Ontario Review Board
Re: Crystal Hockin
ORB File No: 8757
Hearing held on: Tuesday, June 10, 2025
Place of Hearing: St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton
Pursuant to: Sections 672.47(1) & 672.48(1) Of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. R. Bigelow
Members: Ms. L. Maunder Dr. P. Darby Dr. G. Stones Mr. A. Mete
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Crystal Hockin Counsel: Ms. A. MacDonald
The Person in Charge of Hospital: Counsel: Ms. L. Barney
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. B. Adsett
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION (Dated July 23, 2025)
Introduction
On March 28, 2025, Crystal Hockin was found unfit to stand trial on charges of theft under, break and enter, possession of break-in instruments, fail to attend court (x3), and mischief interfere with property all contrary to the Criminal Code. The court did not make a disposition and referred the matter to the Ontario Review Board (the Board) to do so.
On Tuesday, June 10, 2025, the Board convened an initial a hearing art St, Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton (the Hospital) to make a disposition pursuant to sections 672.47(1) and 672.48(1) of the Criminal Code. Ms. Hockin was present and represented by counsel, Ms. MacDonald. The issues to be determined at the hearing were whether Ms. Hockin continued to be unfit to stand trial and, if so, what was the necessary and appropriate disposition that was also the least onerous and least restrictive taking into account the factors set out in 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
Initial Positions of the Parties
At the commencement of the hearing the parties were requested to provide their initial without prejudice positions with respect to the issues before the Board. Counsel for the Hospital indicated that it was the Hospital’s position that Ms. Hockin continued to be unfit to stand trial and that the necessary and appropriate disposition was a detention order with the terms set out at page 15 of the Hospital Report.
Counsel for the Attorney General and Counsel for Ms. Hockin supported the Hospital recommendation both with respect to fitness and the appropriate disposition.
Evidence at the hearing
- The evidence at the hearing consisted of the record before the court at the time of the fitness hearing, the Hospital Report dated May 26, 2025, and the oral evidence of Dr. O. Lee a sixth-year forensic psychiatry resident working under the supervision of Dr. Wu, Ms. Hockin’s treating psychiatrist, who was also present at the hearing.
Findings:
- For the Reasons that follow, the Board finds that Ms. Hockin is unfit to stand trial, and that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a detention order on the terms as set out in the Hospital Report at page 15.
Index Offences:
- The allegations surrounding the charges of theft under, break and enter and possession of break-in instruments as summarized in the Crown brief synopsis dated July 14, 2024 are as follows:
On Saturday July 13, 2024 at 12:42am, Brantford Police Service received a call to attend 384 St. Paul Avenue at Amber Lea Place Retirement Home in the City of Brantford for a report of an insecure premise. Staff at Amber Lea Place contacted Brantford Police Service after observing an unknown female inside the building. Brantford Police Service attended and located the female outside of the building. The accused in this matter was Crystal HOCKIN.
Further investigation through video surveillance showed the accused on Saturday July 13, 2024 at 12:29am, use a tool to defeat the lock at the rear door to gain entry to the building. The accused did, without lawful excuse, have in her possession an instrument suitable for the purpose of breaking into any place, motor vehicle, vault, or safe knowing that the instrument has been used or was intended to be used for that purpose (Charge 1).
At 12:29am, the accused entered the building after defeating the lock and entered resident room 120 for approximately three minutes, while the resident was sleeping. The accused then proceeded to resident room 108, while the resident was sleeping, where she briefly looked inside the room and continued down the hallway. The accused did break and enter a place and committed an indictable offence therein (Charge 2).
At 12:34am, the accused attended the side door of the building where she stole a Covid-19 test from a desk by the door, and then exited the building. The accused did steal a Covid-19 test, the property of Amber Lea Place, of a value not exceeding $5,000 contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (Charge 3).
- The allegations surrounding the charge of mischief interfere with property as summarized in the Crown brief synopsis dated September 30, 2024 are as follows:
On Monday, September 30, 2024 at 1:52 PM the accused in this matter, Crystal Hockin, did attend the McDonald’s restaurant, located at 27 Stanley Street, Brantford, ON., and did attend the dining area of the establishment.
The accused, HOCKIN, did then pull down her shorts, exposing herself. The accused, HOCKIN, proceeded to squat in place, where she defecated and urinated on the floor of the dining room of the establishment.
As a result, the accused, HOCKIN, was arrested and charged with Mischief - Interfere with Lawful Use, Enjoyment or Operation of Property contrary to s.430(1)(C) CC.
- In addition, Ms. Hockin is alleged to have failed to attend court as required on three separate occasions.
Background Information Regarding the Accused:
Ms. Hockin is currently 38 years of age and was raised by her mother in Brantford. Her father was not involved in her life. She graduated from grade 12 but attended the Grand Erie Learning Alternatives (GELA) program in order to do so which may have been indicative of early onset of the symptoms of mental illness.
Ms. Hockin is a recipient of ODSP benefits and is known in the community to be chronically homeless. Police have brought her into hospital emergency rooms on numerous occasions expressing concerns about the possibility of her being trafficked, being pregnant and regarding a possible intellectual delay. She has consistently declined any referrals for housing or shelter beds and stated her preference for living on the street.
Substance Use History
- Ms. Hockin denies any use of alcohol or other intoxicating substances, which was confirmed by her sister in 2016, and health records contain no references to substance use.
Legal History:
- Ms. Hockin has two entries on her criminal record prior to the Index Offences for the offences of theft under in 2017 and 2018. On both occasions she was placed on 12 months probation.
Psychiatric History
- The hospital report summarizes Ms. Hockin’s psychiatric history as follows:
Ms. Hockin has had two admissions to hospital, with the first one occurring in 2016, when she was diagnosed with Paranoid Schizophrenia.
Ms. Hockin attended the emergency department at the Brantford General Hospital approximately 300 times between 2022 and 2024. On at least two occasions, she was brought in by police after being located in the entrance of an apartment building where the tenants wanted her removed. When attending the emergency room independently, Ms. Hockin reported minor injuries or pain. According to health records, she was often provided with food, fluids and she was subsequently discharged, left of her own volition, or left against medical advice. On a few occasions, Ms. Hockin refused to leave the emergency room and was disruptive, requiring security to remove her. Once, Ms. Hockin became agitated when the doctor suggested an x-ray, which necessitated a code white. Health records suggested that her housing instability was the actual underlying cause for her attendance to the emergency room.
Ms. Hockin consistently declined all attempts by the Brantford General Hospital to connect her with outpatient mental health care.
In-patient Care
Location: Brantford General Hospital, Brantford, ON
Admission: April 4, 2016 – April 9, 2016
Treating Physician: Dr. Emilia Olejarova
Course in Hospital: Ms. Hockin presented to the emergency department with her sister, complaining of suicidal ideation. She reported attempting to hang herself in the basement to her sister, but denied it to healthcare staff. While being triaged, psychotic symptoms were observed including delusional thought content. An interview revealed possible tactile hallucinations and Ms. Hockin denied auditory or visual hallucinations. Significant depression, mania or hypomania was not observed. She worked part-time and lived in a house with several roommates, whom she stated were trying to murder her through an invisible machine in the house, which caused harm through her skin. Ms. Hockin denied any abuse of alcohol or substances, which her sister confirmed. She displayed adequate grooming and hygiene but was uncooperative with the interview, stating that her symptoms were not psychotic, but very real. At the time that the Form 1 was set to expire, there was no imminent risk present and she was not certifiable under the Mental Health Act. Ms. Hockin was offered a voluntary admission as an alternative, which she declined.
Discharge Diagnosis: Schizophrenia, paranoid type, untreated
Discharge Plan: Ms. Hockin left hospital against medical advice when her Form 1 expired.
Medication at Discharge: Ms. Hockin declined any medication
Location: Brantford General Hospital, Brantford, ON
Admission: July 23, 2022 – August 3, 2022
Treating Physician: Dr. Nida Khawaja
Course in Hospital: Ms. Hockin was transported to hospital by the police after emergency services received multiple phone calls over a 48-hour period regarding her bizarre behaviour. The last call indicated that Ms. Hockin was walking into traffic, where she was found and apprehended under the Mental Health Act. Upon arrival to hospital, Ms. Hockin was placed on a Form 1 and then a Form 3 for lack of competence to care for herself. Upon admission she was guarded and provided limited information. She was observed to be responding to internal stimuli. When she was alone, Ms. Hockin yelled and screamed to herself. Ms. Hockin’s grooming and hygiene were noted to be poor. She also defecated and urinated on the floor and dressed inappropriately around staff, despite redirection.
Ms. Hockin was started on antipsychotic medication. She was described as alert and oriented to her surroundings, and justified her socially inappropriate behaviour. At the time of her discharge, Ms. Hockin was not certifiable under the Mental Health Act and engaged in safety planning. She requested to be discharged. Ms. Hockin declined a referral to a shelter or for outpatient psychiatric care. Ms. Hockin continued to defecate and urinate on the floor of her room, and cleaned it up independently, explaining that she was uncomfortable using toilets. She indicated that she preferred living on the streets and would never attend a shelter. At the time of discharge, she was described as pleasant, cooperative, alert, orientated and had a bright affect and a linear thought process. She denied any homicidal or suicidal thoughts and was stable for discharge.
Discharge Diagnosis: Unspecified Psychotic Disorder
Discharge Plan: Ms. Hockin declined all shelter supports and indicated that she was living with a friend in their house. It was recommended that she follow up with her family doctor within two weeks of discharge.
Medication at Discharge: Olanzapine 5mg PO TID
Outpatient Care
Ms. Hockin has consistently declined any outpatient mental health care to address her mental illness. She does not currently have a family physician.
Current Diagnosis
- Ms. Hockin’s current diagnosis is schizophrenia.
Evidence of Dr. Lee
Dr. Lee indicated that she had been involved in Ms. Hockin’s care under the supervision of Dr. Wu since her initial fitness assessment in January 2025 and had read and adopted the contents of the Hospital Report.
Dr. Lee stated that Ms. Hockin`s clinical course was largely unchanged from that summarized in the Hospital Report. She sometimes leaves her room, usually alone, but doesn’t engage socially with co-patients. She also becomes agitated without any clear provocation when she is heard to be screaming in her room although the length and frequency of those incidents has decreased. Her thoughts continue to be quite disorganized and her answers to questions are quite vague and it is difficult to determine whether she understands the questions being asked.
Dr. Lee stated Ms. Hockin was found incapable to make decisions with respect to treatment on May 20, 2025, and the Public Guardian and trustee was named as her substitute decision-maker on June 2nd after numerous attempts to contact her sister were unsuccessful. On June 5, 2025, treatment with clozapine was commenced and she is tolerating it well and sleeping much better. The Hospital intends to slowly increase her dosage to a therapeutic range.
Dr. Lee advised that Ms. Hockin had last been assessed with respect to fitness by herself and Dr. Wu in the afternoon of the day prior to the hearing. Dr. Lee noted that Ms. Hockin was unable to name her charges or to explain the circumstances surrounding the charges. Ms. Hockin was able to indicate the plea options were innocent and guilty but when asked the meaning of innocent she stated, “I know I didn’t do the misbehaviour” and when asked the meaning of guilty she at first stated she “wasn’t sure” and then stated, “it means I’m not too sure what I’m talking about”. When asked what would happen if she was found innocent Ms. Hockin stated that she would return to jail. When asked what would happen if she was found guilty Ms. Hockin indicated that she had already been found guilty and that the consequence of a guilty finding would be that she would go home. Although Ms. Hockin was able to indicate that she knew that Ms. MacDonald was her lawyer, she was unable to provide consistent and coherent explanations of the role of either her lawyer or the Crown Attorney. She was however able to indicate that the judge was the final decision-maker.
Dr. Lee indicated that it was both her opinion as well as that of Dr. Wu that Ms. Hockin would be unable to meaningfully instruct counsel due to the level of her thought disorganization, the vagueness of her thought content and the superficiality of many of her answers suggesting a lack of actual understanding. Both doctors were also of the opinion that she would be unable to meaningfully participate in a court proceeding.
Dr. Lee also advised that the treatment team was unanimously of the view that the necessary and appropriate disposition was a detention order with the terms as set out in the Hospital report.
In response to questions from counsel for the Attorney General with respect to any evidence of substance use, Dr. Lee indicated that the medical records available to the hospital did not contain any reference to substance use and that Ms. Hockin was a very vague historian and her reports were unreliable.
In response to questions from panel members, Dr. Lee indicated that cognitive testing had not yet been done but would be and that, although the major barrier with respect to her achieving fitness was her severe thought disorder, the treatment team was also concerned about her intellectual ability to understand the basic court processes.
Analysis and Conclusion, Fitness to Stand Trial:
- Although the issue of fitness was not contested at the hearing, the Board nevertheless makes an independent finding that Ms. Hockin remains unfit to stand trial. The uncontradicted evidence of Dr. Lee is that due to Ms. Hockin`s severe thought disorder she would be unable to meaningfully communicate with counsel or meaningfully participate in court proceedings. Although there has been some improvement in the symptoms of her illness since the introduction of clozapine to her medication regime approximately one week before the hearing, she continues to experience symptoms of her illness particularly with respect to her thought processes.
Analysis and Conclusion, Necessary and Appropriate Disposition:
The Board finds that the evidence also amply supports the joint submission that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a detention order with the terms as recommended by the Hospital save and except for the term requiring abstinence from use of intoxicating substances. Ms. Hockin`s only support within the community is that of her sister which is limited. She has a lengthy history of refusing to cooperate with mental health service providers or to follow recommended treatment. Should she be discharged from hospital, it is extremely likely that she would return to living on the streets, cease medication, cease contact with mental health support and decompensate to a state similar to that at the time of the outstanding charges.
With respect to the request to impose a term prohibiting use of intoxicating substances, the Board finds that there is no evidence to support a conclusion that substance use has been a problem in Ms. Hockin`s life. What evidence there is tends to suggest that she has never had any significant issue with the use of substances. This includes dated statements from her sister that she was not a substance user, notes of the emergency departments of hospitals from over 300 visits none of which make no reference to substance use and the records from her 2 admissions to hospital for mental health related issues which also do not make any reference to substance use.
Although the Board agrees that it is likely in Ms. Hockin`s best interest to abstain from the use of intoxicating substances, there is no evidence of a significant risk of her using such substances and therefore such a restriction is unnecessary.
DATED this 23rd day of July 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Robert Bigelow
Alternate Chairperson
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board