Ontario Review Board
Re: Keith Ellis
ORB File No: 6314
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: Keith Ellis Counsel: Mr. A. Confente
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
On March 6, 2013, Keith Ellis, now 52 years old, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on a charge of criminal harassment, contrary to the Criminal Code. Mr. Ellis was most recently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB” or “the Board”) dated May 21, 2024 pursuant to which he is discharged from St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, West 5th Campus (“SJHCH” or “the Hospital”), subject to various conditions, including a residence clause, a requirement to submit samples for testing, monthly reporting at minimum, and the standard terms. He has been subject to a Conditional Discharge since June of 2018 and has been living in the community since November of 2016.
On Monday, May 26, 2025, a panel of the Board convened in person at the Hospital to conduct the annual review of Mr. Ellis’ Disposition and to make a new Disposition. Mr. Ellis was present and represented by his counsel, Mr. Confente. The issues to be decided at the hearing were whether Mr. Ellis 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.
The evidence for the hearing consisted of the Hospital Report dated May 21, 2025, attached to which was a two-page report from the Good Shepherd HOMES program dated April 1, 2025. In addition, the panel heard the oral evidence of Dr. Y. Alatishe, Mr. Ellis’ attending psychiatrist.
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. Counsel for the Hospital, supported by counsel for Mr. Ellis, took the position that the evidence no longer supports a finding that Mr. Ellis represents a significant threat to the safety of the public and that accordingly, he is entitled to an Absolute Discharge.
Counsel for the Attorney General submitted that the evidence does support a finding of significant threat and therefore an Absolute Discharge is not available. She took the position that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Conditional Discharge reflecting the terms of Mr. Ellis’ existing Disposition.
All parties maintained their respective positions in final submissions at the conclusion of the evidence.
Findings
- For the following Reasons, the panel found that the evidence does not enable the Board to affirmatively find that Mr. Ellis represents a significant threat to the safety of the public, and that he was accordingly entitled to an Absolute Discharge.
Index Offence
- The circumstances surrounding the index offence are located at pp. 3-4 of the Hospital Report. A summary of those circumstances was included in last year’s Reasons for Disposition dated June 25, 2024. That summary, augmented by some details from the original version, is reproduced as follows:
The female victim and the accused went to the same high school approximately 20 years before the events giving rise to the index offence. Mr. Ellis contacted her via Facebook and over the following eight months they met on a few occasions. The victim ended the relationship, as she felt things “began to get weird”. Mr. Ellis continued to call and to text her. She did not respond to any of his communications and texted him with a request that he stop.
On April 12, 2012, Mr. Ellis contacted the Peterborough Ontario Provincial Police and told them he was an intercessor with God and was advising his wife. An officer attended where Mr. Ellis had parked his truck by the side of the road and noted he was talking on his mobile phone and sweating profusely. Mr. Ellis told the officer he was speaking to God and the complainant, his future wife. When the officer attempted to speak to him, Mr. Ellis continually interrupted him and told him he was listening to God and the complainant. He exited the truck as requested but informed the officer God was talking to him and in another voice he argued with the complainant. He kneeled over in pain, stating an angel had kicked him in the gut. He appeared to be in a great deal of pain and he informed the officer he had just been directed by God to get back in his truck and drive. He was then arrested under the provisions of the Mental Health Act. During transport to Peterborough Hospital, he continued to pray and to argue with the complainant.
Eventually, Mr. Ellis was transported to St. Joseph's Psychiatric Hospital in Hamilton. At some point while he was there, his attending physician contacted the complainant and told her that Mr. Ellis was very delusional and was fixated on her. He was also refusing to take his medication. The doctor also told the complainant that Mr. Ellis was dangerous and that he was a stalker.
On the 14th of July, 2012 Mr. Ellis attended the residence of the complainant. Her landlord informed him she was not at home and Mr. Ellis waited outside the residence in his vehicle for several hours until the landlord became concerned and called police. They responded and located Mr. Ellis sitting in his vehicle. He told them he was waiting to see the complainant. Police were aware of an earlier occurrence in which the complainant had contacted the Waterloo Regional Police on May 10, 2012 to report that Mr. Ellis' psychiatrist had informed her he was having serious delusions about her, that he thinks that she is his soul mate and that he needs to be with her no matter what. Mr. Ellis was arrested for criminal harassment.
In his police interview Mr. Ellis admitted that the complainant had told him to stop calling her but that God had told him to contact her and that he had seen visions of her and she was created to complete him. Although he was surprised at being charged with criminal harassment, he believes that the two of them are destined to be together. Mr. Ellis stated that he didn't need to take his medication because he is an intercessor of God. He was to be held for a show cause hearing.
After Mr. Ellis’ arrest, the police located the complainant by phone, subsequently attended at her residence, and took a witness statement from her. In her statement she reported that she was scared and frightened and she did not want to return to her residence. She was quite concerned and scared that he had shown up at her residence on this date.
General Background Information
The Hospital Report contains details of Mr. Ellis’ personal background, psychiatric history, and course in hospital and the community after the index offence. This information need not be fully summarized, as the Report is in evidence at the hearing and has thus been reviewed by the panel. In view of the issues at the hearing and the panel’s conclusion, several portions of this information are touched on below.
As noted above, Mr. Ellis is now age 52. He was 39 at the time of the index offence. He had no prior criminal record, and no history of psychiatric admissions prior to the period leading up to the index offence.
Mr. Ellis described growing up in the Hamilton area and having an unremarkable childhood, save for his father being away a great deal due to his job as a truck driver. When he was in Grade 7, his father passed away and Mr. Ellis went through a period of social withdrawal and rebellious behaviour. He completed Grade 12 but was unable to attend college as he reported not receiving funding in time. He has held various forms of employment and was working as a delivery driver at the time of the index offence.
With respect to substance use, Mr. Ellis described starting to drink beer at a young age and occasionally getting drunk with friends. While he denied having a problem with alcohol, records reportedly show that he was drinking heavily until becoming involved with a local church community in Hamilton in 2010. He described using marijuana on and off from the age of 20 and said he completely stopped using illicit substances in approximately 2010.
Mr. Ellis is currently single. He reported getting married in 2002 and lived with his wife and her two children from a previous relationship until their separation in April of 2007. He described their marriage as a difficult one. Mr. Ellis reported attempts at reconciliation until July of 2008, when the relationship ended permanently.
Psychiatric History
Mr. Ellis’ first formal psychiatric admission was within the context of his communications with the complainant during the months leading up to the index offence and is alluded to above in the description of those circumstances. This admission began on April 30, 2012 and Mr. Ellis was discharged on June 8, 2012, approximately a month before the index offence.
A Forensic Risk Assessment was conducted while in the hospital in 2012, due to concerns of stalking behaviour. Mr. Ellis was found to be low risk, and stalking was said to be connected to his psychosis. He had expressed having the gift of intercession, but “renounced” this after taking medication in the hospital. While Mr. Ellis still felt connected to God, there were no observed religious delusions or preoccupations. He expressed a recognition that some of his behaviour towards the complainant may have been excessive and indicated that if it was not a mutual feeling, he would not pursue the relationship. When discharged from hospital, he denied any desire to contact her.
After the index offence, Mr. Ellis was admitted to Providence Care Hospital in Kingston from July 26 to September 18, 2012, for assessments of his fitness to stand trial and criminal responsibility. While there, he continued to express the belief that he was an intercessor with God and that he had miraculous powers. He also continued to believe that the complainant was his soul mate.
Following the NCR verdict, Mr. Ellis was returned to Providence Care Hospital (“Providence”) on March 6, 2013 and remained there pursuant to his initial ORB Disposition until he was transferred to SJHCH on February 14, 2014. He refused any medication, was found incapable to consent to treatment, and his mother was named his substitute decision maker (SDM). During his time at Providence, the clinical team determined that in addition to being a risk to the complainant, Mr. Ellis was a risk to her father, as he had verbalized viewing him as the perpetrator of abuse towards her.
After arriving at SJHCH in 2014, Mr. Ellis continued to express the belief that the victim of the index offence was the victim of repeated sexual abuse by her father. He also continued to express that he “hears the voice of God” and the belief that “the Lord” intends for him and the victim to be together. However, he also believed that any prospect of being together is entirely dependent on her coming forward and that “the Lord” never instructs him to approach her. By March of 2015, Mr. Ellis was stating that he believed God was instructing him to wait until the victim came to him first and that it was “up to the Lord to decide what happens from there” (Hospital Report, p. 16).
In 2017, while in his first year of community living, Mr. Ellis continued to report hearing the voice of God, but also experienced auditory hallucinations which he identified as the voice of the victim’s father speaking about having abused her in the past. Nevertheless, there were no indications that he had tried to communicate with either of them, and indeed Mr. Ellis stated that he had no desire to speak to either of them. He was also aware that his Disposition prohibited him from trying to do so. Again in 2019, Mr. Ellis continued to maintain that he would only communicate with the victim if she initiated contact.
In September of 2019, Mr. Ellis successfully transitioned from supported living in the community to an independent apartment operated by the Good Shepherd HOMES program. The Report for that year noted that despite the removal of the clause in his Disposition requiring him to abstain from substances, including cannabis and alcohol, he had chosen to remain abstinent, and all his drug screens were negative for substances.
In 2023, during an interview for a psychological risk assessment, Mr. Ellis spoke again about the victim of the index offence. According to the psychologist:
He told me he “would love to have a relationship with [the complainant]” but would not pursue her “even if the Lord tells me to. I made a mistake and I’m not going to put myself through this ever again.” He noted he did intend to return to Facebook and, if [the complainant] contacted him, “so be it, but I won’t be contacting her.”
- Supported by the Hospital’s recommendation in this regard, the Board in 2023 removed the term in his Disposition requiring that he refrain from contact or communication with the victim and her father. The report prepared for Mr. Ellis’ 2024 hearing noted his ongoing preoccupation with the victim of the index offence. Mr. Ellis reportedly said, “I still think about her all the time” and acknowledged that these were daily thoughts. He reported that he would attempt to “heal” the victim, “if she asked for it,” though he clearly stated that he would only attempt to interact with the victim if she first called him over the phone and asked him for help. There was no indication that he had tried to contact her, despite the absence of such a prohibition from his Disposition.
Evidence at the Hearing
Mr. Ellis continues to be incapable of consenting to treatment with antipsychotic medications. His mother, Ms. Elizabeth Ellis, is his SDM and has served in that role for years. Mr. Ellis is capable to manage his property, including his finances. His diagnosis is schizophrenia. Mr. Ellis is on clozapine as his main antipsychotic medication, and he independently completes his monthly monitoring blood work. He has been taking his clozapine on his own since 2019.
Mr. Ellis reportedly has had another successful year in the community. He was seen by a case manager in the Forensic Outpatient Program (FOP) once per month and was described as pleasant and cooperative. As has been the case for many years, he did not require hospital admission.
Mr. Ellis endured some stressors during the current review period. First, in August of 2024 Mr. Ellis experienced a bout of constipation that lasted eight days and required that he attend the emergency room to relieve the symptoms. Second, his apartment was infested with bed bugs for many months, causing him to have to sleep on the couch in the living room and generally disrupting his home environment. Mr. Ellis experienced some increased anxiety and avoidance behaviours as a result, however, his mental state, and particularly his psychotic disorder, did not show any significant signs of decompensation.
In terms of his mental status, it is reported that Mr. Ellis continues to experience auditory hallucinations that are variously the voice of the victim of the index offence, the voice of her father, or the voice of God. He openly discusses these voices. He also continued to believe that he had special miraculous gifts of healing. When asked if the voice of God told him to seek out the victim and heal her, he noted that he has no intention of seeking out the victim without express consent from the victim. In a separate interview for a new psychological risk assessment, Mr. Ellis stated, with respect to the victim of the index offence, that he would only engage with her should she initiate contact. Notably, he interpreted that simply seeing her in his community might reach this threshold. He believed that she lives in Waterloo, so in his view, her presence in his vicinity would not be happenstance.
A new psychological risk assessment was prepared for the current Hospital Report, and Mr. Ellis participated in the assessment interview. For the HCR-20 v. 3 component, it was noted that Mr. Ellis possesses few of the major historical risk factors. With respect to clinical items, the assessment noted:
The most relevant concern in the clinical domain remains unchanged: Mr. Ellis continues to demonstrate a lack of insight into the connection between his illness, medication adherence, and the possibility of violent behaviour. Indeed, he does not believe he has a mental illness or see the need for long-term psychiatric follow up. Thus far, however, with monitoring and on substitute consent (his mother is SDM), he has been adherent to pharmacological treatment. He told me he takes his oral medications independently and advises Good Shepherd staff when he has done so. He has voiced no desire to decrease or discontinue his medications; in fact, he stated he would continue to take them as long as recommended by his treating psychiatrist.
Mr. Ellis’ understanding and conceptualization of his illness has remained essentially unchanged since his admission to the forensic mental health system. In interview, he recalled that, approximately one year prior to the index offence, he began hearing voices (God, the victim, her father). He told me he received a divine message that he was an “intercessor,” which, he explained, was an individual who experiences a “calling” to pray for people. Mr. Ellis felt “called” only to pray for the victim, and indicated he continues to hear the voice of God, the victim, and her father daily. When asked to interpret the meaning behind the same, he concluded he has to continue praying for her as “she’s [still] troubled.” He continues to believe that the victim’s father seriously abused her and that he has the abilities to have her “face her past.” He intimated he is bestowed with nine powers described in Corinthians (e.g., healing by touch, speaking in tongues). He demonstrated the latter in interview (“fee-si-le-loh,” meaning peace in the world).
Dr. Alatishe testified to highlight portions of the Hospital Report for the current reporting period and to supplement that information. He has been Mr. Ellis’ attending psychiatrist since September of 2014. He testified that Mr. Ellis has had many successful years under the Board’s oversight.
Dr. Alatishe confirmed that over the course of the year, due to his compliance and rapport with the treatment team, Mr. Ellis’ reporting frequency was reduced to the monthly minimum permitted by his Disposition. In addition to seeing the Forensic Outpatient Team (FOT), Mr. Ellis receives weekly visits from “Team 5” at the Good Shepherd HOMES program and enjoys seeing them. As noted in the Good Shepherd report, Team 5 has provided support for Mr. Ellis in his somewhat challenging relationship with his mother and is able to provide him with support in his efforts to find employment.
Dr. Alatishe confirmed the information in the Hospital Report that Mr. Ellis has been accepted for post-forensic psychiatric and case management support through the Hospital’s Schizophrenia Outpatient Clinic (SOC) and has an appointment scheduled with that service in July if he is granted an Absolute Discharge. The Hospital’s Forensic Psychiatry program would provide “bridging” care for Mr. Ellis until the SOC is able to take over.
Counsel for the Attorney General and for Mr. Ellis had several questions for Dr. Alatishe. In relation to the prospects for Mr. Ellis’ continued medication compliance in the event of an Absolute Discharge, Dr. Alatishe testified that Mr. Ellis continues not to have insight into his illness or need for medication to treat it. There will always be a risk of medication noncompliance. However, in the doctor’s opinion, there is no reason to believe that Mr. Ellis would stop taking it. He has not verbalized such a desire, and has endorsed “radical acceptance of his schizophrenia diagnosis (although he disagrees with it).
Dr. Alatishe stated that the SOC would provide the services that Mr. Ellis requires, in a similar manner to what is currently provided by the Forensic Outpatient Service. This would include the necessary bloodwork monitoring that is required because he is on clozapine, which he is receiving at a substantial dose. Mr. Ellis requires this medication at its current dosage to manage the treatment-refractory symptoms of his illness. Dr. Alatishe expected that if Mr. Ellis were to stop taking his clozapine, signs of decompensation would be observed within days or a week. If this were to happen, the SOC would be able to issue the required Form under the Mental Health Act to have Mr. Ellis’ condition assessed.
Counsel for the Attorney General observed that Mr. Ellis has some memory issues described by the Hospital Report, for which he attended the “Memory Boost” group provided by the Hospital. Dr. Alatishe said that these memory issues have not caused a problem for Mr. Ellis’ ability to remember to take his medication. Dr. Alatishe understood that Mr. Ellis continues to call Good Shepherd staff to advise that he has taken his required daily medication, even though he is no longer required to do so. Mr. Ellis interjected spontaneously to state that he no longer does this.
Dr. Alatishe confirmed that Mr. Ellis would continue to live at his current address in the event of an Absolute Discharge. He has no issues with his housing situation and is content to live there. In any event, Dr. Alatishe did not think that moving out into a market-rent apartment was viable for him. Team 5 at Good Shepherd would continue to interact with him weekly, as their involvement relates to his housing situation and operates independently of Mr. Ellis’ engagement in the forensic system. With Mr. Ellis connected with the SOC, however, Team 5 would work in conjunction with them. If Mr. Elllis were to disengage from the SOC in the future, Team 5 would continue to meet with him anyway, as this is a condition of his receipt of his housing subsidy at Good Shepherd.
In response to a question from Mr. Ellis’ counsel, Dr. Alatishe opined that particularly since Team 5 staff have come to know Mr. Ellis for some years, they would be able to identify changes in Mr. Ellis’ presentation if that were to occur.
Counsel for the Attorney General pointed out to Dr. Alatishe that the previous year’s risk assessment for Mr. Ellis was essentially the same as for the current year and yet the Hospital had then recommended a continuation of the Conditional Discharge. She asked what had changed. Dr. Alatishe noted essentially two areas. First, the intensity of Mr. Ellis’ symptoms had reduced year-over-year. Second, he was anticipating making a recommendation for an Absolute Discharge last year; however, the plan for connecting Mr. Ellis with a non-forensic team was not approved. But for the support of the SOC, he similarly would not be recommending an Absolute Discharge this year.
Dr. Alatishe addressed the fact that the Hamilton Anatomy of Risk Management – Forensic Version (HARM) tool identified 13 risk factors that are identified as requiring either monitoring or improvement in Mr. Ellis’ case (Hospital Report, p. 53). Pointing out the psychologist’s (Dr. Sheridan) opinion that the risk factors would be effectively managed if Mr. Ellis remained connected with the supports provided by the SOC, Dr. Alatishe agreed that the treatment team is relying on Mr. Ellis to maintain that connection. Having come to know Mr. Ellis over 11 years (since 2014), Dr. Alatishe said that Mr. Ellis has given him no reason to believe that he would disengage from SOC supports. The fact that the SOC is also affiliated with the Hospital may possibly help, as there is an element of familiarity there for Mr. Ellis. In his opinion, the combination of the Good Shepherd Team 5 and the SOC provides Mr. Ellis with adequate professional supports for the management of these risk factors.
As for the nature of Mr. Ellis’ risk to cause harm, Dr. Alatishe confirmed that realistically, any risk of harm would be of a psychological, as distinct from physical, nature. Mr. Ellis has no history of physical violence.
Dr. Alatishe confirmed that the treatment team has not heard from the victim of the index offence for many years. He also noted, with respect to Mr. Ellis’ expression of interest in the past year of getting his driver’s license back and driving again, that this is not necessarily new for him, as he had been a delivery driver in the past and expressed interest in returning to that employment.
In response to a question from the panel as to why he believes that Mr. Ellis would continue to take his medication if he does not believe that he is mentally ill, Dr. Alatishe stated that Mr. Ellis does defer to and follow medical advice and has stated his determination that he does not want to get in trouble again. He also recognizes the potential consequences if he were to contact the victim of the index offence again.
Analysis and Conclusions
Based on the Hospital Report and the evidence of Dr. Alatishe, the panel could not make a positive finding that Mr. Ellis continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. He must therefore be absolutely discharged.
In coming to this conclusion, the panel carefully considered the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625 (“Winko”). In that case, the Court stated that a significant threat to the safety of the public must be: more than speculative in nature and supported by the evidence; significant, in the sense of there being a “real risk of physical or psychological harm to members of the public that is serious in the sense of going beyond the merely trivial or annoying”; and the conduct giving rise to the harm must be criminal in nature. Further, the Court stated that there must be a positive finding of a significant threat to the safety of the public to support restrictions on an NCR accused’s liberty. Anything else, for example uncertainty, cannot suffice.
In Winko, the Supreme Court of Canada also stated that in coming to a conclusion on the issue of significant threat, a Review Board should closely examine a range of evidence including the circumstances of the original offence, the past and expected course of the accused’s treatment, the present state of the NCR accused’s mental condition, and the NCR accused’s own plans for the future, the support services existing for the NCR accused in the community, and the recommendations provided by experts who have examined the NCR accused.
Regarding the evidence in this case, the panel has also borne in mind the guidance provided in para. 60 of Winko, as follows:
“ When making this difficult assessment of whether an NCR accused poses a significant threat to the safety of the public, a court or Review Board may be expected to be aware not only of the need for public protection, but of the fact that a past offence committed under the influence of mental illness may often bear little connection to the likelihood of reoffending, particularly when the NCR accused is successfully following a treatment program. At the same time, the commission of an offence in the past may in some circumstances constitute a link in a chain of events that demonstrates a propensity to commit harm, albeit unintentionally. The specific situation of each NCR accused must always be examined carefully.”
Mr. Ellis has done consistently well since living in the community. In almost nine (9) years, he has not required readmission to the Hospital. He has maintained adherence to his medication, despite his very limited insight into its need, with no noted relapse, for over a decade. He has also demonstrated sustained compliance with the conditions of supervision during that time, and is agreeable to engaging in care with the SOC going forward. He has maintained continued abstinence from cannabis, alcohol and illicit drugs for many years in the context of no abstention clause in his Disposition, and presumed opportunity to use if he wanted to. There have not been any incidents of verbal or physical aggression while in the community. The clinical team is not aware of him being engaged in any problematic behaviour while in the community or of any attempts to contact either the victim of the index offence or her father. More recently, he has continued to refrain from any attempt at such contact despite not being subject to any prohibition in this regard. He appears motivated, if by nothing else, by a desire to avoid the implications on his life of becoming again involved with the judicial or forensic systems.
The panel has considered and fully appreciates the submissions of counsel for the Attorney General, who recommended that the Conditional Discharge should continue for another year in the hope that Mr. Ellis’ insight and symptoms would improve. Counsel ably and helpfully reminded us of the ongoing concerns represented by the following evidence:
the treatment-resistant nature of Mr. Ellis’ illness, with ongoing symptoms that include his belief that he can heal people;
the need for daily, oral medication to manage the illness;
decompensation would likely be rapid if the medication were stopped;
Mr. Ellis has expressed vacillation in his commitment to receiving ongoing care, stating he “might reconsider” taking medication;
the opinion that his risk factors can be managed depends upon Mr. Ellis’ commitment to that care;
Mr. Ellis’ insight into his illness remains poor, if not absent; and
Mr. Ellis expression, within the past reporting year, that if he were to see the victim of the index offence in his community, he would interpret this as a sufficient sign that she wants to have contact with him.
It is difficult to see, from Mr. Ellis’ history, how another year under the terms of a Conditional Discharge could reasonably be expected to improve his symptoms or insight. He is on a strong dose of his medication, as Dr. Alatishe confirmed in his evidence, and there was no suggestion that this would potentially change. Mr. Ellis’ degree of insight appears to have reached a plateau and does not appear likely to improve with the passage of time. In any event, any restrictions of Mr. Ellis’ liberty under the Criminal Code, even if relatively minor, can only be justified in the presence of an affirmative “significant threat” finding. The panel is also mindful that the absence of insight is one factor only and must not be permitted to play an “outsized” role in the analysis: Re Kalra, 2018 ONCA 833; Re Marmolejo, 2021 ONCA 230.
The panel is not satisfied that such a finding can be made on the evidence. The panel accepted Dr. Alatishe’s evidence that Mr. Ellis has demonstrated, over several years now, that he is content with the life he now lives. He manages his living situation well and enjoys a positive relationship with the Team 5 at Good Shepherd, and there is no indication that he would want to move from his current home. For years, he has consistently expressed that, although he thinks of the index offence victim frequently (indeed daily), he would not initiate contact with her out of fear that doing so would get him into trouble again. Significantly, there is no evidence of any attempts to contact her.
There is always the risk that Mr. Ellis would discontinue his medication and disengage from the mental health supports with which he has now been connected. In view of the evidence reviewed above, however, the panel cannot be satisfied that this risk rises beyond the level of speculation. Mr. Ellis has much to lose if his mental state decompensates, and he knows this. Even if his commitment to work with the SOC were to waver, the intervention of his housing team can, and likely will, operate as an effective “reality check” for him.
Furthermore, while the panel is concerned that Mr. Ellis continues, after many years, to have his thoughts preoccupied with the victim of the index offence, and in this context has expressed that he may interpret her presence in his community as a sign that she wishes to reconnect with him, we must concern ourselves with:
(i) whether such an occurrence is realistically likely; and
(ii) even if this were to happen, whether there is a likelihood of serious psychological harm befalling her.
The evidence before the panel does not permit us to conclude that either of these possibilities is more than remote. First, there is nothing in the evidence to suggest an actual likelihood of these two individuals accidentally crossing paths again, though one can never exclude a mathematical possibility. Second, the panel has no difficulty inferring that the victim would become annoyed if Mr. Ellis were to somehow initiate contact with her again. However, to conclude that such contact would likely involve criminal behaviour on his part and to find that she would likely experience psychological harm as a result, let alone harm of a serious nature, would require evidence that does not exist on the record before the panel. The panel also noted that Mr. Ellis had no criminal record or history prior to the index offence.
We therefore found that the evidence cannot satisfy the onerous “significant threat” threshold, and Mr. Ellis was accordingly entitled to an Absolute Discharge. We would emphasize that in reaching this conclusion, we have examined the evidence in light of the four statutory factors in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, namely the safety of the public as the paramount consideration, Mr. Ellis’ mental condition, his reintegration into the community, and his other needs.
In closing, the panel wishes Mr. Ellis well as he transitions to the care of the SOC and expresses its hope that he will live a fulfilling life as he maintains and improves his mental health and wellbeing.
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