Re: Jeffrey Keddy, 2025 CanLII 66891

Ontario Review Board

Re: Jeffrey Keddy

ORB File No: 8187

Hearing held on: Monday, May 26, 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: Jeffrey Keddy Counsel: Mr. M. Schloss

The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. L. Barney

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. K. Malkovich

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION (Dated July 7, 2025)

Introduction

1On November 25, 2022, Jeffrey Keddy, now 59 years of age, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on charges of conveying false information with intent to injure or alarm, repeatedly communicating with intent to harass, and failing to comply with probation, all contrary to the Criminal Code. He has most recently been subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB” or “the Board”) dated May 24, 2024 pursuant to which he is ordered detained at the Forensic Psychiatry Program of St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, West 5th Campus (“SJHCH” or “the Hospital”), subject to various conditions and privileges, up to and including living in the community of Southern Ontario in accommodation approved by the person in charge.

2On Monday, May 26, 2025, a panel of the Board convened in person at the Hospital to conduct the annual review of Mr. Keddy’s Disposition and to make a new Disposition. Mr. Keddy was not present but was represented by his counsel, Mr. Schloss. The issues to be decided at the hearing were whether Mr. Keddy continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined by section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code, and if so, what is the necessary and appropriate Disposition, taking into account the four factors set out in section 672.54 of the Code.

3When Mr. Keddy’s absence from the hearing was noted, Mr. Schloss advised that his client expressed a preference not to attend. As no other party objected to the hearing proceeding in Mr. Keddy’s absence, he was excused from attending pursuant to s. 672.5 (10) (a) of the Criminal Code.¹

4The documentary evidence for the hearing consisted of the Hospital Report, dated May 21, 2025, and two Victim Impact Statements, both dated January 17, 2023. In addition, the panel heard the oral evidence of Dr. Y. Alatishe, Mr. Keddy’s attending psychiatrist.

Positions of the Parties

5At the commencement of the hearing the parties were invited to provide their initial, without prejudice, positions with respect to the issues before the Board. Counsel for the Hospital, supported by counsel for the Attorney General, submitted that Mr. Keddy continued to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition was a Detention Order with no changes from the previous Disposition.

6Counsel for Mr. Keddy did not contest the issue of significant threat. He submitted that the necessary and appropriate Disposition was a Conditional Discharge on terms that included a residence clause (the specific address was provided), a “consent to treatment” clause pursuant to s. 672.55 of the Criminal Code, and a Young² clause requiring attendance at the Hospital upon request.

7The parties maintained their respective positions at the conclusion of the evidence.

Findings

8For the following Reasons, the panel found that Mr. Keddy represents a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition, which is also the least onerous and restrictive in the circumstances, is a Detention Order containing terms that are unchanged from the previous Disposition. The panel concluded that Mr. Keddy’s risk cannot currently be safely managed under a Conditional Discharge.

Index Offences

9The circumstances surrounding the index offences are taken from last year’s Reasons for Disposition dated June 28, 2024, and are reproduced as follows:

“Background

On February 14, 2017, the bodies of thirteen year-old [AW] and fourteen year-old [LG] were discovered near the Monon High Bridge Trail, which is part of the Delphi Historic Trails in Delphi, Indiana, United States, after the young girls had disappeared from the same trail the previous day.

The murders garnered national level media coverage, and remains as an open “cold case” investigation with the Carrol County Sheriffs Office and Indiana State Police. There is currently a reward for $325,000 for information leading to the arrest of the individual(s) involved.

Grandparents [MP] and [BP]; whom were the legal guardians and raising [LG]; are familiar faces in the murder investigation as they have provided dozens of televised interviews since the incident occurred.

Incident

On August 29, 2021, at approx. 12:30am, [MP] and [BP] were awakened at their home by a telephone call. The caller asked to speak to [LG] and eventually identified himself as “the bridge guy”; making a direct reference to the high level bridge on the trail system which was often featured in media coverage in the disappearance of the two young teens.

These calls continued – at random times during the day up until September 9, 2021, where some 30 phone calls were received – with many of them being recorded on their answering machine. During these phone calls and several recorded answer machine messages, the caller routinely referred to himself as “the bridge guy” or “the troll under the bridge”; and would essentially terrorize [MP] and [BP] by telling them they would be going to jail, that [LG] was alive and seen in Port Dover Ontario Canada a year after the murders, and, to turn themselves into the Sheriff’s office as the murder was a hoax and demanding a reward.

These frequent calls were at random times throughout the day and so disturbing that [MP] and [BP] had no choice – despite operating a home based business; to unplug and disconnect the phone line and answer machine.

The [MP] and [BP] sought the assistance of the Indiana State police who, with the help of [MP] and [BP], were able to determine that the calls were being made from a cell phone with the number of 519-410-3971 that was occasionally on their call display, which they themselves determined to be coming from the town of Simcoe, Norfolk County.

David Vito from the Indiana State Police Department then contacted the Norfolk County OPP for assistance to investigate the harassment and to get the calls to stop. An OPP NICHE database query revealed that the cell phone number is associated to Jeffrey KEDDY, a 55 year-old male from Delhi, with a history of making repeated calls to both law enforcement and family members whom have been victimized by violent crime; with wild conspiracy based theories.

Investigation

PC Eberley of the Norfolk County OPP was assigned to the case and reviewed the information that was provided by the Indiana State Police Department. A secondary database check, further confirmed that the cellular telephone number was in fact that of Jeffrey KEDDY.

A recorded virtual video statement was obtained with [MP] and [BP], who also provided an Excel spreadsheet outlining the telephone calls and provided a digital MP4 file of the various answering machine messages. During one of the phone calls, Jeffrey KEDDY told [MP] and [BP] – “I am never going away, I am never going to stop”.

PC Eberley reviewed the recorded messages and confirmed that the voice on the recordings is in fact Jeffrey KEDDY and formed reasonable and probable grounds for his arrest for False Messaging and Breach of Probation (KPGB).

On September 15, 2021, at approx. 11:00am, Jeffrey KEDDY was observed exiting his apartment at 201 Main Street of Delhi, at which point he was arrested. Jeffrey KEDDY was read his rights to council and caution; both of which he understood and was transported back to the Norfolk County OPP detachment to be eventually released on a Form 10 Undertaking.

During the transport back to the detachment, Jeffrey KEDDY was very agitated and continued to make inculpatory statements about the double homicide investigation which were consistent with the statements taken from [MP] and [BP].”

10The Victim Impact Statements clearly describe the emotional toll that the offences caused to the grandparents. The grandfather’s statement includes the following:

“The emotional toll this placed upon our family is nearly indescribable. If you can imagine the loss of a child or in our case a grandchild to a horrific murder, to start receiving relentless phone calls asking to talk to our murdered grandchild. This happens at all hours of day and night. Left many nights unable to sleep then reliving all of the moments every time the phone would ring. No family or individual should have to endure this harassment.

Security was a major concern; at the time this was happening we had no idea how this would evolve and no idea to what levels this would escalate to. How to protect my family was at the forefront but without any information on who this was, it was a constant high level alertness that had to be maintained.”

General Background Information

11The Hospital Report details Mr. Keddy’s personal and psychiatric history, as well as his criminal record. As the Report was made an exhibit at the hearing and is therefore in evidence, it is not necessary to fully review this information in these Reasons. Some relevant material will be highlighted given the nature of the issues.

12Mr. Keddy was 55 years old during the time of the index offences. He has been in what is characterized as an on again/off again relationship with Brenda McKenzie for some 30 years. He described their relationship as a strong friendship, and Ms. Mackenzie confirmed this. She also explained that despite being engaged in other relationships after theirs ended, Mr. Keddy often prioritized his children and his friendship with her. Mr. Keddy has two adult children from his relationship with Ms. McKenzie, Ms. Alexandria Keddy (daughter, 28) and Mr. Christopher Keddy (son, 30)³. He described being very close with them and having a positive relationship even after he separated from their mother. He noted that he paid for both of them to have a college education and allowed them to reside with him as adults whenever they needed a place to live.

13Mr. Keddy has two older brothers and two younger sisters. He described having a “normal” relationship with them growing up, adding that while they remain in touch, they are not particularly close.

14Mr. Keddy described himself, while in school, as being “too smart for [his] own good”, adding that he was often bored with the pace of his studies. His last grade completed was Grade 10 and he did not express any interest in completing his studies. He indicated that he left school because “they weren’t teaching [him] anything helpful and [he] wanted to make money and obtain hands-on experience.” He reportedly completed Basic Training with the Canadian Forces but then lost interest in pursuing a military career due to dissatisfaction with the financial compensation.

15Mr. Keddy stated he was last employed as a construction worker until becoming hurt at work in 2009. He said that he was supported by WSIB and later Employment Insurance until briefly returning to work in 2013. Mr. Keddy indicated becoming financially supported by the Ontario Disability Program (ODSP) in 2014 until approximately 2020, when the sale of his home disqualified him from receiving support payments. He added that he was accepted into the program for physical injuries resulting from his traumas and workplace injuries. In contrast, records from ODSP stated that he was accepted on June 19, 2018, due to, “paranoid delusions, recurrent episodes of depression and anxiety”.

16Mr. Keddy reported that he began using marijuana in high school and was smoking three to six joints a day at the time of the index offences. He estimated spending about $300.00 on marijuana monthly. At the time of the NCR assessment, Ms. Mackenzie clarified that Mr. Keddy tended to smoke about five joints per day

17Mr. Keddy’s criminal record can be divided into two main segments. The first set of convictions were from 1986 until 1994, consisting primarily of drug offences along with escaping custody and obstructing a peace officer. The second set were in 2021 and 2022 and were for breaches of recognizance, failure to comply with a release order, and two counts of criminal harassment (the 2022 convictions were not included in the criminal record in the Hospital Report). Some of the circumstances of the latter convictions were provided by Ms. Malkovich at the hearing and are discussed later in these Reasons.

18Between September 28, 2022, when the NCR assessment was completed, and November 25, 2022, when the verdict was rendered, Mr. Keddy was charged with a failure to comply with the conditions of his release. He had made calls to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) regarding a murder. He had previously been convicted for calling media outlets with false information about this crime. This new charge was stayed upon the NCR finding.

Psychiatric History

19During his NCR assessment, Mr. Keddy denied having any major mental health diagnoses. He alluded to a possible historical diagnosis but declined to comment further. Health records from the Canadian Mental Health Association (CMHA) stated that Mr. Keddy was diagnosed in 2014 with Bipolar Disorder, Depressive Disorder and Schizoaffective Disorder. Mr. Keddy recalled that in 2014 he was prescribed psychiatric medication but discontinued taking it after one pill. A CMHA court support worker explained that when she spoke to Mr. Keddy about being medication compliant, he became angry and agitated. Probation records revealed that Mr. Keddy was initially receptive to taking medication; however, his willingness to do so diminished after he came to believe that he was being taken advantage of by the medical system.

20Mr. Keddy denied experiencing any visual and/or auditory hallucinations, or major episodes of depression or anxiety. In contrast, health records described him as presenting with several periods of depression in 2014 when he was unable to get out of bed, stayed home sleeping and was feeling very low. These incidents were followed by periods of hypomania when he would sleep for approximately two hours a night, sometimes going without sleep for up to four days. While awake he would spend time on the computer at home. Health records from 2014 indicated that Mr. Keddy had endorsed having premonitions such as that in 1978 he “knew that the Challenger spacecraft would explode on takeoff” and contacted NASA to warn them. He had also described having predicted the “disintegration of the aircraft Columbia on its return to the atmosphere in 2003 but was once more ignored by NASA”.

21During the psychological assessment conducted as part of his NCR assessment in 2022, Mr. Keddy is reported to have spontaneously declared that he had important information about, or had been involved in, several high-profile criminal investigations that had received much media coverage, stating that he started encountering such information at the age of 12. It was noted that file information indicated that in 2008 at the age of 42, he started contacting police and other law enforcement agencies. The psychological assessment includes this opinion:

“Mr. Keddy appears to experience a chronic, untreated, and ongoing mental illness characterized by predominantly grandiose, persecutory, and somatic delusions. The illness likely dates back many years, at least to 2008.”

22Mr. Keddy’s self-report of the index offences, given at the time of his NCR assessment, is included at p. 11 of the Hospital Report. In addition, the mental status examination revealed the following, which is instructive:

“Mr. Keddy’s thought process was characterized by disorganization, which became especially apparent when discussing his delusional beliefs. He would become tangential and make loose associations of ideas. Mr. Keddy presented with several persecutory, referential, grandiose, and somatic delusions.

He described having witnessed several crimes since childhood, partly due to his unique ability or sensitivity, which allows him to know how people think (“I can feel your vibe”). He identified several famous crimes across Canada and the United States of America in which he had either met the perpetrator or been an important witness. Mr. Keddy also alleged that he was a genius, with an IQ over 180 (which is unlikely given his educational background). He described being experimented on as a child in Montreal in the context of the MKUltra experiments, despite the project ending in 1964 in Montreal (Mr. Keddy was born in 1966). Mr. Keddy also alleged that a dentist had put him under general anesthesia and “beat him up.” This dentist was also alleged to have stolen part of his lung through his anus. Mr. Keddy is convinced that other physicians noted the missing piece of lung and commented on it. This dentist is also alleged to have pulled his eye out of its socket and put it back in while he was asleep (“I am sick inside, bleeding every day, missing parts”). He described residual pain and physical symptoms secondary to this procedure.

Mr. Keddy denied experiencing hallucinations and was not observed responding to internal stimuli. However, the somatic symptoms described by Mr. Keddy are likely somatic hallucinations.”

23Following the NCR finding, while awaiting his initial ORB hearing, Mr. Keddy was detained at the SJHCH assessment unit. It was noted that his beliefs regarding the matters that led to the index offences remained unchanged. He also expressed the conviction that several neighbours were involved in illegal activities, which he had to report.

24The Clinical Risk Summary prepared prior to Mr. Keddy’s initial Board hearing noted that since 2017, there had been an escalation of his calls to law enforcement and several contacts with the judicial system. In addition to the index offences and subsequent charges laid while he was on interim release, Mr. Keddy was charged twice for the harassment of his neighbours, leading to no-contact orders. Following one conviction, he had to sell his house, as he was forbidden to enter the town of Simcoe as a condition of his probation.

25During Mr. Keddy’s first reporting period under the Board, Mr. Keddy was reportedly active in recreational programs, attending unit socials, unit fitness, grounds walk, leisure lounge, and courtyards with recreation staff. He also participated in off-unit groups such as Road Map to Recovery group; Leisure Ladders’ Creative Expressions, and the Growing in Gratitude Program.

26Mr. Keddy completed a community living assessment in May of 2023. It was determined that he could appropriately be discharged to an independent apartment with staff on-site to supervise medication compliance, mental status, and substance use.

Evidence at the Hearing

27Mr. Keddy’s current diagnoses are schizophrenia and cannabis use disorder. He is incapable of consenting to his treatment but is capable to manage his finances. His substitute decision maker (SDM) for treatment is his former partner and current friend, Ms. Brenda McKenzie.

28Mr. Keddy’s mental state has reportedly remained relatively stable over the past review period. He consistently denies experiencing any auditory or visual hallucinations. His beliefs about the index offence and previous somatic delusions are grossly unchanged. Mr. Keddy has poor insight into his psychiatric diagnosis and need for medications. He wants to discontinue his medications as he feels they do not benefit him in any way. He has nevertheless been compliant with his long-acting antipsychotic injection, received every two weeks on substitute consent.

29Mr. Keddy attended the substance abuse treatment program during the last reporting year. It was noted that he was late for the program at times. However, his insight regarding the potential risks of using substances remains poor.

30Mr. Keddy’s indirectly supervised community passes are extensive, and he has used them regularly. They include 12-hour daily passes four times weekly, and weekly 48-hour passes to visit the home of Brenda McKenzie. Dr. Alatishe testified at the hearing that the 48-hour passes were still under consideration. He noted, in this context, Mr. Keddy’s positive test for cannabis after his first overnight visit to the home in March of 2025. He confirmed, however, that this was the only positive test result for the reporting year.

31Mr. Keddy also reportedly uses his passes to go fishing, an activity he enjoys, either alone or with Ms. McKenzie. He has had minimal engagement with therapeutic programs.

32Dr. Alatishe alerted the panel to a potential need to change Mr. Keddy’s medication, as a result of the development of an intermittent tremor in his left hand. Dr. Alatishe testified that if medication changes were needed, this would take place while Mr. Keddy is still an in-patient.

33Mr. Keddy’s long-term plan includes returning to live with Ms. McKenzie at their apartment in Delhi, Ontario. This was not possible prior to January of 2025 due to a probation order which ordered Mr. Keddy to not be within 200m of his neighbour, whose apartment was directly beside Mr. Keddy’s. In January, the social work team began the process of approving his residence for discharge. The apartment was visited in February and approved for accommodation. The Forensic Outpatient Team began to meet with Mr. Keddy shortly thereafter to develop rapport and prepare for discharge. The team is preparing a gradual transition back to his home and anticipate the process to be complete near the summer.

34Dr. Alatishe stated that after 48-hour passes to the home are used successfully, the next step would be 72-hour passes, followed by the setting of a discharge date.

35Dr. Alatishe confirmed that testing for substances would continue once Mr. Keddy is discharged. He appears to understand the consequences of positive drug screens and has come to realize that the Hospital does not take substance use lightly. Dr. Alatishe said that after discharge, the outpatient team would be seeing Mr. Keddy several times per week, but over time, if all goes well, the reporting appointments could be reduced in frequency to weekly.

36Dr. Alatishe testified that a Detention Order is still required in Mr. Keddy’s case. He said that it remains important for the Hospital to be able to approve his community accommodation and to return him to the Hospital if necessary. Dr. Alatishe noted that Mr. Keddy has lived in the proposed home before (at the time of the index offences) and if the home became unsuitable, for instance due to cannabis use there, the Hospital would need the Warrant of Committal to return Mr. Keddy. In this regard, Dr. Alatishe noted that there was no change to Mr. Keddy’s mental status when he tested positive for cannabis in March and would not have met the involuntary admission criteria in the Mental Health Act (MHA). Dr. Alatishe opined that with substance use only, it would be some time before his mental status deterioration rose to the level required to meet the MHA criteria.

37In Dr. Alatishe’s opinion, Mr. Keddy would not voluntarily return to the Hospital in the absence of a Detention Order. His level of insight is poor, and he does not believe that he has a mental illness. Moreover, he has indicated that he would not take his medication if the decision were left to him.

38When asked what he would like to see for Mr. Keddy over the next year Dr. Alatishe stated that he hoped Mr. Keddy would engage more meaningfully with his treatment team and develop greater insight in several areas, including his mental illness, the role of medication, and the connection between his illness, treatment, and risk. Doctor Alatishe also identified Mr. Keddy’s understanding of the potential risks associated with substance use as an area for growth. In Dr. Alatishe’s opinion, these are important areas as to this point, Mr. Keddy’s motivation all seems externally driven.

39In relation to the substance use issue, Dr. Alatishe stated that there was a family meeting during the week prior to the hearing, during which the team tried to make it clear to the family how detrimental cannabis can be to Mr. Keddy’s mental health, including second-hand smoke. Dr. Alatishe’s understanding was that Ms. McKenzie did not use cannabis, but he was uncertain. He understands that Mr. Keddy’s son, who lives in the home with his girlfriend, does use cannabis.

40Counsel for the Attorney General confirmed with Dr. Alatishe, in relation to the potential for a change in medication, that he would be concerned if all of Mr. Keddy’s antipsychotic medication were administered in oral form. As he saw things, the options were to either reduce the dose of his long-acting injectable medication or change it entirely to a different long acting injectable formulation.

41Dr. Alatishe was asked a series of questions by counsel for Mr. Keddy. He agreed at the outset that Mr. Keddy’s family is extremely important to him, including his children and grandchildren. He is empathetic toward them. More than anything, he wants to resume living with them in Delhi.

42Mr. Keddy has expressed a desire to discontinue his medications and, during his initial period in hospital, was notably resistant to receiving them – including through physical resistance. More recently, when the time comes for his regular injection, he assents without “pushback”. Upon discharge from the Hospital, his medication would be administered by the Outpatient Team, and for the most part, he would come to the Hospital for this.

43Counsel, referring to Ms. McKenzie as Mr. Keddy’s “partner”, suggested that as his SDM, she has shown good insight into Mr. Keddy’s illness, and Dr. Alatishe agreed. She is in regular contact with the Hospital and it is easy for the Hospital to reach her anytime that the treatment team needs to speak with her. Dr. Alatishe believed that she would express her concerns if she saw anything untoward with Mr. Keddy and expressed cautious optimism that she would advocate for Mr. Keddy to return to the Hospital in such a situation. She is an Approved Visitor to the Hospital but not an Approved Person.

44Dr. Alatishe confirmed that all of Mr. Keddy’s passes to the home in Delhi have gone well except for the first, when he tested positive for cannabis. He acknowledged that it could have been a second-hand smoke situation with limited exposure. If Mr. Keddy did use cannabis directly, it cleared quickly as it did not show up in his next screening sample. In the past (when he had used cannabis in 2023 and 2024), it had taken a couple of weeks to a month to clear. Ultimately, Dr. Alatishe agreed that this was a small exposure, even if he did consume it directly.

45Counsel discussed with Dr. Alatishe the relationship between the impact of cannabis use and the applicability of the “Box B” criteria for involuntary admission under the Mental Health Act (MHA), since Mr. Keddy is incapable of making psychiatric treatment decisions. Dr. Alatishe testified that “Box B” is more difficult to apply if the only concern is substance use. To admit Mr. Keddy as an involuntary patient for cannabis use, Dr. Alatishe would need to demonstrate that the same illness for which he had been treated was again causing symptoms. He agreed that there is an interaction between Mr. Keddy’s mental illness and his substance use. However, if he were using cannabis, Mr. Keddy’s risk would increase to an unacceptable degree from a forensic point of view but not yet qualify as the substantial deterioration of his condition required for MHA involuntary admission.

46Dr. Alatishe agreed that regular cannabis use would likely result in substantial deterioration of Mr. Keddy’s condition. However, from a forensic risk management perspective, the treatment team would not wish to wait until his condition deteriorated to that extent before intervening.

47Dr. Alatishe agreed that Mr. Keddy had participated in substance abuse treatment, attending regularly. Nevertheless, as the doctor later stated in response to the panel’s question, Mr. Keddy is not interested in abstaining from cannabis use as he does not see it as a problem or issue for him.

48In response to counsel’s questions about Mr. Keddy’s personality and sense of humour, Dr. Alatishe agreed that he can be appear “gruff” and can come across as irritable.

49Dr. Alatishe stated, in answer to the panel, that there have been attempts to work with Mr. Keddy in relation to the development of insight, empathy or remorse in relation to the index offences and the victims, but there has been “not a lot of gain there” and he has seen no indication of an expression of remorse. He explained that engaging Mr. Keddy in psychotherapy around this is a continuing, ongoing goal of his treatment. There are programs that can help, such as CBT for psychosis (CBT-p), but it is difficult to do this with someone who has no insight into his illness. Mr. Keddy has not spontaneously expressed interest in attending CBT-p but has expressed openness to engaging in it when it was pointed out to him. In Dr. Alatishe’s opinion, Mr. Keddy’s motivation is “absolutely” externally driven.

50Counsel for Mr. Keddy asked questions arising from this evidence. Dr. Alatishe agreed that it is possible that Mr. Keddy’s delusional thinking is treatment resistant. He agreed with the suggestion that Mr. Keddy’s beliefs around the index offence, namely that his conduct was justified because it was based on the truth, is founded on a false belief system that is a product of his illness.

51The panel asked about Mr. Keddy’s family and the home environment. Dr. Alatishe confirmed that, as noted earlier, the home that the treatment team had approved for Mr. Keddy’s community living is the location where the index offences occurred. Noting that in the past, Mr. Keddy’s relationship with Mr. McKenzie was described as “on again/off again”, Dr. Alatishe did not know whether Ms. McKenzie was aware of the offences while they were happening. In addition, the home was previously unavailable to Mr. Keddy due to a probation order meant to protect a neighbour whom he had harassed in 2021. Dr. Alatishe acknowledged these concerns and said the treatment team needs to manage them. He confirmed that these issues underscore the need for a Detention Order.

52Related to these concerns, a family meeting was held that included Ms. McKenzie, Mr. Keddy’s son, and the son’s girlfriend, so that all the people living in the home would be involved. In addition, Mr. Keddy’s son and daughter were both approached about the idea of becoming Approved Persons for Mr. Keddy and have expressed interest in this.

53Finally, Dr. Alatishe was asked about the fact that the planned community residence was in Delhi, which he said was approximately an hour’s drive from the Hospital. Dr. Alatishe said that while the distance made the situation less than ideal, the Hospital’s Forensic Outpatient Team manages other patients who live at a similar distance.

54Dr. Alatishe was asked, in conclusion, whether he had any information about the reason for Mr. Keddy’s absence from the hearing. Dr. Alatishe had asked him whether he was coming, and Mr. Keddy replied in the negative, stating, “I don’t want to be disappointed again.”

55No further evidence was led following Dr. Alatishe’s testimony.

Analysis and Conclusions

Significant Threat

56While the issue of significant threat was uncontested at the hearing, the panel nevertheless made an independent finding that Mr. Keddy represents a significant threat to the safety of the public. He suffers from a major mental illness, schizophrenia, exacerbated by a substance use disorder. By all accounts, his mental illness has been active and untreated for many years, at least going back to 2008. Neither condition is in a state of remission. He has an established history, of which the index offences form a part, of harassment and burdening others with his delusional thoughts. Some of this behaviour has attracted criminal sanctions, including peace bonds that are not reflected in convictions.

57Although Mr. Keddy has been reluctantly compliant with prescribed medications, he has stated that upon discharge from hospital he has no intention to continue to take them. His insight into his illness, the need for medication, the impact of his substance use on his mental condition, and the impact of his conditions on his risk to the public remains virtually absent. His plan on discharge from the Hospital involves returning to the same environment in which he was living when the index offences were committed.

58Absent the oversight provided by the Board and a forensic team at the Hospital, it is almost certain that Mr. Keddy would cease to take medication and return to the use of cannabis. Indeed, he has declared his intentions in this regard. The delusional thinking that inspired the index offences, which seems resistant to treatment and continues to operate even with the mitigating impact of his medication, would again be acted upon and there would be a high likelihood of engaging in criminal behaviour, particularly manifesting in harassing conduct or communications. Such conduct, on the evidence, carries a substantial risk, and indeed in this case a high risk, of resulting in serious psychological harm to members of the public. The index offences themselves stand as a vivid example.

Necessary and Appropriate Disposition

59The evidence in this case amply demonstrates the necessity of a Detention Order to manage the risk. Mr. Keddy faces a critical time in his reintegration into the community in the coming year, with his planned transition to community living. He will face different stressors from those he experienced in the Hospital, but without the Hospital’s structure and constant support. Aside from his regular appointments with treatment team members, he will have little direct supervision as he will be living independently, not in a supported living setting. He will face, particularly as he returns to his home community, temptations to resume the consumption of cannabis, and perhaps even within his home. These are temptations that he does not internally wish to resist. Ms. McKenzie is his SDM but is not formally an Approved Person. Mr. Keddy has no one currently serving in that role.

60The panel accepts Dr. Alatishe’s evidence that although the treatment team has approved Mr. Keddy’s proposed residence in Delhi as appropriate, there are significant concerns which will require careful monitoring and management by the treatment team, and that these concerns underscore the necessity of a Detention Order. It was, of course, important for the team to hold a meeting with all who would be living in the home, with a view to attempting to get everyone “on the same page” as it were. The fact that such a meeting was required points to the fragility of the living plan. Should the accommodation plan not work out well, it will be important for the Hospital to retain the ability to approve Mr. Keddy’s future accommodation as well as to return him to the Hospital expeditiously. The alternative of calling for an early Board hearing, proposed by Mr. Schloss in his submissions, is simply inadequate from a risk management perspective in the circumstances, where Mr. Keddy is essentially returning to the same environment that he was in at the time of the index offences.

61Mr. Keddy is at significant risk for returning to cannabis use in his home community and was regularly using the substance at the time of the index offences. His insight into the risks associated with cannabis in relation to his mental health and his risk to the community is essentially absent. Indeed, he does not believe that he has a mental health issue, does not see his consumption of cannabis as a problem for him, and as noted already, wishes to continue using it. Any motivation that he may have to abstain is entirely externally driven. He has already breached the abstinence clause in his Disposition several times, even while living in the Hospital. We accept Dr. Alatishe’s evidence that waiting for the substantial deterioration in Mr. Keddy’s mental health required by the MHA for an involuntary admission would pose an undue risk to the public. Therefore, including a Young clause in a Conditional Discharge Disposition, as proposed on Mr. Keddy’s behalf, is not an adequate measure. It is not enough for the Hospital to have a mechanism to merely return Mr. Keddy. The Hospital needs to be able to do so quickly and keep him there as long as necessary.

62The panel also notes that Mr. Keddy may be experiencing a medication change in the coming months. Should this be the case, it will be all the more important for the Hospital to carefully monitor him for any changes to his mental state and intervene as necessary to stabilize him.

63In conclusion, the panel is satisfied that given this extremely early point in Mr. Keddy’s community reintegration, the need to protect the public, Mr. Keddy’s mental illness, substance use history, and almost complete lack of insight into these matters, there is simply no air of reality to a Conditional Discharge. It is simply an inadequate mechanism for managing his current risk. The current Detention Order provides a full envelope of privileges to support Mr. Keddy’s community living and is currently the least onerous and least restrictive measure.

64The panel wishes Mr. Keddy well as he prepares for his transition to community living. We encourage him to work collaboratively with his Forensic Outpatient Team over the coming year.

65Before concluding, the panel wishes to comment on the matter of Mr. Keddy’s non-attendance at his hearing. This was the second consecutive ORB hearing that Mr. Keddy failed to attend for no reason other than he did not wish to be there, including, as per the information given to Dr. Alatishe, that he did not wish to be disappointed. This raised some concern by the panel that Mr. Keddy may not be placing the appropriate level of importance on or demonstrating respect for the Board’s process. In the hearing before this panel, counsel provided no reason for Mr. Keddy’s desire not to attend the hearing, other than that he did not wish to attend. The parties are reminded that it is generally presumed that the accused will attend their hearings, as indicated by the language of s. 672.5 (10) of the Criminal Code. That provision vests the court or chairperson of the review board with discretion to “permit” the accused to be absent. It does not create an entitlement to be absent merely because one prefers not to attend.

66In Mr. Keddy’s case, the panel would see great value in his attendance at future hearings. He is, after all, the focus of the entire Part XX.1 process, of which the hearings form an important part. On the evidence, he continues to express some lack of knowledge or understanding of the reason for his involvement in the forensic system. While he can gain much of that understanding through programs offered by the Hospital and through discussions with his counsel, there is little by way of substitute for actual presence at hearings, where accused persons can, through directly hearing the questions and concerns of Board members, gain an appreciation of the Board’s mandate and how that mandate applies in their own cases. Attendance may also promote internalization of responsibility, especially in individuals with poor insight. Finally, the hearing also often provides a forum for other parties and the Board to express, in an informal setting, acknowledgement of an accused person’s progress through the forensic system.

67At the close of the hearing, the chairperson asked Mr. Schloss to convey to his client the Board’s desire to see Mr. Keddy at his next hearing. Mr. Keddy should expect to attend. If, upon doing so, it is suggested that there is a particular justification for being excused, the chairperson can then so order.

68In approaching these matters, the panel has considered the evidence through the lens of the factors in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

Footnotes

1. 1The matter of Mr. Keddy’s non-attendance is further discussed in these Reasons, at paras. 56 and 66-68 below.
2. 2This is based on a reference to guidance provided in Re Young, 2011 ONCA 432.
3. 3These ages were given at the time of Mr. Keddy’s NCR assessment in 2022.