Re: Shelly-Ann James
ORB File No: 8498
Hearing held on: Monday, May 26, 2025
Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health 1001 Queen Street West, Toronto
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(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: Shelly-Ann James Counsel: Ms. S. Feldman
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Mr. K. Dow
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. V. Culp
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated July 9, 2025)
Ms. Shelly-Ann James was found not criminally responsible on a charge of second-degree murder. This finding was made on February 5, 2024.
Ms. James is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated May 17, 2024 by which she was ordered to be detained at the Forensic Service at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), Toronto with certain privileges and prohibitions. That Disposition did not permit any indirectly supervised community privileges nor did it provide for any form of community living.
On Monday, May 26, 2025, the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing at CAMH and conducted the annual review of Ms. James’ Disposition.
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’s recommendation for a continuation of a Detention Order at the Forensic Service at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto. In response to a question from the Alternate Chair, Mr. Dow accepts that if the Board chooses to specify the level of security, the hospital would then be asking for a Detention Order on the Women’s General Forensic Unit.
Mr. Dow also advised that in fact Ms. James had been transferred from the Women’s Secure Unit at CAMH to the Women’s General Forensic Unit. That transfer took place in November of 2024.
Mr. Dow also advised that the hospital would be asking for the inclusion of indirectly supervised community passes and furthermore, the hospital would be asking for a term for community living. Mr. Dow advised that the doctor would explain the rationale for this latter request.
Ms. Culp appeared for the Attorney General. Ms. Culp anticipated opposing any provision for indirectly supervised community passes and also opposing any provision for community living.
Ms. Feldman appeared for Ms. James. She first requested, with respect to the two Victim Impact Statement, that the Board only take into consideration those parts of the Victim Impact Statements that comply with the requirement under the Code. Ms. Feldman went on to state that she supports the hospital’s recommendation in its entirety.
Index Offence
- “Shelly-Ann JAMES (1984/SEP/23) resided with her mother Claudete Elane JAMES (1958/MAR/23) at 415 – 150 Culford Rd, Toronto.
Shelly-Ann has two sons Jaleel Phillip (2007/APR/20) and Sheldon Phillip (2008/AUG/31) would also stay during visitations time.
The boys normally reside with their father, Marvin Phillip.
Shelly-Ann bas been diagnosed with bipolar disorder however has not been prescribed any medications and it has not been reported that she sees a psychiatrist regularly.
There are previous occurrences on file with Toronto Police involving Shelly-Ann (See GO#2017-1098193 & 2020-2264758).
There is also an occurrence on file with York Regional Police (GO# 2009-138233) in where Shelly-Ann had stabbed her ex, Marvin.
On Friday 23rd July 2021 at approximately 0240 hours officers were dispatched to an Unknown Trouble radio call at the above address.
Information provided in the text of the call indicated by the caller (Shelly-Ann) that she had murdered her mother by “stabbing her to death and cut out her eyes.” Additional information provided from different callers (Jaleel and Sheldon) that their mother had slashed their grandmother’s face and they fled from the apartment.
Officers SOMWARU #11419 and RUMOLO #9527 were first to arrive on scene. They conducted a door knock and were met with Shelly-Ann who had dry blood all over her hands, and plainly told them she killed her mother.
The officers entered the apartment and located another female face up on the floor, bleeding with severe slash wounds to the face and not conscious or breathing.
PC SOMWARU placed Shelly-Ann under arrest and removed her from the apartment.
Toronto Fire and Paramedics were also on scene, they attempted lifesaving efforts but the female succumbed to her injuries and was pronounced dead.
The weapon used was also located on scene and was broken. The blade was located on the ground not far from the victim and the handle was on a table by the front door.
Information was received that the two boys who fled from the apartment were nearby at a bus-stop located on the corner of Lawrence Ave W and Culford Rd.
Officers GAVIN #11279 and GURAYA #11702 located the boys in the company of a good samaritan, Ahmed Abdullahi FARAH.
Ahmed advised the officers that he was approached by the boys after completing his “Uber” fare asking for his help telling him that their mother hurt their grandmother. He kept them safe until police arrived.
The boys were under dressed, barefoot and shaken up, but not physically harmed. The identity was confirmed by PC RUMOLO as Claudete with a Canadian passport. The scene was secured and Homicide Division was advised.
Shelly-Ann was transported to 12 Division station.
Jaleel and Sheldon were also transported to 12 Division, and their father was contacted and advised of the situation.
Officers from FIS attended and processed the scene and took photos of Shelly-Ann and seized bloody clothing."
Evidence at Hearing
The Board submitted into evidence the Hospital Report dated May 5, 2025. The Hospital Report provides a great deal of information concerning Ms. James, her personal history, her mental health history, details of the index offence and Ms. James’ course in hospital subsequent to the date of the index offence. As the Hospital Report was made an exhibit in this hearing, it is not necessary to reproduce the information contained in the Hospital Report in these Reasons.
We do note, however, the stated diagnosis of Schizophrenia.
The Board also admitted into evidence a Victim Impact Statement from Willie James and another Victim Impact Statement from Kamekia James. We note for the record that Ms. Kamekia James joined this hearing approximately 30 minutes after it had started.
In addition to the documentary evidence, the Board heard from Dr. Dupré. Dr. Dupré became Ms. James’ most responsible physician when Ms. James was transferred to the Women’s General Forensic Unit. Dr. Dupré accepts the evidence set out in the Hospital Report. There have been some issues regarding the appropriate medication. Ms. James was anxious to reduce the amount of clozapine. Ms. James is capable of making treatment decisions and the hospital did reduce the amount of clozapine. The hospital then noted that Ms. James seemed to be speaking to herself more frequently since the change of medication. Ms. James blurted out at that point that the doctor’s evidence on that point was not accurate. The doctor simply noted that the clinical team monitors Ms. James’ mental stability very closely. The doctor has recommended treatment with additional medication. At this point, Ms. James is thinking about that request.
Dr. Dupré acknowledged that Ms. James suffers from a treatment resistant illness. Dr. Dupré repeated that Ms. James is capable of making treatment decisions. Dr. Dupré believes that there is room for Ms. James to improve her insight with respect to her mental illness and the necessity of appropriate medication.
Dr. Dupré accepts the evidence in the Hospital Report. In particular, the doctor accepts that Ms. James remains a significant threat to public safety. The doctor noted the extreme nature of the events of the index offence. The doctor states that Ms. James continues to suffer from a major mental illness and is still experiencing symptoms of that illness. The doctor and the clinical team wish to see Ms. James progress. The next step is to introduce indirectly supervised hospital and grounds privileges. The doctor noted that Ms. James does use indirectly supervised hospital grounds privileges but limited to attending various programs. The hospital wants to introduce indirectly supervised hospital and grounds privileges independent of any programs. The hospital intends to move quite deliberately with the introduction of new privileges. The hospital wants to ensure that they can be carried out safely.
Mr. Dow then asked the doctor why the clinical team is recommending the ability to live in the community as part of this Disposition. The doctor noted that the request is to live in the community in supervised accommodation. The doctor advised that there are a limited number of woman's only supervised accommodation. In addition, there are only two such facilities that can monitor and supervise the resident taking her medication. In the doctor’s opinion, any form of community living absolutely requires the supervision of taking medication. Dr. Dupré understands that there is at least a three-year waiting list before such a residence would become available. The doctor accepts that Ms. James is presently not ready to move into the community. The doctor also noted that Ms. James has stated that she does not want to leave the hospital at any time over the next year. The doctor is pleased to report that Ms. James has begun to engage with the FORCAT therapist. Currently, the number one goal for the treatment team is to optimize Ms. James’ medication.
The doctor was asked about Ms. James' contact with family members. The doctor does not believe there has been much, if any, contact. The doctor is aware of some telephone contact that Ms. James has with her brother.
In response to questions from Ms. Culp, the doctor repeated that there have been no personal visits by any family member. The doctor repeated that Ms. James reports telephone contact with one brother but the doctor understands that Ms. James’ estimate of the frequency of such contact is much greater than what the brother has said to members of the clinical team.
Again, in response to questions from Ms. Culp, the doctor acknowledged that if Ms. James were to decompensate, family members could be at risk. The doctor did accept that the index offence occurred at a time when Ms. James was off her medication.
The doctor acknowledged that Ms. James has two children: one 18 years old and one 17 years old. It appears that Ms. James has not had any contact with those children for a period of time. The doctor also accepts that there is no likely person who would apply to become an approved person.
The doctor noted that Ms. James is receiving proceeds from her mother's pension plan. The doctor has attempted to discuss this issue with Ms. James but Ms. James simply says she was a beneficiary under that plan and refuses to have any further discussion on that issue.
In response to questions from Ms. Feldman, the doctor repeated that there are very few all female supervised community residences and repeated that only two of those facilities offer the supervision of taking medication.
Again, in response to questions from Ms. Feldman, the doctor opined that it would be somewhere between four and six months before Ms. James would be granted indirectly supervised community passes.
In response to questions from a panel member, the doctor advised that Ms. James has demonstrated interest in furthering her education. There is apparently a program at George Brown College that Ms. James would like to attend. The doctor noted that Ms. James would have to reach the point of having indirectly supervised community passes before she could proceed to any program at George Brown College.
In response to questions from another panel member, Dr. Dupré repeated that her patient is not prepared to discuss the issue of the mother's pension at all.
No other evidence was heard at this hearing.
Final Submissions
Mr. Dow urged the panel to accept the doctor’s evidence. It is clear that Ms. James remains a significant threat to public safety and it is clear that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Detention Order. Mr. Dow again acknowledged that if the Board were to specify the level of security, it should be detention on a General Forensic Unit.
Mr. Dow also urged the panel to include a community living clause.
Ms. Culp accepts that this patient remains a significant threat to public safety and accepts that a Detention Order is both necessary and appropriate. Ms. Culp no longer opposes Ms. James receiving indirectly supervised community passes. Ms. Culp does oppose any form of community living to be included in the Board’s Disposition. The Alternate Chair raised with Ms. Culp the Decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Re Simonic. In the Court of Appeal Decision, the Court suggested that there are two reasons when the Board should include a community living clause even if the patient is not yet ready for such a term. The first reason is if that clause would serve a therapeutic purpose or motivate the accused’s progress. A secondary and significant reason is to allow the patient’s name to be placed on a waiting list.
We note the following from paragraph 15 of Simonic (Re) 2024 ONCA 573:
“Given that at least some providers of community living will not place a patient on a wait list until they are granted community living privileges, the denial of a community living clause could mean that a patient with face the prospect of remaining in an inappropriately restrictive environment for an excessive length of time while waiting for the disposition to be revisited on the next annual review.”
Ms. Culp also asked the Board to include a no-contact provision. We note that there were two parties that filed a Victim Impact Statement. In addition to those two individuals, Ms. Culp is requesting a no-contact clause by Marvin Phillip and by Jaleel Phillip and Sheldon Phillip. Each of the no-contact clauses would state “no contact save and except with the written revocable consent of the individual”.
Ms. Feldman supports the hospital’s recommendation. Ms. Feldman strongly supports the inclusion of a community living clause and relies on the Decision of (Re) Simonic.
Ms. Feldman advised that her client does not object to the inclusion of any no-contact provisions especially if they are framed with a provision “no contact save and except with the written revocable consent of the individual”.
Findings of the Board
The Board accepts the evidence of Dr. Dupré and the evidence contained in the Hospital Report. The parties appropriately did not dispute the issue of significant threat. In order to independently find significant threat, we need only look at the severity of the events of the index offence and the fact that the index offence occurred a relatively short time ago.
This panel also accepts that a Detention Order is both necessary and appropriate. We accept our obligation to specify levels of security when making Detention Order Dispositions and based on the evidence, we have no hesitation in directing a Detention Order to the General Forensic Woman's Unit at CAMH. We agree that our Disposition should include indirectly supervised community passes. We are aware of the evidence from Dr. Dupré that such passes would be gradually implemented over a period of time.
We also agree that a request for no-contact provisions are appropriate. They will be worded such that any individual who wishes to have contact with Ms. James can simply revoke the no-contact provision.
We have no hesitation in following the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Simonic and will include a provision of community living in supervised accommodation.
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