Ontario Review Board
Re: Ross Smith
ORB File No: 8718
Hearing held on: Wednesday, June 11, 2025
Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health 1001 Queen Street West, Toronto
Pursuant to: Section 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Goldenberg Members: Dr. R. Wood Hill Dr. L.O. Lightfoot Ms. L. Banks Mr. J. Cyr
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Ross Smith Counsel: Mr. J. Kopman
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. M. Warner
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. V. Culp
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated July 23, 2025)
On February 5, 2025, Ross Smith was found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder, on a charge of exposure for a sexual purpose, and indecent act (x3). We note that Mr. Smith was subject of a Release Order dated July 24, 2023. We understand that with respect to charges from September 2022, Mr. Smith was either released on a promise to appear or some other documentation which has not been provided to the Board. As a result, following the two sets of offences, Mr. Smith has not been detained in custody.
On Wednesday, June 11, 2025, the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (“CAMH”) and conducted the initial Disposition hearing for Mr. Smith.
We note for the Record that Mr. Smith’s parents and sister were present as were Mr. Smith’s girlfriend and the mother of the girlfriend.
Position of the Parties:
At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as to their recommendations to the Board.
Ms. Warner appeared for CAMH. She advised CAMH is of the opinion that Mr. Smith remains a significant threat to public safety, and if the Board so finds, the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Detention Order at the Forensic Service with specified restrictions including reporting not less than once every two weeks, no contact with victims, a weapons prohibition, an abstain from alcohol and non-medically prescribed substances and submit urine samples to assess for same.
In response to a question from the Alternate Chair, Ms. Warner advised that if the Board decided to specify the level of security, the hospital would be asking for a Detention Order to the General Forensic Service. The hospital is also recommending that Mr. Smith have the privilege of living in the community in approved accommodation.
Ms. Culp appeared for the Attorney General. She agrees that Mr. Smith remains a significant threat to public safety. She concurs with the recommendations suggested by the hospital.
Mr. Kopman appeared for Mr. Smith. Mr. Kopman advised that he and his client accept that at the present time, Mr. Smith remains a significant threat to public safety and at the present time, a Detention Order is both necessary and appropriate. Mr. Kopman supports the Board specifying detention at a General Forensic Unit as part of its Disposition.
Index Offences:
- "On Thursday, September 15, 2022, the complainant, [victim 1] was walking home from school. The complainant was walking out front of 27 Lenthall Avenue in the City of Toronto. The complainant observed the accused sitting on a wall. When the accused heard the complainant, the accused exposed his penis to her and looked directly at her (charge 1). The accused was wearing a white t-shirt, white pants with blue markings on it. The complainant then ran home.
On Friday, September 16, 2022, the complainant [victim 2] was walking with her sister. They walked passed the address of 27 Lenthall Avenue in the City of Toronto. The complainant observed the accused sitting out front of the address sitting on a wall. The accused turned as the complainant walked passed and exposed his penis to her (charge 2). The accused was wearing a grey t-shirt, PJ style pants with multiple colours. On Saturday, September 17, 2022, officers took statements from both complainants. Through further investigations, the accused was identified an attempts were made to locate the accused. The accused has been residing in the basement apartment of 27 Lenthall Avenue, Toronto. On Sunday September 18, 2022, officers attended the address of 27 Lenthall Avenue. The accused was located, placed under arrested and advised his rights to counsel. The accused was subsequently released by way of an Appearance Notice (Form 9).”
“On July 19, 2023, the accused was observed by the victims, [victim 1] and [victim2] to exit his residence, stand on his driveway and remove his penis from his pants (between his zipper). The accused began to masturbate his penis (charge 1, 2). While doing to, two other persons passed by on the sidewalk closest to the accused’s house. When the accused saw the two unidentified persons approach, the turned his body to ensure the front of his body was facing the pedestrians. Those persons were unable to be identified. The accused is known to [victim 1] and [victim 2]; they reported the incident to police. On July 22, 2023, the victim [victim 3] was waiting at the bus stop located at Brimorton Dr., and Orton Park Rd. When the bus approached, [victim 3] boarded the bus at the front; the accused boarded at the rear doors of the same bus. The victim sat near the centre of the bus; the accused sat approximately 1-foot away. The accused was wearing loose fitting black shorts, he removed his erect penis from his shorts and began to masturbate. When the victim yelled out the accused stood up and walked to the rear of the bus and exited at the next bus stop.
[Victim 3] called police when she got home and reported the incident. On July 23, 2023, the accused was identified, arrested and transported to 43 Division for a Bail hearing.”
Evidence at Hearing:
The Board admitted into evidence a number of documents, most of which had been filed in the court proceeding. The Board also included Dr. Jones’ reports from August 2024 and from May 22, 2025. The Hospital Reports provides a great deal of information concerning Mr. Smith, his personal history, his mental health history, details of the index offences and Mr. Smith’s course in the community subsequent to the date of the original charges. 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 diagnoses of:
Schizoaffective Disorder – bipolar type
Stimulant Use Disorder (cocaine), in remission
Alcohol Use Disorder (in remission)
The Board also heard from Dr. Jones. Dr. Jones’ involvement to date was to prepare the report of August 29, 2024 which dealt with the availability of a s. 16 defence. In addition, Dr. Jones authored the May 22, 2025 report.
Dr. Jones stressed that he has met Mr. Smith only on two occasions. His last meeting was on April 3, 2025. There are no updates to the Hospital Report. Dr. Jones noted that fairly recently, Mr. Smith moved to a basement apartment at his parents’ residence. Mr. Smith continues to have very strong family support as was demonstrated at today’s hearing.
Mr. Smith has been receiving care for his psychiatric illness from a community psychiatrist, Dr. Farber. Dr. Farber’s office is in Scarborough. He has been prescribing Mr. Smith’s medication. Dr. Jones understands that Mr. Smith sees Dr. Farber approximately once per month.
Dr. Jones accepts that the appropriate diagnosis is schizoaffective disorder – bipolar type.
In Dr. Jones’ opinion, antipsychotic medication is the key to treating Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith may also benefit from engaging in psychological therapy. For example, the doctor felt participation in Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) would be beneficial for Mr. Smith.
Dr. Jones noted that should the Board make a Disposition connecting Mr. Smith with CAMH, a forensic outpatient clinical team would take over Mr. Smith’s care and most likely would take over the appropriate prescribing of medication.
Dr. Jones supports the finding that Mr. Smith remains a significant threat to public safety and also supports the necessity of a Detention Order. In Dr. Jones’ opinion, a Detention Order is necessary so that the hospital has the right to approve any future accommodation.
Ms. Culp questioned the doctor about the appropriate reporting requirement. Dr. Jones had suggested and maintained the position that the appropriate reporting requirement is not less than once every two weeks.
In response to questions from Mr. Kopman, Dr. Jones agreed that Mr. Smith appears to be quite stable. Dr. Jones accepts that Mr. Smith is medication compliant. He acknowledges, however, reaching that conclusion on reports from Mr. Smith.
In response to questions from a panel member, Dr. Jones acknowledged that at one attendance at a hospital in 2022, Mr. Smith acted inappropriately towards a nurse at that hospital.
In response to questions from another panel member, Dr. Jones supports a prohibition against the use of substances and supports a weapons prohibition. Dr. Jones, on this latter point, noted that Mr. Smith continues to experience auditory hallucinations. Those hallucinations are apparently derogatory and demeaning and in Dr. Jones’ opinion, public safety could be at risk if the Board did not include a weapons prohibition as part of its Disposition.
In response to questions from another panel member, Dr. Jones would support the Board including a no contact provision with respect to the victims as set out in the court’s Release Order from July of 2023.
In response to a question from another panel member, Dr. Jones does not see any necessity for any type of phallometric testing at this time. Dr. Jones is satisfied that the inappropriate sexual behaviour of the index offences relates entirely to Mr. Smith’s mental illness.
Finally, in response to a question from another panel member, Dr. Jones noted that Mr. Smith is “hopeful” of being able to work with his father in the construction business.
No other evidence was heard at this hearing.
Final Submissions
Ms. Warner started by noting that Mr. Smith appears to have been doing very well in the community. Ms. Warner noted the very strong family support and support from Mr. Smith’s girlfriend and even Mr. Smith’s girlfriend’s mother. Ms. Warner acknowledges that there may be some issue as to whether or not Mr. Smith is currently being optimally treated. Ms. Warner simply urged the panel to accept Dr. Jones’ evidence and the evidence contained in the Hospital Report.
Ms. Culp agreed with those submissions. Ms. Culp repeated her opinion of the necessity of our Disposition including the no-contact provision with the four people named in the earlier court Release Order.
Mr. Kopman repeated that he accepts his client remains a significant threat to public safety at this time and he accepts that a Detention Order is both necessary and appropriate. Mr. Kopman submitted that the Board should either not include a weapons prohibition or include a weapons prohibition but restrict it to the use of firearms. Mr. Kopman submitted that a weapons prohibition might create problems for Mr. Smith if and when he engages in work in the construction industry and whether any of those tools of the trade might be considered as a weapon.
The parties jointly submitted that Mr. Smith remains a significant threat to public safety and that a Detention Order is both necessary and appropriate.
In the Board’s opinion, the parties’ joint recommendation on these issues is fully justified. Quite apart from the parties’ joint recommendation, this panel has no hesitation in accepting Dr. Jones’ evidence and the evidence contained in the Hospital Reports. In the Board’s opinion, these were serious index offences and we have no hesitation based on all of the evidence that Mr. Smith remains a significant threat to public safety.
Once again, the parties’ joint recommendation for a Detention Order is well founded. This panel accepts that a Detention Order is both necessary and appropriate. This panel accepts that the hospital needs the ability to approve any future accommodation. Ultimately, after considering the matter, the Board agrees to the inclusion of a no-contact clause referring to the four victims set out in the 2023 court release document.
Finally, the Board also accepts that a weapons prohibition at this time remains appropriate. There is some history of the inappropriate use of a knife. At this time, we are satisfied to include a weapons prohibition. We think we would be in error to include a weapons prohibition limited only to firearms. We do have some concerns going forward but on the evidence that we have heard for at least the next 12 months, a standard weapons prohibition is both necessary and appropriate.
In reaching our Disposition, the Board has taken into consideration public safety, Mr. Smith’s mental condition and his other needs, and Mr. Smith’s reintegration into society.
DATED this 23rd 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