Ontario Review Board
Re: Jonathan D. Lock
ORB File No: 7294
Hearing held on: Thursday, June 26, 2025
Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (Via Zoom Video Conference)
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. C. MacIntyre, KC Members: Dr. K. Hand Dr. G. Nexhipi Ms. C. Murray Ms. M. McKinnon
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Jonathan D. Lock Counsel: Mr. R. Sherman
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. M. Warner
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. M. Feindel
REASONS FOR DECISION
(Dated August 5, 2025)
Introduction
On January 17, 2018, Jonathan D. Lock was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of aggravated assault, assault causing bodily harm and failure to comply with probation order, all contrary to the Criminal Code.
Mr. Lock is currently subject to an Ontario Review Board Disposition of February 25, 2025, which orders him detained at the General Forensic Unit of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (“CAMH”), with privileges up to and including to live in the community of the Greater Toronto Area in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
By letter of May 13, 2025, CAMH advised the Ontario Review Board of Mr. Lock’s inpatient admission to the hospital on April 17, 2025, and where he remained at the time of the May 13, 2025, letter. Accordingly, on June 26, 2025, the Ontario Review Board convened at CAMH by way of audio-visual Zoom technology to conduct a review of Mr. Lock’s admission to hospital for a determination of whether his admission qualified as a significant restriction of his liberties, and if so, whether it was warranted and appropriate.
At the time of today’s hearing, Mr. Lock was still residing at CAMH and had not yet been returned to his community living placement where, except for other readmissions to hospital, he has lived since November 2020.
At the outset of the hearing the hospital, supported by the Crown Attorney, submitted that Mr. Lock’s restriction of liberties from April 17, 2025, to the present and continuing was necessary and reasonable, though Mr. Feindel signalled that he would raise questions about the nature of a portion of the period of restriction. Mr. Sherman indicated that Mr. Lock was challenging his readmission on April 17 as well as his continuing inpatient status.
As the hearing proceeded, Mr. Sherman received instructions from Mr. Lock to agree with the position of the hospital and Crown Attorney. Strong submissions were made by the Crown Attorney that the first month of Mr. Lock’s admission was not the least onerous or least restrictive. Mr. Feindel’s position was supported by Mr. Sherman but not endorsed by the hospital. Apart from that difference, the parties presented a joint position that Mr. Lock’s return to hospital and continuing stay was warranted and appropriate. The Review Board in its conclusion agreed with that joint submission but also found that Mr. Lock’s initial placement in a non-forensic unit from April 17 to May 13, 2025, (after which he was transferred to a less restrictive unit) did not meet the least onerous and least restrictive test.
Background
Mr. Lock is now 48 years of age. His index offences involved two unprovoked attacks on two separate victims on May 24, 2017, within a short period of time of each. Neither victim knew the accused. He used a wine bottle to strike both victims without warning.
Mr. Lock is diagnosed with Schizophrenia, Severe Stimulant Use Disorder, and Antisocial Personality Traits. He also has a historical diagnosis of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, not currently meeting diagnostic criteria. He lives in a one-bedroom apartment in Toronto supported by the Canadian Mental Health Association after being discharged there by the Ontario Review Board in November 2020.
Since his discharge to the community, he has had a number of admissions to hospital primarily due to use of substances revealed by positive drug screens.
In the past reporting year of 2024, Mr. Lock was readmitted to hospital between January and April. Following his discharge to his home on April 4, he was readmitted two weeks later on April 18. On this admission he participated in addiction and relapse prevention groups and several weeks at a day-treatment program run by the Salvation Army.
On January 13, 2025, he was enrolled in the Harbourlight residential treatment program and on March 3, 2025, he was discharged back to his community apartment.
Evidence
The evidence consisted of testimony from Dr. Nnandi Ugwunze and the contents of the hospital Restriction of Liberty Report of June 15, 2025.
Six days after his return to his community apartment, on March 9, 2025, Mr. Lock attended the CAMH emergency department complaining of vague cognitive symptoms, paranoia, increased anxiety and sleep disturbance. He acknowledged experiencing symptoms that he felt were similar to those leading up to his index offence in 2017. A mental status examination supported that he was mildly disorganized and agitated. It was considered that decompensation, possibly secondary to substance induced psychosis, might be causing this, although Mr. Lock denied using substances. After an overnight stay at the emergency department, he was discharged back home the following day.
The Restriction of Liberty Report outlines the reasons for his restriction at pages 3 and 4:
“Mr. Lock had a scheduled virtual appointment with his psychiatrist on April 16, 2025. He initially stated that he was doing okay. When asked about his recent positive UDS, he said he did not know how this came about. He was questioned further if he had used and he said that he was advised that his UDS is positive so maybe it was. Mr. Lock tried to minimize his recent relapse.
Upon further questioning, he stated that he bought sweets as a treat for his brother. He then said that he felt that he was conned and decided to smoke this. When asked why he would smoke sweets, he became angry and shouting saying, "You're always giving me a hard time". I asked if he had experienced any cravings prior to using and he continued to shout and said that he was calling the police because I was always bothering him. He was informed that relapsing into substances increased his risk of harm to the public which he dismissed. He said that he was not a risk to the public and that I don't decide this. He started screaming and was saying that he was calling his lawyer and had them on retainer. I informed Mr Lock that he left residential drug rehab not too long ago and was already relapsing. I advised that if he was not able or willing to explain what led to this relapse then he would have to come into hospital to get assessed. Mr Lock said that everyone deserves a second chance and that he would like to stay in the community. I informed him that we are here to help but unable to if we don't understand circumstances that led to this recent relapse.
Mr Lock became even more irate and was screaming at the top of his voice at which point I ended the call.
I contacted his TCM Johnna Loftus to enquire as to how their last contact went and advised of this review. Mr Lock's reaction to my questions about recent drug use was extremely disproportionate and gave me serious concerns.
I directed that Mr Lock be recalled to hospital for an assessment and possible readmission due to relapse into substance misuse.”
It was noted that a few days prior to this, on April 11, 2025, Mr. Lock had a positive urine drug screen for methamphetamines.
Further to Dr. Ugwunze’s request, Mr. Lock was returned to hospital and assessed by Dr. Chee. Mr. Lock then asserted that the positive UDS (Urine Drug Screen) reported on April 11, 2025, was false and he denied stimulant or drug use. He endorsed some paranoid ideation about Dr. Ugwunze. He told Dr. Chee that he finds him (Dr.Ugwunze) “aggressive” and that his “life is in danger” when he talks to him based on his “tone of voice”. Dr. Chee observed that Mr. Lock was likely intoxicated. He was kept in the emergency department overnight and assessed by Dr. Torfasen the following day. He initially denied that he had been using substances but eventually reported that he may have used white substances; he then disengaged from the assessment. Mr. Lock was then admitted to CCC3 unit (Crisis Critical Care) based on concerns of substance use relapse, a decompensating mental state and risk of serious harm to members of the public.
The CCC3 unit is a non-forensic high secure complex care unit. Dr. Ugwunze would have preferred that Mr. Lock be admitted to a general forensic unit, however a bed shortage gave him no choice and Mr. Lock remained on the CCC3 unit from April 16 to May 13, 2025. During this one-month period, no passes were available to him and, apart from having no access to substances, Mr. Lock received no treatment or program to address his issues. During that time, however, Dr. Ugwunze monitored Mr. Lock. Eventually he was transferred to the PRT5 unit (Psychosis Recovery and Treatment) on May 13, 2025, where passes which would allow him to participate or attend groups at the Forensic Outpatient Service can be provided.
A PACCS (a psychiatry addiction consultation service) consultation took place on May 16, 2025, recommending among other things, engagement in relapse prevention groups. Mr. Lock was granted a level 1 pass enabling him to attend a substance relapse prevention group at the Forensic Outpatient Service. He began using this pass on June 12, 2025, without difficulty.
Dr. Ugwunze states that as with Mr. Lock’s prior experiences when admitted to hospital, he has been no management issue on this admission. The PACCS recommendation also included psychological consultation. In the past, Mr. Lock has had some success with one-to-one counselling and he is willing to do this again, however that service is not available currently and Dr. Ugwunze does not know when this can take place.
Dr. Ugwunze and the hospital team will try to enroll Mr. Lock in an outpatient substance use program much like the Harbourlight program in which he participated in the earlier months of this year. To do this, Mr. Lock will require a level 3 pass. At the present time he only has a level 1 pass. Dr. Ugwunze indicates it is difficult to know the timeline to achieve a new pass level. Once Mr. Lock becomes involved in his initial substance relapse program, the team will measure his degree of engagement in this in deciding if he is ready for this next step.
Mr. Lock is in the early stages of addiction treatment as an inpatient. He has told Dr. Ugwunze recently that he had not really been engaged in the relapse prevention work and he disliked virtual meetings and that he suffers from boredom.
In responding to Mr. Feindel’s concerns about Mr. Lock’s admission to the CCC3 unit, Dr. Ugwunze agreed that this was more restrictive than it would have been had he been admitted to a general forensic unit. Dr. Ugwunze had been trying to get Mr. Lock transferred out of CCC3 all the time he was there, but he has no control over this administrative issue. The PRT5 is still a non-forensic unit but it does allow for various levels of passes to be available. Dr. Ugwunze is not sure when Mr. Lock could move to a forensic unit, though this might take place before the end of the July.
Although the Hospital Report does not refer to this, Dr. Ugwunze testified that Mr. Lock was discharged from the Harbourlight’s residential treatment program earlier than expected, and in Dr. Ugwunze’s opinion, earlier than was ideal. Dr. Ugwunze is of the view that Mr. Lock would have benefitted more from a full residential stay. Nonetheless, the Harbourlight program will be considered again as a residential treatment venue.
Decision
Mr. Lock’s readmission to hospital on April 16 was necessary to address Dr. Ugwunze and the hospital team’s concerns about a deterioration in Mr. Lock’s mental state. In the past he has exhibited a rapidly deteriorating mental state when using substances. When crystal methamphetamine is used, he loses his judgment and his behaviour escalates. On this occasion he was aggressive and screaming and shouting at Dr. Ugwunze who perceived the degree of this anger to be threatening.
The Review Board concludes that overall Mr. Lock’s admission to hospital from April 16 to the present time was and is warranted and necessary to address clear signs to his treatment team that he was experiencing signs of a decompensation of his mental state, likely due to use of substances.
At the time Mr. Lock was admitted, the hospital was not sure what led to his relapse. At first Mr. Lock had denied the use of substances, but he finally admitted using when he was confronted by a positive urine drug screen for methamphetamines. To this day, Dr. Ugwunze has had no real answer or a sensible account from Mr. Lock as to why he decided to smoke sweets.
In support of Mr. Lock’s ongoing detention, he is still in the early stages of addictions treatment as an inpatient. He is only on a level 1 pass at this time and will not be able to access outpatient substance use programming until he achieves a level 3 pass at the discretion of his treatment team.
The Board agrees that the initial admission on April 16 was necessary and appropriate for the reasons given above, however, through no fault of Dr. Ugwunze or Mr. Lock’s medical team, a bed was not available in the hospital’s Forensic Service at the time and Mr. Lock was required to stay in a non-forensic unit for almost one month with no ability to achieve a pass which would have enabled him to commence necessary programs for substance abuse. Apart from the fact that he could not leave that unit for that entire time, he could not start treatment that would have been available on a less restrictive ward, particularly in the Forensic Service of the hospital.
It is not possible to conclude that ultimately Mr. Lock’s treatment results following this current hospital stay will be adversely affected by the one-month initial delay in accessing an appropriate treatment plan, but it is quite certain that during that one-month period in the CCC3 unit he has lost the opportunity to begin his treatment plan earlier and hence the opportunity to be discharged earlier from the hospital back to the community.
The Board finds that Mr. Lock’s admission to hospital from his home in the community was a significant restriction of his liberty, but it was reasonable and warranted and continues to be so. The Board, emphasizes however, that the first month of his inpatient stay between April 16 and May 13, 2025, was not the least restrictive or least onerous placement due entirely to lack of an available bed in a hospital unit best suited for his treatment needs.
DATED this 5th day of August, 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Mr. C. MacIntyre, KC Alternate Chairperson
__________________
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board