Re: O. (A.)
ORB File No: 8650
Hearing held on: Monday, May 26, 2025
Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health 1001 Queen Street West, Toronto
Pursuant to: Section 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Goldenberg
Members: Dr. L.E. Cappe Dr. G. Nexhipi Ms. C. Murray Mr. J. Cyr
Parties Appearing:
Accused: O. (A.) Counsel: Mr. A. Marchetti
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Mr. K. Dow
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. V. Culp
*Pursuant to s. 672.501(1) of the Criminal Code, the Ontario Review Board prohibits the publication, broadcasting, or other transmission of any information that could identify a victim in this matter or a witness who is under 18 years of age.
AMENDED REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated July 9, 2025)
Please see the underlined change to original reasons made March 25, 2026.
On October 11, 2024, O. (A.) was found not criminally responsible on a charge of telecommunication with a person under the age of 16 years. The Court did not make a Disposition. The Court also permitted O. (A.) to remain in the community and directed that the original recognizance of bail remain in place.
Subsequently, at a pre-hearing conference conducted by the Ontario Review Board, it was agreed that a risk assessment would be performed by a doctor at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (“CAMH”).
On Monday, May 26, 2025, the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing at CAMH and conducted O. (A.)’s initial Disposition hearing.
Position of the Parties
At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as their recommendations to the Board. Mr. Dow appeared for CAMH. He advised of the hospital position that O. (A.) remains a significant threat to public safety and if the Board so finds, the hospital is recommending that O. (A.) be discharged subject to a number of conditions.
Ms. Culp appeared for the Attorney General. Ms. Culp agreed that O. (A.) remains a significant threat to public safety and agreed that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is for O. (A.) to be discharged subject to a number of conditions. Ms. Culp was aware of the Risk Assessment Report and the recommendations contained therein. Ms. Culp indicated that she would want a specific no-contact provision with respect to the victim of the index offence. Ms. Culp also indicated that she would be seeking a term that O. (A.) “not possess or use any computers or any other device that has access to the internet or other digital network except if he was supervised by the surety or except in relation to employment”.
Mr. Marchetti appeared for O. (A.). Mr. Marchetti accepts that at the present time, his client represents a significant threat to public safety and Mr. Marchetti supports the granting of a Conditional Discharge with the terms requested by CAMH.
We note for the record that O. (A.)’s mother, who is the Substitute Decision Maker, was in attendance from the start of this hearing. We also note that O. (A.)’s sister joined the hearing a short while after it had commenced.
Index Offences
- “On September 5th, 2019, Deputy S. HARDIN attended the residence of S. (J.) in Texas, United States of America. The mother had found the messages on her daughter’s phone and reported the matter to the police. The victim, S. (E.) (dob […], 2006) told her mother the conversation had been going on for approximately 2 weeks, between August 13, 2019, and Sept 6, 2019, that neither of them had ever met face to face but that she had sent the suspect non-nude pictures of her. The conversation between the victim and suspect had been taking place using the chat application Kik.
After meeting with the victim and her mother Deputy HARDIN obtained their consent and delivered her phone and iPad to Sgt J. LEE, an investigator within the Houston Metro Internet Crimes Against Children unit. Sgt. LEE completed an examination for evidence on both the Samsung smartphone and the iPad turned over by the victim and her mother. Evidence of one Kik chat was found between the victim and the accused. The conversation was sexually explicit with the suspect requesting the victim to take sexualized pictures of herself. Non-nude sexualized images were sent.
Sgt. LEE submitted Administrative Subpoenas to Rogers Communications Inc, tiktok and kik. Investigators from Harris County Police determined that the IP address used by the suspect was owned by ROGERS COMMUNICATIONS and was located in the Markham area.
On the 18th of October 2019, York Regional Police received a referral from the National Child Exploitation Crime Centre (NCECC) with an investigation that started in Harris County, Texas. Information was received that the victim, 12 years old, was engaging in a sexual conversation with an adult located in the Greater Toronto area. Included in the investigative package were screen captures of the text conversation between the victim and the suspect.
Further investigation, surveillance and judicial authorizations were sought by YRP ICE. On November 13th, 2019, the YRP ICE section with the assistance of uniform officers executed a 487 search warrant at 251 Glendower Circuit, Toronto. The suspect, O. (A.) was identified and arrested for multiple counts of luring. O. (A.) was transported to 5DHQ to be interviewed and processed for a bail hearing on November 13th, 2019. He was cooperative with police and provided an inculpatory statement.
Forensic examination of accused’s phone completed by Marcus Joseph 1471 of YRP revealed 10 images from the text messages found on the victim’s phone. These included both pictures of the accused that he sent her, and images that the victim sent her.”
Evidence at Hearing
The Board submitted into evidence a number of documents including the Disposition hearing outcome, Court recognizance, a Synopsis, Reasons of the trial judge, a copy of the Court Information, a copy of a Report by Dr. Gojer dated January 24, 2023, and a CAMH Risk Assessment dated May 7, 2025.
In addition to the documentary evidence, the Board heard from Dr. Wilkie. Dr. Wilkie first noted that she conducted the risk assessment. She met with O. (A.) on February 4 and February 13 of this year and has no other contact with O. (A.). Dr. Wilkie reviewed all of the documents.
Dr. Wilkie first noted that the current diagnoses include:
Schizoaffective Disorder (bipolar type)
Cannabis Use Disorder (severe)
Dr. Wilkie noted that O. (A.) is still experiencing symptoms of his mental illness and noted that those symptoms are mostly negative symptoms. Dr. Wilkie noted that this gentleman is quite isolated and apparently spends 16 hours daily by himself. The doctor understands that O. (A.) is meditating most of that time.
Dr. Wilkie was aware that O. (A.) had sought out and was taken on as a patient by the Slaight Centre Early Intervention Service. Dr. Wilkie also noted that notwithstanding his involvement with that program, O. (A.) did not disclose to anyone at that program that he had been found not criminally responsible on a number of criminal charges.
Dr. Wilkie described O. (A.)’s insight as “limited”. He is being treated with the consent of the Substitute Decision Maker, O. (A.)’s mother.
Dr. Wilkie noted that O. (A.) is a heavy user of cannabis and the doctor understands that O. (A.) uses cannabis on a daily basis.
The doctor was asked for her opinion on the issue of significant threat. Dr. Wilkie accepts that O. (A.) remains a significant threat to public safety. She reaches that conclusion on the fact of his major mental illness and that he is still experiencing residual symptoms of that illness. The doctor also noted O. (A.)’s lack of insight with respect to that illness and his need for medication. The doctor was concerned that O. (A.) did not disclose the outstanding charges to the previous clinical team. The doctor also is extremely concerned that O. (A.) will not discuss completely the events surrounding the index offence.
Dr. Wilkie was then asked her opinion as to the necessary and appropriate Disposition. Dr. Wilkie opined that the Mental Health Act would be sufficient to return O. (A.) to hospital should that be necessary. Dr. Wilkie believes that it is extremely important that there be a sexual behaviour assessment. The doctor further believes that a Conditional Discharge is appropriate provided O. (A.) continues to live at the family home. Dr. Wilkie has no doubt that the risk would increase should O. (A.) not live in that home. The doctor noted her understanding that O. (A.)’s mother is the one who took O. (A.) to his appointments with the earlier clinical team.
In response to questions from Ms. Culp, Dr. Wilkie acknowledged that O. (A.) simply denies using the internet. Dr. Wilkie has no independent knowledge of whether O. (A.) is in fact using the internet or has been using the internet since the date of his original charge.
Dr. Wilkie acknowledges that O. (A.)’s access to the internet is a risk factor.
Dr. Wilkie opined that the appropriate reporting requirement is not less than once per month.
Dr. Wilkie noted that there had been a number of involuntary admissions to hospital and that those admissions were achieved using the provisions of the Mental Health Act. Dr. Wilkie was specifically asked about the benefit of a Detention Order. Dr. Wilkie noted her understanding that O. (A.) has absolutely no interest in living anywhere but the family home. Dr. Wilkie repeated her opinion that the Mental Health Act would be sufficient to return him to hospital if necessary.
Ms. Culp noted that O. (A.) had entered into a recognizance with the Court; that he not use any computer or any other device that has access to the internet unless supervised by the surety or such use be exempt for work purposes. Ms. Culp noted that the hospital was not requesting that term. Dr. Wilkie indicated that should O. (A.) remain under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board, a Sexual Behavior Assessment would be absolutely necessary. Part of any assessment is to be able to judge O. (A.)’s use of the internet and in particular, his appropriate use of the internet. Dr. Wilkie put her mind to this issue and does not support a prohibition against use of the internet.
In response to a question from a panel member, Dr. Wilkie stated her opinion that O. (A.) is incapable of making treatment decisions.
No other evidence was heard at this hearing.
Final Submissions
Mr. Dow urged the Board to accept Dr. Wilkie’s evidence and find that O. (A.) remains a significant threat to public safety and that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a Conditional Discharge with the terms set out in the Hospital Report.
Ms. Culp agreed that O. (A.) remains a significant threat to public safety. Ms. Culp indicated that having considered the matter she supports the Board finding that a Conditional Discharge is both necessary and appropriate. Ms. Culp, however, submitted that our Disposition should include a prohibition in the language set out in the recognizance, namely, that he not use any computer or device that has access to the internet. Ms. Culp also suggested that there be a specific no-contact provision with respect to the victim of the index offence and the victim’s mother.
Mr. Marchetti accepts that his client remains a significant threat to public safety and urged the panel to accept the doctor’s evidence and the doctor's recommendation.
Findings of the Board
Significant Threat
- The Board accepts without reservation the evidence of Dr. Wilkie on this issue. We have no doubt that O. (A.) remains a significant threat to public safety. We accept that he suffers from a major mental illness. We accept that he has little insight into his need for medication. We are concerned that O. (A.) simply did not disclose to a previous treatment team the fact that he had outstanding criminal charges. The Board also notes the parties’ joint recommendation that O. (A.) remains a significant threat to public safety.
Necessary and Appropriate Disposition
The Board considered at length whether O. (A.)’s threat to public safety could only be managed under a Detention Order. We note a number of outstanding issues. We note the claim that O. (A.) spends 16 hours a day in meditation. We also note that O. (A.) has and uses a cell phone. We simply note that possession of a cell phone was prohibited as one of the terms in the Court’s recognizance.
Ultimately, the Board is persuaded by the parties’ joint recommendation that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Conditional Discharge and have concluded to follow the parties’ joint recommendation in this regard.
Proposed Prohibition of Any Use of Computers to Access the Internet
Ms. Culp strongly urged the panel to include such a prohibition as a term of our Disposition. We are aware that O. (A.) has a cell phone, but we are also aware that there is no evidence whatsoever that he has used his telephone and his access to the internet inappropriately. We are aware that O. (A.) is in breach of one of the terms of the bail recognizance. The Board struggled with respect to this issue. Ultimately, we take comfort that O. (A.) will be followed by a forensic team at CAMH and in the Board’s opinion, the reporting requirement should be not less than once every two weeks. We would expect that the forensic outpatient team will be vigilant in following up on any issues involving O. (A.)’s use of his telephone.
We also accept the Crown’s recommendation that there be a specific prohibition against any contact with the victim of the index offence and the victim’s mother.
Accordingly, the Board finds O. (A.) to remain a significant threat to public safety and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is for O. (A.) to be subject to a Conditional Discharge. We will include a requirement to continue to reside at the family home at 251 Glendower Circuit in Toronto. We also include a consent to treatment clause. The doctor acknowledged that O. (A.) is incapable of making treatment decisions but accepts that he can consent to treatment as part of the Board's Disposition.
In reaching our Disposition, the Board has taken into consideration public safety, O. (A.)’s mental condition and his other needs, and O. (A.)’s reintegration into society.
DATED this 9th day of July, 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. J. Goldenberg Alternate Chairperson
__________________ Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board