Ontario Review Board
Re: Cameron Woods
ORB File No: 8510
Hearing held on: Monday, June 2, 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: Ms. C. Fromstein
Members: Dr. G.A. Chaimowitz Dr. H. Moulden Mr. M.D. Segal Mr. J. Cyr
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Cameron Woods Counsel: Mr. T. Whillier
The Person in charge of Hospital: Counsel: Mr. MacIntyre
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. M. Feindel
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated July 17, 2025)
Introduction
On March 5, 2024, Mr. Cameron Woods was found not guilty by reason of mental disorder on charges of aggravated assault, utter threats to cause death or bodily harm, fail to comply with probation (x2) and mischief under $5000, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. He is currently subject to an initial disposition of the Ontario Review (ORB or the Board) dated July 15, 2024, detaining him on the Forensic Service of Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH or the hospital) with privileges up to and including to enter the community of Greater Toronto Area (GTA) indirectly supervised.
On June 2, 2025, a panel of the Board convened at CAMH for Mr. Woods’s annual hearing. The purpose of the hearing was to determine if Mr. Woods represents a significant threat to the safety of the public and, if so, what is the necessary and appropriate disposition. Mr. Woods was present and represented by counsel, Mr. Whillier. Mr. McIntyre represented the hospital and Mr. Feindel, the Crown Attorney. Mr. Woods’ parents were also present at the hearing in support of their son.
Initial Positions
At the outset of the hearing the parties were canvassed as to their initial positions. Mr. McIntyre indicated that the hospital was recommending continuation of a detention order with the added privilege of living in the community in approved accommodation.
Mr. Feindel noted his support for the hospital position but at the conclusion of evidence requested that the provision be noted as living in ‘supervised’ accommodation.
Mr. Whillier conceded the issue of significant threat in supporting a continuation of a detention order and took no position as to the level of housing and supervision noted in the disposition.
Index Offence
- The details of the index offence are set out in the Synopsis for a Guilty Plea, as follows:
“On Friday May 13th 202, the victim was walking Northbound on Park Lawn Road on the West sidewalk towards The Queensway, with her two-month-old baby in a stroller. The accused was walking Southbound on Park Lawn Road on the West sidewalk towards the victims. The accused walked past the victim's making eye contact with Victim #1 but did not say anything to her. As the victims approached Park Lawn Road and The Queensway the accused ran up to the victims yelling "I'm going to fuckin kill you" [Charge #1].
The victim was approximately one foot away from The Queensway when the accused grabbed the left side of the stroller and picked it up so both wheels on the left side of the stroller were off the ground. The accused then tried to flip over the stroller onto the busy roadway with Victim #2 unsecured inside the stroller. Victim #1, while holding the handle of the stroller, pushed the stroller back down preventing the baby from being ejected out onto the road into oncoming traffic. [Charge 2]
In attempt to flee from the accused, Victim #1 raced to a nearby medical center while calling 911 at the same time. Police responded quickly and located the accused where he was placed under arrest, read his rights to counsel and transported to 23 Division and held pending a Show cause hearing. On Friday May 13th, 2022, the accused was in the area of Park Lawn Road and The Queensway when he entered the business located at 523 The Queensway. Once inside the address the accused smashed 2 glass doors, and a glass window. (Charge #1)
The accused fled the scene and was arrested a short distance away in relation to another offence (GO #22897564). The accused was transported to 23 Division and investigated further. Further investigation revealed that the accused was on a probation and had breached one of the conditions that he agreed to. (Charge #2)
The accused was charged accordingly and held for a Show Cause hearing.”
Diagnoses
- Mr. Woods’ current diagnoses are set out in the hospital report as:
Schizophrenia
Cannabis Use Disorder in remission in a controlled environment
Amphetamines Use Disorder in remission in a controlled environment
Background
The details of Mr. Woods’ background are set out in the hospital report, marked exhibit 1, which can be referred to. Briefly summarized, he is presently 48 years of age. He has a lengthy criminal record. It includes offences in 2021 of assaulting a woman by spitting on her in the street and another of body checking a man on the street without provocation.
Mr. Woods displayed behavioural difficulties at an early age, starting fire in the family home, and became involved in criminal activity in his teens. He did not complete high school and has a limited work history. He is reported to have commenced alcohol and cannabis use at an early age and began the use of crystal methamphetamine at age 30. It is reported that he was using crack cocaine daily in the year before his arrest on the index offence.
Mr. Woods’ history of treatment for his mental disorder includes his first two hospitalizations taking place between the years 2002 and 2005. He was not compliant with medication following his discharge. He was stabilized on clozapine under supervision of the Strathcona Mental Health Services and his medications were then changed to injectable antipsychotic medication. It is reported that in 2010 he deteriorated but improved quickly when clozapine was restarted. Further hospital admissions are set out in the hospital report.
In the past treatment year Mr. Woods has remained on a general forensic unit. The hospital report notes that he has shown a great deal of improvement as well as participation in programming. He has regular family visits from his parents as well as from a brother and uncle. He has shown insight with respect to drug use but this has not yet been tested living in the community. Mr. Woods has very low cognitive scores but has been deemed not eligible for DSO services.
Dr. Darani testified that she took over Mr. Woods’ care as the most responsible psychiatrist in November of 2024. Mr. Woods has now attained level 8 privileges at the hospital which allow him indirectly supervised access to the community for social and recreational activities for 30 minutes, twice daily. That is in addition to his level 7 privileges which permit him independent community access to attend programming. Mr. Woods is quite engaged in programming attending programs at Progress Place and volunteering at the Trinity Square Café.
Mr. Woods was assessed in May 2025 with respect to his independent living skills. It reflected his low functioning skills and his requirement for high support housing. This would include supervision of his medications as well as programming to support further development of independent living skills and 24-hour supervision. He would benefit from a gradual reintegration into the community in high support housing. There was significant violence in the index offence so close monitoring and supervision as he reintegrates are necessary. He has not yet transitioned to the community and the team needs the to observe how he manages in this transition. The hospital must be in a position to approve his housing. A conditional discharge is not appropriate for these reasons at this time as well as the fact that the Mental Health Act would not be able to manage his risk if he were to decompensate in the community and required quick re-hospitalization to prevent further decompensation.
Dr. Darani was asked specifically whether it was necessary to denote ‘24-hour supervised’ housing in the disposition. She responded that Mr. Woods’ living skills indicate that he would benefit from high support. Daily supervision is sufficient and it need not state that it must be 24/7 accommodation. Mr. Woods attends his community placements by TTC. Dr. Darani indicated that he is not quite ready to transition into the community but it is expected that he could do so within a year. He is on the long waitlist for housing. There has also been an application put into TRHP-2 housing. If he were accepted into that it would be important to engage in a gradual transition. That housing facility is a 24-hour supervised facility with programming on site to support his independent living skills and is considered to be transitional housing.
Dr. Darani was asked to expand upon the hospital report PCL-R score of 57 percent in regard to the noted risk of antisocial personality traits. She indicated that antisocial behaviour has not been observed in the hospital but is noted as ‘a past history’. Looking at his criminal history, she noted that there have been multiple charges although not of significant seriousness. Dr. Darani was asked whether Mr. Woods’ future risk is tied to underlying antisociality or attached to his illness. She responded that Mr. Woods has only been under her care since November so it is hard to say.
Mr. Woods was determined to not be eligible for dual diagnosis services. Moving forward he will be provided support with respect to his learning needs and services, which are linked to his risk. The team is encouraging him to engage in programming which will be available to him also once he transitions in his housing. Programming will support his independent living skills and psychoeducation to mitigate his risk and help him develop his independent living skills. Mr. Woods’ urines have all remained negative for substance use in the past year and he has indicated a wish to not relapse to substance use.
At last year’s hearing it was noted that the Board did not have the information with respect to the peace bond that Mr. Woods entered for the 2018 offence which provided for six-month no-contact provision with the victim of that offence. We now have that as exhibit 2.
Submissions
Mr. McIntyre, on behalf of the hospital, submitted that the appropriate disposition is a detention order with the addition of community living in approved accommodation. Such accommodation is likely upcoming. He submitted that it would be sufficient if the Board designated it as ‘approved’ accommodation rather than supervised, as the hospital will approve accommodation in line with Mr. Woods’ assessment needs.
Mr. Feindel supported the overall disposition but submitted that the evidence supports that Mr. Woods requires ‘supervised’ accommodation for his community housing.
Mr. Whillier, on behalf of Mr. Woods, noted that the hospital would be relied upon not to place Mr. Woods into inappropriate housing but that his client did not take any position with respect to what was specified in this regard in the disposition.
It was confirmed for the Board that the proposed housing in this upcoming year for Mr. Woods would be available if worded as either ‘approved’ or ‘supervised’ in the disposition.
Analysis and Conclusion
The Board on the evidence before us has no hesitation in finding Mr. Woods remains at this time a significant threat to the safety of the public. The index offence was extremely serious and, notably, Mr. Woods was on probation at that time. He has a significant history of substance abuse and had been using substances heavily in the year leading up to the index offence. The index offence is recent in time.
The Board also agrees with the joint position of the parties that the appropriate disposition at this time is a detention order with the additional privilege of residing in the community. The evidence before us is that Mr. Woods has progressed well. He is fully compliant with his medication. There are no overt signs or symptoms of psychosis. He has participated in extensive programming at the hospital and exercised his privileges well. He has some insight into his illness and the need for medication which he indicates he intends to continue. He also has some insight into his substance use.
On the evidence before us, the Board finds that it is necessary for the hospital to be in a position to approve Mr. Woods’ accommodation as he moves towards community reintegration, which is likely to take place within the upcoming year as he is currently waitlisted.
The one issue of contention between the parties was what level of housing should be noted on the disposition, ‘approved’ or ‘supervised’. The evidence before us is that Mr. Woods requires 24-hour supervised housing. While the Board has confidence in the hospital placing Mr. Woods only in housing that is appropriate it is our responsibility to make a disposition that is necessary and appropriate. In these circumstances the disposition will include the added provision of living in the community in 24-hour supervised accommodation. This will not negatively impact his transition into the housing for which he is waitlisted.
It appears on the evidence that Mr. Woods is progressing well with the necessary supervision in place and that the continued planned programming will be of further assistance to him in the upcoming year.
We make this disposition in consideration of the prime factor of protection of public safety, Mr. Woods’ mental condition, his reintegration into society and his other needs. as set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
DATED this 17^th^ day of July, 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. C. Fromstein
Alternate Chairperson
__________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board