Ontario Review Board
Re: John Yeck
ORB File No: 7524
Hearing held on: Wednesday, June 18, 2025
Place of hearing: Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care 401 Sunset Drive, St. Thomas
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. S. Kert Members: Dr. T. Verny Dr. J.C. Rose Ms. K. Tomaszewski Ms. C. Plyley
Parties Appearing:
Accused: John Yeck Counsel: Mr. C. Dobson
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Zamprogna
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. D. Rows
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated July 22, 2025)
Introduction
On April 3, 2019, John Yeck, then 38 years old, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCR) of three counts of assault, contrary to the Criminal Code. Mr. Yeck was most recently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB” or “the Board”) dated July 3, 2024, detaining him at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care (“Southwest Centre” or “the Hospital”), with privileges up to and including community living in Elgin/Middlesex Counties in 24-hour supervised approved accommodation.
On June 18, 2025, a panel of the Board convened to review Mr. Yeck’s Disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. He was present for his hearing and represented by his counsel, Mr. Dobson, throughout.
The issues to be determined at the hearing were whether Mr. Yeck represents a significant threat to the safety of the public, and if so, the necessary and appropriate Disposition to manage that risk having regard to the criteria set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
When parties were canvassed for their initial, tentative positions at the commencement of the hearing, counsel for the Hospital submitted that Mr. Yeck remains a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Detention Order with essentially the same terms and conditions, with reporting requirements reduced from not less than four times per month to not less than two times per month.
Counsel for the Attorney General and counsel for Mr. Yeck both joined with the Hospital’s recommendation. It was expressly conceded that Mr. Yeck represented a significant threat to the safety of the public.
Counsel for Mr. Yeck recommended the removal of the clause prohibiting contact with the victims of the index offence. Mr