Ontario Review Board
Re: James Wallace Johnson
ORB File No: 8009-8068
Hearing held on: Tuesday, April 15, 2025
Place of Hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Pursuant to: Sections 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. G. Beasley
Members: Dr. S. Lessard
Dr. R. Cormier Mr. D. Sandor
Mr. A. Bernardo
Parties Appearing:
Accused: James Wallace Johnson
Counsel: Mr. D. Howard
Person in charge of hospital: Representatives: Dr. R. Linthorst
Dr. F. Wood
Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. M. Dufort
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated June 25, 2025)
Introduction
- On January 7, 2022 and January 22, 2022, James Wallace Johnson was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on the following charges:
- store ammunition in a careless manner,
- possess imitation weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace (x3),
- mischief - obstruct lawful use, enjoyment, or operation of property,
- careless use of firearm, weapon, prohibited device or ammunition, and
- failure to comply with undertaking
all contrary to the provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Mr. Johnson is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated April 5th, 2024, detaining him at the Secure Forensic Unit of the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre (hereinafter referred to as “the Hospital”) with privileges up to and including that of living in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge. That disposition also subjects Mr. Johnson to certain terms and conditions, including that of abstaining absolutely from the non-medical use of alcohol, drugs, or any other intoxicant and that of providing samples for the purpose of monitoring his compliance with the abstention condition.
On April 15th, 2025, a panel of the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing at the Hospital to conduct an annual review of that disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Johnson attended his hearing and was represented by counsel, Mr. Daniel Howard. Also in attendance was Mr. Johnson’s mother.
The record for the hearing included the Notice of Hearing, a Decision dated January 7, 2025, the Reasons for that Decision, the Disposition mentioned and the Reasons for that Disposition. A Hospital Report dated April 6th, 2025 was entered into evidence and marked as exhibit number 1 on the consent of all parties.
The parties were canvassed for their positions on the issues before the Board. Dr. R. Linthorst, a Forensic Psychiatry Fellow (Post-Graduate Year 6) working under the supervision of Dr. F. Wood, Mr. Johnson’s treating psychiatrist, spoke for the Hospital. He expressed the position that Mr. Johnson continued to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public as that term is defined in section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and as it has been explained by the Supreme Court of Canada in Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625. He further expressed the position that a continuation of the reigning detention disposition was necessary and appropriate having regard to the objectives set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code, the primary of which is the assurance of the safety of the public.
Both the representative of the Attorney General and counsel for Mr. Johnson agreed with the Hospital.
Benefitting as it did from the joint submission, the Board panel deliberated on the evidence received over the course of the hearing. It concluded that the joint submission was appropriate in its entirety. What follows are the reasons for its conclusion.
Evidence at the hearing
The evidence for the hearing came from the Hospital Report mentioned above and from the live testimony offered by Dr. Linthorst.
Turning first to the Hospital Report, it is cumulative in nature and includes a summary of the index offences as referred to in previous Reasons.
Occurring December 31, 2020
On December 31, 2020, at approximately 0010 hours, Mr. Johnson uttered threats towards his neighbour. This was in response to her asking him to turn down his music. The police were called to attend his residence and conducted a door knock on Mr. Johnson’s unit. He invited the police inside to discuss the concerns. The officers observed what appeared to be a handgun sticking out of the couch cushion, a stun gun on the living room floor and a gun case with modified bullets on the floor of the hallway. Mr. Johnson was charged with possessing prohibited weapons and for careless storage of ammunition. The pistol was for firing blanks and did not have a functioning barrel. The police noted that Mr. Johnson appeared to have been attempting to make a barrel for the modified bullets. Mr. Johnson was released on an undertaking with a court date as police believed there was no immediate concern for public safety.
Occurring October 16, 2021
Mr. Johnson was apprehended for assessment by Ottawa Police on February 18, 2021. At that time, Mr. Johnson was paranoid about neighbours coming through his bathroom or the water pipes to cause him harm.
On the date of the alleged offences, Mr. Johnson’s family had recently moved him from Ottawa to Renfrew to find him more support for his diagnosis of Schizophrenia.
Police responded to call on October 16, 2021, at approximately 2227h. A neighbour reported that a man had been screaming all night, while playing loud music. He had been yelling about shooting firearms. The police identified Mr. Johnson when they arrived to investigate the complaint. Mr. Johnson told police that he had been consuming alcohol and marijuana. The music from his house could be heard several houses away. He could be seen moving rapidly from room to room and police had difficulty getting his attention. He eventually exited to speak with police and was cautioned for the noise complaint and possible firearm concerns. Police seized a pellet pistol for public safety because of his intoxication. The pellet pistol was on a seat in the living room along with an open pack of pellets. Police advised Mr. Johnson to go to bed and to turn off his music, which he agreed to do.
While preparing to leave the scene, the police officers were still in their vehicle a short distance down the street. The officers observed Mr. Johnson exit the residence with what appeared to be a short-styled rifle in his hands. He crossed to the other side of the street, straight across from his residence. He appeared to point the firearm up to the window area of the residence, where other tenants resided. The police approached Mr. Johnson with their lights activated and observed what appeared to be a rifle with a magazine. A high-risk takedown was conducted, and Mr. Johnson dropped the weapon. The firearm was determined to be an airsoft rifle, similar to a semi-automatic style rifle.”
The Hospital Report provides significant details regarding Mr. Johnson’s personal and psychiatric history. He is now 23 years old, is a Canadian citizen and has a family consisting of two other siblings. Mr. Johnson has no criminal record and a history of struggle with major mental illness beginning in 2019. He began having behavioural issues around grade 5 and was diagnosed at that time with ADHD. He has a very limited work history.
With respect to substance use, Mr. Johnson has used cannabis regularly since the age of 16. He experimented with other drugs in the past. At the time of the index offences, he was smoking two to three marijuana cigarettes a day.
The Hospital Report incudes a summary of Mr. Johson’s medical records from both the Ottawa Hospital and the Montfort Hospital from June 2020 to the time he came under the Board’s jurisdiction. In both June and October 2020, it appears that he was admitted to the Ottawa Hospital under a Form 2 (Mental Health Act) with possibly psychotic symptoms that included paranoia and isolation. In February 2021, Mr. Johnson was admitted to the Montfort Hospital pursuant to section 17 of the Mental Health Act. He described deep depression and paranoia. He indicated that he had been noncompliant with prescribed medications and observations of his apartment showed significant decline in personal hygiene. His mother confirmed a history of violent ideation associated with historic periods of paranoia. He lacked insight entirely as to the impact of his continued use of cannabis on his major mental illness.
Mr. Johnson’s current diagnoses are:
- Schizophrenia
- Cannabis use disorder, moderate, in a controlled environment
- Alcohol use disorder, moderate, in a controlled environment
- Cocaine use disorder, moderate, in a controlled environment
- ADHD, combined type, by history
- Major depressive disorder, single episode, currently in remission
- Mild intellectual disability disorder
The hospital’s evidence was presented through its report as well as through the oral testimony of Dr. R. Linthorst under the supervision of Dr. F. Wood. This evidence is summarized below.
By way of update, this has been a difficult year for Mr. Johnson. As was noted above, the record for this hearing includes a Decision and Reasons for Decision associated with a restriction of Mr. Johnson’s liberty that took place in December 2024. In finding that the restriction was justified and necessary, the panel hearing that matter observed that Mr. Johnson was persisting in the use of serious substances, was displaying paranoia, gathering items that he could use as weapons and barricading himself in his room at his place of residence. He was increasingly aggressive and oppositional. These difficulties actually began in November 2024. The increase in his symptoms and his noncompliance with the reigning disposition put his housing in jeopardy and he was returned to the Hospital and placed on its forensic assessment unit (the “FAU”).
The Hospital Report’s update for this hearing begins at page 51. It explains that since the time of his transfer to the FAU, Mr. Johnson was resistant to recommended group programming but did engage with individual Behavioural Therapy and Addictions Counselling. He continued to struggle with his addictions and lost pass privileges because of consummation of hand sanitizer procured by co-patients. His repeated setbacks resulted in delays in progressing along the pass ladder. As of March 2025 though, he had earned up to Level 5 passes, which includes community access that is either individually escorted or accompanied in a group setting. The plan is for Mr. Johnson to continue to engage with his behavioural therapist, gain off-grounds, indirectly supervised passes and then have social work engage with him and his mother to conduct an approved accommodation assessment in consideration of several placement options. Transitional housing and group homes are a possibility, as is living with his girlfriend.
The Hospital Report includes a risk assessment at pages 54 and 56. Its methodology and contents were not challenged over the course of the hearing. It concludes that Mr. Johnson presents as a moderate-to-high risk of future violence and says that his most likely scenario involving risk of violence would be associated with either Mr. Johnson’s use of substances recreationally or to cope with stress or a failure on his part to attend appointments for his monthly dose of injectable antipsychotic medication. In each scenario, or a combination of them, Mr. Johnson would likely experience a relapse of psychotic symptoms like those he experienced at the time of the index offences. The risk assessment notes that Mr. Johnson demonstrates limited insight as to the impact substances have on his major mental illness and the resultant risk to the public. He continues to struggle with living skills and will need support to attain to his goal of independent living.
In his evidence given the Board, Dr. Linthorst opened by emphasizing Mr. Johnson’s strengths. He is engaging well at this point with the treatment team, with his behavioural therapist and his addictions counsellor. Since his return to the Hospital, his symptoms have been exceptionally well-controlled. He has been treatment compliant and no side effects to his injectable antipsychotic medication have been noted.
Dr. Linthorst updated the Board regarding Mr. Johnson’s pass privileges, which are now at level 6, representing the highest level they could be at while he is at the Hospital. He has been appropriately exercising indirectly supervised community access, and he indicates that he does not want to use substances. Mr. Johnson expresses strong motivation to live with his current girlfriend in the community. In Dr. Linthorst’s opinion, the significant gains Mr. Johnson has made suggests that this goal is attainable, possibly over the course of the next review period. He indicated that the Hospital would like to see Mr. Johnson managing well with extended passes to the community before he moves to approved accommodations. The treatment team would prefer that he transition first into his own apartment where he can show a prolonged period of ability to manage his own residence and affairs and remain abstinent before an attempt is made at his living with his girlfriend. In his evidence, Dr. Linthorst corrected an error in the Hospital Report associated with transitional housing. He explained that this is not likely an option for Mr. Johnson, particularly given his use of substances and the breakdown of his former residence prior to the restriction of his liberty in November 2024.
Dr. Linthorst described the points of contact Mr. Johnson would have with the treatment team while in the community. He explained that Mr. Johnson could be in housing in the community in several weeks to months if he continues to be clinically and behaviourally stable. Dr. Linthorst did emphasize the importance of supports that the treatment team would provide to Mr. Johnson. In addition to his major mental illness, Mr. Johnson has a mild intellectual disability that affects his learning style. Dr. Linthorst explained that this factor highlights Mr. Johnson’s need for ongoing one-on-one education and counselling when in the community. Programming will need to be tailored to his specific skills and abilities.
Submissions of the Parties
At the end of the hearing the parties renewed their joint submissions as to the threshold issue. All agreed that Mr. Johnson continued to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public as described in Winko. All agreed that a detention disposition was necessary and appropriate to manage that threat. The representative of the Attorney General, however, advocated in favor of an increase to Mr. Johnson’s reporting frequency when living in the community, given the plan to transition Mr. Johnson into unsupervised approved accommodations. She expressed concern over his use of substances – both cannabis and cocaine – and specifically referenced the Board’s primary objective in crafting dispositions, namely, to assure the safety of the public.
The Hospital took the position that the increased reporting was a reasonable submission that it supported on the evidence.
Counsel for Mr. Johnson did not dispute the importance of multiple weekly contacts for his client when living in the community. He suggested that, for Mr. Johnson, the reality was that there would be weekly contact with the treatment team in any event, given the amount of one-on-one counseling and education he would be receiving. He indicated that, in any event, the Board was being presented with a joint submission.
Analysis and Conclusion
As mentioned, the Board has come to the conclusion that the joint submission is appropriate. While it benefitted from the joint submission, it deliberated specifically on the threshold issue of significant threat and considered the standard set by the Supreme Court of Canada in Winko. It was mindful that the threshold finding has been described as a “weighty one” and that the burden never shifts to the patient to demonstrate that he does not represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. Furthermore, it considered whether the evidence had established that there was a significant likelihood that, absent a disposition, the public would be exposed to a significant risk of physical or psychological harm associated with serious criminal acts that would be committed by Mr. Johnson.
In support of the threshold finding, the Board noted that Mr. Johnson suffers from a major mental illness and experiences rapid decompensation when using substances. This combination contributed to index offences that were serious in nature and also featured prominently in symptoms and circumstances that necessitated a restriction of his liberty over the course of this past reporting period. Mr. Johnson has a lengthy history of substance use when in the community and his addictions drove him to ingest hand sanitizer when he was brought back into the Hospital. While he currently shows some increased insight into the deteriorating effect of substances on his mental health, this and his abstinence has only been attained in the Hospital’s highly secure setting. When in the community and using substances, Mr. Johnson displayed a return of paranoia and aggressivity similar to that displayed over the course of the index offences. In our view, these factors support the conclusion that Mr. Johnson continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public.
The Board also considered the joint submission that a detention disposition with increased reporting was necessary and appropriate having regard to the objectives set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code. Section 672.54 defines the Board’s primary objective as ensuring the safety of the public and sets out the other objectives guiding the crafting of Board dispositions. The Board considered the importance of balancing the primary objective with the other objectives of assuring that Mr. Johnson’s mental health and other needs were met, including the ultimate objective of reintegration into the community. It considered the importance of the principle of minimal intrusion, particularly in light of the recommendation that Mr. Johnson be subject to an increased reporting requirement when living in the community.
Again, the Board has concluded that the joint submission is appropriate. Mr. Johnson is making progress in the Hospital but has had a difficult year that included significant substance use, contrary to a Board disposition, while living in supervised housing in the community. His decompensation was rapid and necessitated a restriction of his liberty and a return to the Hospital. When initially hospitalized, Mr. Johnson displayed the same levels of paranoia and aggressivity that drove the index offences. While Mr. Johnson has some insight into his need for treatment and to abstain from substances, this has only been maintained as a result of one-on-one counseling and education provided to him in the Hospital’s secure environment. Transition to approved accommodations in the community, if not subject to supervision, requires a minimum of weekly reporting even if the practical reality is that Mr. Johnson is expected to have multiple points of contact with members of his treatment team each week. That expectation becomes a dispositional certainty that is necessary in our view given the concerns noted above and the Board’s primary objective. The increased reporting is also supportive of Mr. Johnson’s mental health and other needs. It will help support his process of reintegration into the community, will ensure monitoring of his hygiene and ability to maintain an apartment, and will catch early signs of substance use and deterioration of his major mental illness at early stages. In the Board’s view, the evidence has established that Mr. Johnson will need this level of support to limit stresses, control desire to use substances, and manage relationship stresses. It will provide support from an occupational therapist in terms of daily living and budgeting.
As a result, the Board has concluded that Mr. Johnson represents a significant threat to the safety of the public. It has also concluded that a detention disposition, with increased frequency in reporting is necessary and appropriate having regard to the provisions of s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
The Board congratulates Mr. Johnson on the progress he has made since his return to the Hospital and hopes the best for him as he transitions to approved accommodations in the community over the course of the next period of review.
An order will issue accordingly.
DATED this 25th day of June 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. D. Sandor
Legal Member
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board