Re: Zackery Hill, 2025 CanLII 78495

Ontario Review Board

Re: Zackery Hill

ORB File No: 7861

Hearing held on: Monday, June 16, 2025

Place of Hearing: Brockville Mental Health Centre

Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. G. Beasley

Members: Dr. G. Eayrs Dr. Y. Alatishe Mr. M.D. Segal Ms. R. MacIntyre

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Zackery Hill Counsel: Ms. M. O’Doherty

Person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. J. Gray

Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. J. Masse

REASONS FOR DISPOSITON

(Dated August 7, 2025)

Introduction:

1. On March 17, 2021, the accused, Mr. Zackery Hill, was found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder on charges of possession of a weapon dangerous to public peace, possession of a weapon for committing an offence, mischief, break and enter into a dwelling with intent, theft of a motor vehicle, operational of a motor vehicle while prohibited (2 counts), possession of stolen property over $5,000, flight from police officer, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, breach of probation (6 counts), all contrary the Criminal Code of Canada.

2. Mr. Hill is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (ORB) dated July 18, 2024 detaining him at the Brockville Mental Health Centre with privileges up to and including living in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge.

3. On June 16, 2025, the ORB convened a hearing at the Brockville Mental Health Centre for the purpose of the annual review of Mr. Hill’s disposition pursuant to s. 672.81)(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Hill was present and represented by counsel, Ms. O’Doherty. Ms. Masse appeared as counsel for the Attorney-General of Ontario, and Dr. Gray represented the Hospital. The issues for this hearing are whether Mr. Hill continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and, if so, to determine the disposition that is necessary and appropriate in the circumstances.

Index Offences

4. The details of the index offences are set out in last year’s Reasons for Disposition as follows:

“On Friday August 7th, 2020, at approximately 08:49am the accused Zackery HILL 2001-07-29 boarded OC Transpo Bus 8131 (double decker) at Tunney’s Pasture station. HILL proceeded to sit at the back of the bus on the first level. He retrieved a knife from his jacket pocket and held it in his right hand. The knife had a black handle with a blade that measured approximately five inches. HILL leaned forward and made a stabbing motion with the knife toward a[sic] unaware passenger that was sitting two seats in front and to the left of HILL. HILL then proceeded to the second level and sat three seats behind an elderly male passenger. HILL appeared to be fixated on the passenger and made approximately six downward stabbing motions with the knife and then moved one seat forward. Hill then made two long horizontal slashing motions with the knife while still fixated on the passenger. HILL then leaned forward in the seat bringing him closer to the passenger and made three downward stabbing motions with the knife. HILL pulled himself further forward and made a long stabbing motion with the knife. HILL started to damage a window with the knife. He proceeded to scratch the window with the tip of the knife, slash and stab the window with the knife causing significant damage to the glass. The window had to subsequently be replaced. The elderly passenger noticed HILL damaging the window and went to report it to the driver, Nathan HEIDE. HILL descended to the first level and sat in the cooperative seating near the front door. HEIDE asked HILL what was going on up on the second level to which HILL stated "Sorry, I'll get off" and got off the bus. The entire incident was captured on the OC Transpo video surveillance system.

On August 12, 2020, at approximately 2200hrs., Zachary HILL and an unidentified male entered the residential garage of 269 Portrush Avenue, Ottawa through the open overhead garage door. HILL then searched the unlocked vehicle belonging to the resident Chris BURKE. (1 count of break and enter with intent) and furthermore, At the time of this event the accused was bound by a probation order dated May 28, 2020 and signed by Justice Perkins-McVey with conditions to (1) Keep the Peace and be of good behaviour. (1 count of breach probation)

On Thursday August 13, 2020 at approx. 0100 hrs the accused entered a vehicle parked in a vehicle at 136 Woodpark Way and drove off. He was observed by the owner who followed the vehicle and called police. The accused evaded police for approximately one hour, driving at high rates of speed exceeding 180 kms/h and driving across the city to rural west of Ottawa over 65 kms until he was apprehended. The accused entered into a probation order on May 28, 2020 signed by Justice Perkins-McVey with conditions to (1) Keep the Peace and be of good behaviour and (2) Not to be in the driver’s seat of any motor vehicle. The accused was read his rights to counsel, cautions and 524 warning, all of which he understood. The accused was subsequently charged with: Theft Motor Vehicle 333.1 91) CCC; Operation While Prohibited 320.18 CCCX 2;Possession of Property Obtained by Crime exceeding $5000 355 (a) CCC; Flight from Peace Officer 320.17 CCC; Dangerous Driving 320.13 (1) CCC and Breach Probation 733.1 (1) CCCX 2.

On Friday August 14th, Det. ARCAND was made aware of the incident. He reviewed the related video, statement from the driver and OC Transpo incident reports. An order to produced [sic] was submitted as HILL is currently in the Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre on unrelated charges. Det. ARCAND is charging HILL with the following: Possess Weapon dangerous to Public Peace, CC 88(1); Possess Weapon for committing an offence, CC 88(1); Mischief to property, CC 430(1)(a) and Three counts of Breach of Probation, CC 733. 1 (1 )] At the time of these charges and arrest, Mr. Hill was on a probation order dated September 6, 2019 to keep the peace, be of good behavior, and not possess any weapon as defined by the Criminal Code. This order was in addition to a probation order dated May 28, 2020 with conditions to keep the peace and be of good behavior."

Current Diagnosis

5. The current diagnosis is taken from the hospital as follows:

• Schizophrenia
• Amphetamine Type Substance Use Disorder, severe, in sustained remission
• Cocaine Use Disorder, severe, in sustained remission
• Cannabis Use Disorder, mild

Criminal History

6. Mr. Hill has a lengthy criminal record of both youth and adult convictions which is set out in detail in the Hospital Report and need not be repeated here. Mr. Hill’s record is made up almost entirely of property related offences and failure to obey court orders. It also includes a conviction for assault police.

Personal History

7. A hospital report dated May 20, 2025 was marked as Exhibit No. 1 at the hearing. Mr. Hill’s background is set out in detail in the hospital report and need not be repeated at length here. Briefly summarized, Mr. Hill is now 23 years of age. He was born and raised primarily in Ottawa but spent four years in Moncton, New Brunswick when his mother relocated there in 2014. His parents had separated when he was six years old. His parents’ relationship before their separation was hostile including physical and verbal aggression. He has an older maternal half-sister, Amber. Mr. Hill struggled throughout both elementary and high school due to difficulties with reading, spelling, and writing. He was expelled from high school after three months as he was frequently in custody. He has never been employed and is financially supported through the Ontario Disability Supports Program (ODSP). He has not had any romantic relationships.

Position of the Parties

8. At the outset of the hearing, Dr. Gray submitted that the hospital was in agreement with Mr. Hill’s request pursuant to Rule 13 for a transfer to the Royal Ottawa Hospital in Ottawa. Dr. Gray stated that the hospital was recommending that the disposition include all of the privileges outlined in Mr. Hill’s current disposition but that the accommodation in the community should be supervised rather than approved. Ms. Masse submitted that she would likely agree with the position of the hospital after hearing the evidence. Ms. O’Doherty stated that Mr. Hill was in agreement with the hospital’s position with respect to the transfer and the privileges to be contained in the disposition. However, Ms. O’Doherty took the position that the accommodation should remain as approved. Further, Ms. O’Doherty stated that Mr. Hill was requesting that the prohibition against substance use be amended to include only illegal substances, thus permitting him to legally obtain both alcohol and cannabis.

Evidence at the Hearing

9. The evidence at the hearing was presented by Dr. Gray. He is Mr. Hill’s treating psychiatrist and the co-author of the hospital report which was filed as an exhibit. Dr. Gray stated that when Mr. Hill was transferred to Brockville from Ottawa he was unwell and engaged in odd behaviours. Although compliant with his medication, it did not seem to be helping him. Although the treatment team suspected that Mr. Hill was suffering from an underlying psychosis, he denied any symptoms. Dr. Gray stated that it was difficult to engage Mr. Hill in treatment. Mr. Hill refused to accept the recommendation of the team that he be treated with clozapine. Dr. Gray stated that Mr. Hill is capable to consent to treatment and that his refusal with respect to clozapine was based on the possibility of side effects. As a result, other antipsychotic medications were increased.

10. In January, in response to the introduction of Zuclopenthixol, Mr. Hill’s engagement and contact with the treatment team improved. As a result, he was able to earn privileges beginning in April, 2025. On April 9th, Mr. Hill earned indirectly supervised hospital and grounds privileges. On April the 19th, 2025, Mr. Hill eloped from the hospital having withdrawn two thousand dollars in cash from his bank account. He reported that he used most of the two thousand dollars on drugs and then ultimately went to his sister’s house in Ottawa. This was a pattern that he had demonstrated in the past. His sister called police, and Mr. Hill was returned to Brockville on April 21st, 2025. Dr. Gray stated that on return, Mr. Hill’s mental status was at baseline and there did not appear to be any decompensation. He apologized to the team for his elopement.

11. After a case conference, Mr. Hill was limited to staff accompanied privileges in the community. Although these had yet to be implemented, Dr. Gray stated that after the hearing, Mr. Hill was going to be transferred to a new unit at Brockville where these privileges could be used.

12. Dr. Gray stated that he has been in contact with Dr. Gojer at the Royal Ottawa Hospital in Ottawa. Dr. Gojer has indicated that he is prepared to accept Mr. Hill back to the Ottawa Hospital in return for sending a patient from Ottawa to Brockville. Dr. Gray stated that, otherwise, the waiting list for admission to Ottawa would be almost a year in length. Dr. Gray stated that the next case conference for Mr. Hill will be in approximately six weeks where it would be possible that he would earn indirectly supervised hospital and grounds privileges. Following that, the next step would be indirectly supervised community privileges and ultimately transferred to the FITT House which is a 24 hour/7 day a week transitional residence located on the grounds of the hospital. Dr. Gray stated that if the transfer is not effected, then it might not be until June, 2026 before Mr. Hill might be expected to transition to the FITT House.

13. Dr. Gray stated that he did not agree with the suggested amendment to allow Mr. Hill to obtain both alcohol and cannabis. While acknowledging that these were legal recreational substances, Dr. Gray stated that, in his opinion, they would exacerbate Mr. Hill’s symptoms of psychosis. He did not endorse or recommend Mr. Hill use either substance. With respect to alcohol in particular, Dr. Gray stated that there was less of a link, but it was known to be a disinhibiting substance and, although less opposed to its use, Dr. Gray did not agree with the proposed amendment.

14. In response to questions from Ms. Masse, Dr. Gray stated that Mr. Hill’s insight into drugs is “not good”. He said that the benefit of the transfer to Ottawa would allow Mr. Hill to be closer to his sister who is a very strong support for him. She presently lives in the Ottawa area. Dr. Gray stated, in his opinion, there really was not much difference between Mr. Hill being at the Brockville hospital or the Ottawa Hospital. Dr. Gray suggested that since Mr. Hill eloped from Brockville to go to Ottawa, that the elopement risk is higher if he remains in Brockville.

15. Ms. O’Doherty asked Dr. Gray about Dr. Gojer’s suggestion that Mr. Hill undergo neurocognitive assessment for possibility of an application for DSO funding. Dr. Gray stated that unfortunately Brockville does not have a psychologist on staff or available to conduct the testing at this time. He endorsed it as a positive suggestion as it might allow Mr. Hill to obtain Passport funding for his treatment. Dr. Gray agreed that Mr. Hill did not display any symptoms after his elopement and drug use. He stated that there were no patients at Brockville who had approval to use cannabis in the Hospital. Dr. Gray agreed that Mr. Hill displays poor impulse control and would be considered as quite immature. He stated that Mr. Hill acknowledged the need for medications when he returned from his elopement.

16. In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Gray stated that due to the bed situation at the Royal Ottawa Hospital, if there is some kind of issue while a patient is in the community it leads to a more crisis situation. He stated that this is not the same as at the Brockville Hospital where there is “usually some place to put them”. Dr. Gray stated that with the change in medication and the improvement in Mr. Hill’s willingness to engage with the treatment team, he might be more successful in Ottawa. Dr. Gray referenced Mr. Hill’s sister’s observation of improvements in her brother’s mental status as a positive gain. Dr. Gray stated that the Ottawa Hospital does not have the same kind of 24 hour/7 day a week supervised accommodation on the grounds or similar to the FITT House. With respect to addictions programming, Dr. Gray suggested that, for Mr. Hill, individual therapy would be better as he would not function well in a large group. Dr. Gray was asked if the treatment team were considering changing Mr. Hill from oral medications to long-acting injections. Dr. Gray stated that they have not yet discussed this with Mr. Hill. Dr. Gray stated that he was unsure as to what level of privileges Mr. Hill might have if he were transferred back to Ottawa. He agreed with the observation of the panel that the most positive thing that could be said about the proposed transfer was that it would be closer to his sister.

17. Neither Ms. Masse nor Ms. O’Doherty called evidence at the hearing.

Submissions of the Parties

18. At the conclusion of the evidence, all parties reiterated the positions taken at the outset of the hearing. Dr. Gray stated he did not oppose the transfer in that it would bring Mr. Hill closer to his sister who can offer him more support. He did state that if the transfer wasordered, then any accommodation in the community should be supervised. He also reiterated his opposition to any amendment to the prohibited substances clause in the Disposition. Ms. Masse agreed with the submissions of the hospital. Ms. O’Doherty also supported the transfer. In her submission, the accommodation clause in the proposed disposition should be approved only and not supervised.

Analysis and Disposition

19. Having considered all of the evidence tendered at the hearing, and the submissions of the parties, the Board finds that Mr. Hill continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in s 672.5401 of the Criminal Code of Canada, and as further defined in Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625. That finding is based on the very serious index offences which occurred in the context of psychotic decompensation of Mr. Hill’s schizophrenia and ongoing substance use, including stimulant drugs and cannabis. The panel acknowledges that during his elopement in April, 2025, Mr. Hill made extensive use of substances without any apparent decompensation in his mental status. However, he was only absent from the hospital for two days and to that point in time had been fully compliant with anti-psychotic medication which had shown improvement in his mental status since its implementation.

20. The hospital report offers a concise summary of Mr. Hill’s risk to the safety of the community as follows:

“In the opinion of the hospital, Mr. Hill remains a significant risk to the safety of the public and should remain on a detention order with the same conditions as last year's disposition. The risk is based on his major mental disorder combined with his tendency to use recreational drugs that can exacerbate his psychotic symptoms and heighten his risk of violence, most notably stimulants. He has a long criminal record and past history of violence. After a lengthy period of clinical stability, he chose to elope from hospital and use large quantities of drugs, including stimulants, before being brought back to hospital by police.”

21. The panel is unanimous in endorsing the above summary.

22. The panel is unanimous in accepting Dr. Gray’s opinion with respect to the possible detrimental effects of the consumption of cannabis and alcohol. Mr. Hill has clearly demonstrated a lack of insight and a propensity for poor impulse control in his use of substances. The panel agrees that any change in the prohibited substances clause of the disposition is neither necessary nor appropriate at this time.

23. Mr. Hill was transferred from the Royal Ottawa Hospital to Brockville with the intention of the opportunity to better prepare him for reintegration into the community. In Dr. Gray’s opinion, Mr. Hill has shown improvement in his engagement and contact with the treatment team as a result of the introduction of a new antipsychotic medication zuclopenthixol. Mr. Hill has the benefit of significant support in the community from his sister Amber, who was in attendance at the hearing. She has been a benefit to the treatment team with her insights into her brother’s behaviour. Significantly, when Mr. Hill eloped to Ottawa, he ultimately ended his time away by going to his sister’s house. The panel is unanimous in supporting Mr. Hill’s request for a transfer to the Royal Ottawa Hospital so that he can be closer to the support of his sister.

DATED this 7th day of August, 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

Mr. G. Beasley

Alternate Chairperson

__________________

Office of the Registrar

Ontario Review Board