Ontario Review Board
Re: George Veerman
ORB File No: 5038
Hearing held on: Wednesday, May 28, 2025
Place of Hearing: St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton, West 5th Campus
Pursuant to: Section 672.81 (1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. S. Clapp
Members: Dr. M. Attia Dr. T. Stirpe Mr. E. Siebenmorgen Ms. R. Chopra
Parties Appearing:
Accused: George Veerman
Counsel: Mr. W. Brooks
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. L. Barney
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. B. Adsett
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION (Dated July 7, 2025)
Introduction
On February 4, 2008, George Veerman, now 70 years old, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on a charge of second-degree murder, contrary to the Criminal Code. He has been subject to the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB” or “the Board”) for approximately 17 years. He has been under a Conditional Discharge since February of 2019. Mr. Veerman was most recently subject to a Disposition of the Board dated May 21, 2024, which discharges him subject to several conditions, including that he report to the person in charge of St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton (“SJHCH” or “the Hospital”) not less than once a month, that he submit samples for testing, advise the hospital of any absence from his residence of 24 hours or more, and, upon notice, attend before the ORB, as required.
On Wednesday, May 28, 2025, a panel of the Board convened in person at the Hospital to review Mr. Veerman’s Disposition and to make a new Disposition. Mr. Veerman was not present but was represented by his counsel, Mr. Brooks. The issues to be decided at the hearing were whether Mr. Veerman continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public as set out in section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code, and if so, a determination of the necessary and appropriate Disposition, taking into account the four factors set out in section 672.54 of the Code.
The panel addressed Mr. Veerman’s absence at the outset of the hearing. Mr. Brooks advised that his client had a medical appointment and accordingly could not be at his hearing. He further advised that Mr. Veerman agreed to the Hospital’s recommended Disposition. Mr. Brooks advised that he was content to proceed with the hearing. Neither of the other parties objected to proceeding in Mr. Veerman’s absence, and an order was made permitting Mr. Veerman to be absent from his hearing, pursuant to s.672.5 (10) (a) of the Criminal Code.
The evidence at the hearing consisted of the Hospital Report dated May 5, 2025, and the oral evidence of Dr. K. Shariati, Mr. Veerman’s attending psychiatrist. The parties agreed that, in view of the joint submission, the hearing could proceed in an expedited fashion. Dr. Shariati would simply adopt the Hospital Report as his evidence, and the parties, who had read the Report, had no questions of the doctor. Dr. Shariati would be available to answer any questions from the panel. If the parties had questions arising from the panel’s questions, they would of course be entitled to ask those.
Positions of the Parties
- At the start of the hearing, the parties were invited to provide their initial, without prejudice, positions in relation to the issues. All agreed that Mr. Veerman represents a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition was a continuation of the Conditional Discharge, in accordance with all the terms contained in the May 21, 2024 Disposition. The parties maintained their positions at the conclusion of the evidence. The panel was therefore presented with a joint submission.
Findings
- For the following Reasons, the panel accepted the joint recommendation and found that Mr. Veerman represents a significant threat to the safety of the public. Further, the panel concluded that, in accordance with the parties’ joint recommendation, the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Conditional Discharge containing the same terms as are in the previously existing Disposition.
Index Offence
- The index offence occurred at the Hamilton Wentworth Detention Centre where Mr. Veerman, then 49 years old, was being held on a remand on charges of robbery and breach of probation. The circumstances surrounding the offence are taken from the Reasons for Disposition dated June 14, 2024, and are reproduced as follows:
“On October 19, 2004 at approximately 5:30 am Mr. Veerman got out of his top bunk. He then dragged the victim out of his lower bunk and wrapped a white towel around his neck. Mr. Veerman pulled on each end of the towel until the circulation of blood was cut off from the victim's brain.
In an interview conducted by Detective Stanley and Detective Maloney, Mr. Veerman stated ‘I pulled and pulled on the towel, I knew he was dead because he farted and pissed himself, if he survived he is superman.' The victim was left lying on the floor of the cell. On the rounds by the Correctional Officers Mr. Veerman got the attention of one of the officers and made him aware of the victim’s condition. Correctional staff responded and the victim was ‘vital signs absent.' Emergency Services responded and managed to get vital signs but he remained unconscious.
The victim was transported to the Hamilton General Hospital and was kept alive with life support. He was pronounced dead on October 20, 2004 at 5:50 pm. Dr. C. Rao conducted a post-mortem examination on October 21, 2004. The preliminary findings on the cause of death were ‘consistent with ligature strangulation, no trauma to the body...'.”
Background Information
The Hospital Report provides extensive details relating to Mr. Veerman's personal, criminal and psychiatric history that need not be repeated here as the Report was made an exhibit at the hearing. However, the following particulars provide helpful context so that Mr. Veerman’s current situation can be properly understood. Much of what follows is adapted from last year’s Reasons.
Mr. Veerman was born in Timor in the Dutch East Indies. His family moved to Singapore and then went to the Netherlands before immigrating to Canada when he was about 12 years of age. He lived in Canada with his family but left high school in Grade 11 to travel to the Netherlands. It is believed he was suffering from symptoms of mental illness at that time. He returned to Canada at age 18 to complete high school. He attended university for six months but was not able to continue. He has a limited employment history, and lived with his parents until approximately age 23 following which he led a transient lifestyle.
Mr. Veerman was involved in a common-law relationship and has two children from this relationship. He has not, however, been involved in their lives.
Mr. Veerman started using alcohol at the age of 17. His alcohol use was followed by a long history of polysubstance abuse including use of cannabis, cocaine and various inhalants.
Mr. Veerman has a long and significant criminal record spanning from 1976 (when he was 21 years old) to 2004, and it includes more than 20 convictions, including seven for assault, six for robbery and theft-related offences, and others for mischief and failure to comply. He was incarcerated on many occasions, including receiving a two-years less a day sentence for aggravated assault in 1988 and a 30-month penitentiary sentence for the offences in respect of which he was awaiting trial when the index offence occurred. He has had no convictions since his NCR finding.
Psychiatric History
Mr. Veerman has an extensive psychiatric history which is detailed in the Hospital Report. His first contact with psychiatric services was in 1978 when he was psychiatrically assessed after his parents observed changes in his behaviour following a suicide attempt. He was not admitted to the hospital at that time. He was then admitted to hospital in 1980 in Hamilton because of aggressive behaviour toward his mother at the family home together with bizarre and inappropriate conduct. It was reported that he had been experiencing auditory and visual hallucinations for approximately a year before this admission.
This admission was followed by many other hospitalizations, often precipitated by aggressive behaviour towards his family. His prevailing diagnosis over the years has been schizophrenia compounded by various substance use disorders. Prior to his NCR finding, he had been treated with numerous anti-psychotic medications with limited success due to a history of noncompliance with medication and the abuse of illicit substances.
The timeline of Mr. Veerman’s history since the commission of the index offence is helpfully summarized at pp. 2-3 of the Hospital Report. In brief terms, after being found NCR on February 4, 2008, Mr. Veerman was an inpatient at Oakridge in Penetanguishene until November 9, 2011, when he was transferred to SJHCH. After moving to the General Forensic unit, Mr. Veerman was discharged to the community to live with his mother on October 8, 2015. As noted in the Introduction, on February 19, 2019, the Board ordered Mr. Veerman be conditionally discharged. Of note, Mr. Veerman has not required readmission to the Hospital since he began to live in the community in 2015.
Evidence at the Hearing
Dr. Shariati testified that he has been Mr. Veerman’s attending psychiatrist since October of 2022. He adopted the contents of the Hospital Report.
Mr. Veerman’s current diagnoses are recorded as follows: schizophrenia; social anxiety disorder; and alcohol use disorder, in full remission.
Over the course of the past reporting period, Mr. Veerman has continued to live in the family home in Hamilton. He experienced a major change in his life during the year. Until February of 2025, he lived in the home with his mother and younger brother, as he had for several years. Because he has for years been incapable of consenting to his psychiatric treatment, his mother had been a key source of stability for him. She was his substitute decision maker (SDM) but also, as they lived together, she supervised his medication compliance.
In February of 2025, Mr. Veerman’s mother passed away following a brief illness that was diagnosed in January. Mr. Veerman's brother, Frank Veerman, has assumed the role of SDM after being assessed by Dr. Shariati and the case manager. Dr. Shariati testified, in response to a panel member’s question, that Mr. Veerman is adjusting well to his brother taking over the SDM role.
As the medication list on p. 45 of the Hospital Report indicates, while Mr. Veerman receives an injection of antipsychotic medication every two weeks, he is also on oral medications, including clozapine which is described by Dr. Shariati as the mainstay of his psychiatric treatment. Dr. Shariati advised, in response to panel members’ questions, that the dosage of Mr. Veerman’s injectable medication, Risperdal, was reduced following discussions with Mr. Frank Veerman as SDM, given Mr. Veerman’s advancing age and stable mental health.
Mr. Veerman continues to demonstrate limited insight into his need for ongoing psychotropic medication to manage his diagnosis of schizophrenia. He has verbalized considering stopping his medications in the future for his physical health. Teaching was provided and, as of the hearing date, there has been no evidence of medication non-compliance. His mental health has been stable, despite the added stress occasioned by the grief associated with his mother’s death.
Mr. Veerman’s medication adherence is now supported by oversight from his brother, who checks that doses are taken as prescribed. Mr. Veerman’s oral medications are delivered to him on a weekly basis in a blister pack and his injection is given in the forensic outpatient clinic. In response to the significant changes within the family, including the period leading up to and following the passing of Mr. Veerman’s mother, the case manager increased the frequency of home visits. These visits were implemented to provide additional support and to help monitor Mr. Veerman’s medication compliance during a time of transition and uncertainty.
Dr. Shariati testified, in answer to questions about the risk associated with discontinuation by Mr. Veerman of his clozapine. He stated that there would likely be mental state decompensation within days, resulting in Mr. Veerman reverting again to persecutory delusions. Under such circumstances, it was Dr. Shariati’s opinion that Mr. Veerman would “very much” pose a safety risk. That being said, Dr. Shariati believed that Mr. Frank Veerman would be able to recognize early symptoms, such as changes to his brother’s speech and impaired sleep.
Mr. Veerman has historically relied on his mother and now relies on his brother for assistance with household tasks, including laundry, managing bills, transportation, grocery shopping, and the majority of meal preparation. He rarely contributes to household chores but is able to prepare small meals for himself and clean up afterward.
Mr. Veerman has remained consistent and cooperative with maintaining his appointments with the outpatient team and is reportedly always on time. His brother drives him to the Hospital for all clinic appointments. He reports once weekly. He calls ahead if and when he needs to reschedule and has tolerated an increase to his reporting when his mother was diagnosed with her illness in January 2025. That increase was for the provision of additional support for Mr. Veerman.
Following the passing of his mother, one of the program’s psychologists, Dr. Moulden, offered Mr. Veerman support around grief and loss. While Mr. Veerman initially agreed to engage in this support, he later changed his mind and began avoiding the scheduled appointments. His avoidance has been managed by offering supportive conversations during times when he is already present at the clinic for routine check-ins—rather than booking formal psychotherapy sessions. Dr. Shariati advised the panel, in response to a question, that as of the time of the hearing, Mr. Veerman was engaging again in grief counselling.
Mr. Veerman began the reporting year with sporadic attendance at the Sackville Community Seniors Centre, where he participated in activities such as tai chi, brunch, and occasional games of pool or cards. In addition, he often walked to the nearby Tim Hortons to get coffee and occasionally socialize with other regular patrons. He also attended the casino sporadically with his mother and brother. Except for the casino, Mr. Veerman reportedly now only leaves his home to attend medical appointments since his own health challenges in October (noted below) and his mother’s illness and passing. When at home, he makes himself breakfast and lunch and watches TV, enjoying sports. Ongoing encouragement to add small activities in his day are discussed and he reportedly remained uninterested at the time of the Hospital Report.
Mr. Veerman had a medical episode on October 11, 2024. While at the casino with his mother and brother, he suffered supraventricular tachycardia and required an ambulance to take him to the emergency room. His episode resolved with intervention, and he was stable enough for discharge home on October 12. He continued to experience shortness of breath and weakness and called his case manager on October 15 to ask for admission. He was instructed to seek medical attention in the emergency department prior to admission as his description of his symptoms warranted this. The emergency department diagnosed him with a COPD exacerbation and treated him for this. Mr. Veerman was then admitted to the inpatient forensic unit for further monitoring and respite care at his request. He was eventually discharged on October 21, 2024. Mr. Veerman was supported with follow up with his family doctor and cardiologist. A referral was facilitated for an occupational therapy home safety assessment. He also obtained a walker for distances as he could become short of breath with exertion.
Mr. Veerman and his brother met with the outpatient case manager and Dr. Shariati to discuss housing goals. Mr. Veerman and his brother both expressed a clear desire to continue living together and reported feeling comfortable with this arrangement. It was communicated that Mr. Veerman could be admitted to hospital voluntarily if living together became unsafe or unmanageable. However, both brothers have since reported that they are getting along well, and Mr. Veerman’s brother has been managing household responsibilities and providing support without concerns or complaints. Previously, it was understood that Mr. Veerman’s brother intended to move to the Netherlands following the passing of their mother. However, this is no longer the case, and he has since confirmed that he plans to remain in Hamilton for the foreseeable future.
As a result, the treatment team understands that the immediate housing plan is for Mr. Veerman to continue living with his brother for as long as it is safe and manageable for them. Mr. Veerman is also on the First Place supportive housing waitlist where there are meals, medication observation, and apartment maintenance assistance available. He requires these forms of support. Mr. Veerman is also considered to be an appropriate candidate for referral to a residential care facility but has expressed no interest in this option.
An updated psychological risk assessment was prepared for Mr. Veerman’s ORB hearing. When interviewed, he was asked if he would remain on medications absent the oversight of the ORB. He replied that this would be unlikely. Furthermore, when asked about engagement with professional supports, he denied his need for this on an Absolute Discharge, citing his brother as his only and sufficient personal support. When asked about the upcoming year, he explained that regardless of the Disposition, little would change in terms of his lifestyle, such that he indicated he would continue to take his medications and abstain from drugs and alcohol. However, he acknowledged that the burden of responsibility to manage this independently would be difficult for him. Mr. Veerman was queried about engaging with non-forensic psychiatric supports in the community if he received an Absolute Discharge, and he denied the need for this, stating that he would rely on his pharmacy and family physician.
Dr. Shariati responded to a panel member’s question about the likelihood of connecting Mr. Veerman with post-forensic professional supports in the event of an Absolute Discharge. The doctor said that Mr. Veerman has indeed been placed on a waiting list to be connected with an ACT (Assertive Community Treatment) team.
Dr. Shariati also advised the panel that there is some recent uncertainty surrounding Mr. Veerman’s living situation, as it may be necessary to sell the family home. The treatment team is awaiting further information from Mr. Frank Veerman in this regard. A referral to CHO (Community Homes for Opportunity) housing has been made and Mr. Veerman has been accepted for assessment. Dr. Shariati also reminded the panel that, as stated above, Mr. Veerman is also on the wait list for First Place accommodation.
A panel member directed Dr. Shariati to para. 32 of last year’s Reasons, where it is recorded that a determination had been made that Mr. Veerman’s brother was not appropriate and/or capable to oversee Mr. Veerman’s medication compliance in the event of his mother’s inability to continue in that role. Dr. Shariati explained that the earlier determination was based on inadequate information as the case manager had not had significant contact with Mr. Frank Veerman. Dr. Shariati answered “yes” to the direct question of whether he believed that the brother is “up to the task” of supervising Mr. Veerman’s taking of his medications. Dr. Shariati explained that the current arrangement is that Mr. Veerman takes his medication on his own and his brother checks his blister pack at the end of the day. Together with the weekly appointments with the case manager, the arrangement, which is still relatively recent in its development, seems to be working so far. As evidence of this conclusion, Dr. Shariati mentioned that Mr. Veerman’s clozapine levels continue to test in the therapeutic range.
A panel member asked Dr. Shariati questions as to Mr. Veerman’s physical condition and how that affects his capacity to represent a significant threat to others. Dr. Shariati noted that Mr. Veerman’s functional ability to walk is reduced, not only because he uses a walker, but also due to his lung and heart issues. For example, Mr. Veerman has to take several breaks to get from the Hospital’s front entrance to the Forensic Outpatient office on the third floor. However, Dr. Shariati stated his opinion that at this time, Mr. Veerman remains capable of causing physical injury to someone if he uses a weapon. Dr. Shariati agreed that Mr. Veerman’s physical capacity in this regard may change going forward.
Doctor Shariati testified that an Absolute Discharge was not being recommended this year for a number of reasons. Firstly Mr. Veerman recently lost his mother, who was a significant support to him for many years. It remains to be seen how he deals with this in the longer term. Secondly, as noted above, there is some uncertainty about the housing situation, and whether Mr. Veerman and his brother will continue to be able to live in the family home. As a result, further housing and/or long-term care referrals need to be considered in light of the high level of support and supervision that Mr. Veerman requires.
Counsel for the Attorney General asked Dr. Shariati about several areas after the panel concluded its questions. First, he directed Dr. Shariati to the final paragraph of the Clinical Risk Summary (Hospital Report, pp. 40-41). Dr. Shariati confirmed that in his opinion, it continues to apply. The paragraph reads:
“It is the treatment team’s opinion that without the ongoing supervision of the ORB and the Forensic Psychiatry Program, there is a high likelihood that Mr. Veerman would stop his treatment, thereby increasing his risk for engaging in highly violent acts. Therefore, a Conditional Discharge remains necessary and appropriate. The supervision of the ORB and the Forensic Psychiatric Program would be essential during transition to living in supported housing, and transferring care to the ACT team.”
With respect to whether Mr. Veerman possesses any internal motivation to continue his treatment, Dr. Shariati referred to his personality, noting that he is a very compliant individual. However, he acknowledged that there will likely be a little less intensity in the monitoring by his brother.
Dr. Shariati agreed that while Mr. Veerman’s brother has taken on an important role, he would have concerns about medication compliance if there were no forensic team oversight.
Dr. Shariati confirmed that the summary statement of Mr. Veerman’s risk at the top of p. 52 of the Hospital Report as to the direction of any potential aggression remains accurate. [The paragraph is quoted below in the “Analysis” portion of these Reasons.]
There were no further questions by other parties, and no further evidence was led following Dr. Shariati’s testimony.
Analysis and Conclusions
The panel accepted the parties’ joint position and found that Mr. Veerman continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. Mr. Veerman has a major mental illness, schizophrenia, which is complicated by his social anxiety disorder diagnosis. At the present time, he continues to experience residual negative symptoms. The index offence was an unprovoked incident of lethal violence. Prior to its commission, Mr. Veerman had a lengthy criminal history that included many convictions for assaultive behaviour, including aggravated assault and robbery. He also has a history of alcohol use disorder which is currently in remission. He continues to have impaired insight across all domains, particularly in regard to the need for medication compliance in perpetuity.
The panel is satisfied that absent the oversight of the ORB, Mr. Veerman would likely withdraw from any professional supports, discontinue medications and/or employ poor coping, such as the use of substances leading to a relapse of psychiatric symptoms. The panel expressly accepts and adopts Dr. Shariati’s opinion evidence in this regard, and the following articulation in Mr. Veerman’s most recent psychological risk assessment (Hospital Report, p. 52):
“Based on the overall evaluation of risk based on both historical and dynamic factors, as well as protective factors, Mr. Veerman’s current risk for violence is estimated to be in the low range under the current disposition. While it is clear that with the direct oversight of the forensic program Mr. Veerman’s risk for violence has been and remains low, absent such support his risk would increase. If he were to reoffend, he would be at risk to engage in verbal and physical (potentially fatal) violence. It would likely occur in the context of an exacerbation of his symptoms as a result of medication noncompliance and/or substance use. In such an event he is likely to direct his aggression toward either known (e.g. family member) or unknown victims as a result of paranoia.”
Therefore, the panel finds that absent Board oversight, Mr. Veerman represents a real and substantial risk of engaging in criminal conduct that is likely to result in serious physical harm to others. Serious psychological harm would likely result as an adjunct to the physical harm. While the panel is mindful of the evidence relating to Mr. Veerman’s physical limitations, we also accept Dr. Shariati’s opinion that he remains physically capable of harming another person, particularly if wielding a weapon. This remains, however, a matter to be considered in Mr. Veerman’s case going forward.
As to the matter of Disposition, the panel agrees with the parties’ joint recommendation and finds that the necessary and appropriate Disposition to manage Mr. Veerman’s risk to the public is a Conditional Discharge reflecting the terms of his existing Disposition. Despite the changes that have occurred during the past year, particularly the loss of his mother who has provided major support for Mr. Veerman in the community (essentially functioning as a member of his treatment team), Mr. Veerman continues to maintain his stability as his brother has assumed, for now at least, the care previously provided by the mother. While Mr. Veerman’s insight into his illness and need for medication continues to be poor, he has developed, over the years, a rapport with his treatment team and remains compliant with their recommendations. However, it is important for the team to maintain regular appointments with Mr. Veerman to provide the support and supervision that he requires, as well as to monitor for any changes in his mental state.
In closing, the panel would note the ongoing issues concerning Mr. Veerman’s future housing situation, the related issue of his brother’s continuing ability and willingness to supervise the taking of medication, and again, Mr. Veerman’s physical condition, including his age. We encourage the Hospital to develop an intentional approach to Mr. Veerman’s longer term housing needs and a plan to prepare him for post-forensic professional care. Ongoing engagement with grief counselling and transitional planning will be important in mitigating relapse risk as the family dynamic continues to evolve.
In approaching all matters in these Reasons, the panel has considered the evidence through the lens of the factors in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
DATED this 7th day of July 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Eric Siebenmorgen
Legal Member
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board