting a victim and being truant from school. This was mostly related to his drug use and supporting his drug use. Some antisocial traits that he has shown include:
∙ Failure to conform to social normal with respect to lawful behaviours ∙ Impulsivity ∙ Deceitfulness
Mr. Woolnough has not demonstrated antisocial traits in his interactions with me and Mr. Robins.”
Evidence:
The hospital’s evidence was presented through its report as well as through the oral testimony of Dr. Amanjot Sandhu. This evidence is summarized below.
Dr. Sandhu gave brief evidence. He stated that Mr. Woolnough has abstained from drugs and alcohol and has been adhering to medications. Mr. Woolnough has Bipolar illness. He has been able to travel to Bali and Vancouver.
He is running his own business and lives on his own. There have been no problems in the past year. He has been attending A.A. regularly and he has a sponsor.
Both Ms. Dufort, counsel for the Attorney-General, and Mr. Murray, counsel, for Mr. Woolnough, had no questions for Dr. Sandhu.
In response to questions by a member of the panel, Dr. Sandhu was asked if he had the appropriate insight into the index offence and the Doctor thought he did. Dr. Sandhu was also asked if Mr. Woolnough was having any contact with his friend who according to the bail order he was not to. Dr. Sandhu was unsure of this.
Mr. Woolnough lives alone in Barrhaven with his two dogs but has a fair amount of contact with his family, particularly his mother. He has a sibling in Ireland whom he visited. Dr. Sandhu was asked if he had done any independent investigation to see if Mr. Woolnough does in fact attend A.A. meetings or if he had spoken with his A.A. Sponsor to which Dr. Sandhu responded he had not.
Evidence came out that he had side effects from travelling, jet lag and he checked with Mr. Robins the social worker all the way from Thailand because he was concerned that a lack of sleep could trigger a manic episode. This demonstrated that Mr. Woolnough is alive to his illness and wants to ensure he does not decompensate.
In response to questions from the Psychologist member of the panel Dr. Sandhu stated that Mr. Woolnough does in fact have insight into personality traits that were mentioned in a previous reporting year by his then treating psychiatrist, Dr. Selaman. The doctor said he did not see any rule-breaking behaviour. Dr. Sandhu did not put those traits into the current report because he did not feel that he had witnessed this. He did say the accused had some insight into his personality traits.
The Doctor testified that he was a low to moderate risk of reoffending and there is always going to be a risk because he has already offended in the past, but that this risk is low. He is now medicated appropriately for Bipolar Disorder. The Doctor classified his risk as five to ten which is low to low/moderate.
Dr. Sandhu also testified that he was going to continue to see Mr. Woolnough indefinitely, but at least for another year. Then it arose that Dr. Kunjukrishnan recalled that he had previously treated Mr. Woolnough in the past and defence indicated his client was not concerned.
There were questions asked about the testosterone that Mr. Woolnough was taking. He was referred to a nurse/practitioner and apparently there were no concerns.
In response to another question by a panel member, Dr. Sandhu was asked why weren’t the personality traits carried forward. The Doctor said he is happy to include them but he didn’t.
In response to a question by another member of the panel, Dr. Sandhu stated that alcohol was his drug of choice. He would be notified 24 hours in advance for random urine screens but this was not really effective because alcohol would be out of his system well before.
In re-examination by defence counsel, the Doctor was asked if he had seen evidence of certain personality traits. He responded no, he had not witnessed any deceitfulness. He had been able to corroborate good behaviour with his family members. The Board was not advised of this in advance.
Counsel for the Attorney-General did not call any evidence.
Mr. Murray, on behalf of Mr. Woolnough, stated he would not be calling any evidence but stated his client would be willing to answer any questions. No questions were asked by the parties, including the Board members..
Submissions of the Parties
- In final submissions, all three parties maintained their initial positions that Mr. Woolnough no longer presented a significant threat to the safety of the public and therefore should be granted an absolute discharge.
Conclusions and Disposition
- Having considered all of the evidence tendered at the hearing, and the joint submission of all three parties, the Board retired to deliberate. The Board failed to find any evidence of significant threat whatsoever. Mr. Woolnough has been living a pro-social lifestyle. He maintains his own business. He has been able to travel to exotic locales (Thailand, Ireland) with his mother. He understands his illness and demonstrates that he is eager to do the right things to manage it–for example, calling Mr. Robbins, the social worker, from Thailand because Mr. Woolnough wanted reassurance that his jet-lag would not trigger a manic episode. Pursuant to s.672.54 of the Criminal Code, there was no evidence of significant threat, which is required in law to make any other finding other than an absolute discharge. The Board found in favour of the only avenue open to it: an absolute discharge. After a brief recess in the hearing, the Alternate Chairperson invited the legal member of the panel to deliver the news to Mr. Woolnough. We congratulated Mr. Woolnough and wished him well in the future.
DATED this 16th 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