Re Garfield Sutherland, 2025 CanLII 78519

Ontario Review Board

Re: Garfield Sutherland

ORB File No: 8552

Hearing held on: Tuesday July 8, 2025

Place of Hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health

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

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. R. Bigelow

Members: Dr. P. Cook Dr. J. C. Rose Mr. A. Mete Ms. C. Murray

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Garfield Sutherland Counsel: Ms. M. Addie

The Person in Charge Counsel: Ms. S. Zelaya

Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. M. Feindel

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION (Dated August 7, 2025)

Introduction

1. On May 2, 2024, Garfield Sutherland was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCR) on charges of weapons dangerous, mischief under $5000, indecent act, and assault peace officer all contrary to the Criminal Code. Mr. Sutherland is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the Board) dated August 28, 2024, ordering his detention at the Secure Forensic Unit of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH or the Hospital) with privileges up to and including entering the community indirectly supervised.

2. On Tuesday, July 8, 2025, the Board convened a hearing pursuant to section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Sutherland was present at the hearing and represented by counsel, Ms. Addie. The issues to be determined at the hearing were whether Mr. Sutherland continued to constitute a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and, if so, to determine 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

3. 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 continued represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition was a continuation of the current detention order with two changes:

• Varying the order to require his detention at the Forensic Service of CAMH rather than the current term directing detention at a secure forensic unit of CAMH with discretion granted to the Hospital to move to a general unit should improvements in his clinical condition justify it;

• The addition of the privilege of residence in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge and a minimum reporting requirement of once per week.

4. Counsel for the Attorney General and counsel for Mr. Sutherland joined the Hospital in that recommendation.

Evidence at the hearing

5. The evidence at the hearing consisted of the Hospital Report and the oral evidence of Dr. Kravtsenyuk, Mr. Sutherland’s treating physician.

Findings:

6. For the Reasons that follow, the Board finds that Mr. Sutherland continues represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a continuation of the current detention order with the changes jointly recommended by the parties.

Index Offences:

7. The allegations surrounding the index charges as summarized in last year’s reasons for disposition are as follows :

Indecent Act

SYNOPSIS: On Monday September 11th , 2023, the accused attended the Humber College Employment Services Center located at 1700 Wilson Avenue in the City of Toronto. The accused sat down at a nearby computer and logged in using his credentials. The witness who was working went to check up on the accused. The witness observed the accused sitting down by the computer in the open area of the center. The witness observed the accused with his pants down and his erect penis was exposed. The witness observed the accused masturbating. The accused proceeded to pull up his pants and exit the premise. (CHARGE #1) Police were called and conducted an investigation. The accused was located within the mall attached to the center and was identified. During the investigation it came to light that the accused was bound by a probation order. This is not considered keeping the peace and being of good behavior (CHARGE # 2). The accused was placed under arrest and read his rights to counsel and cautioned. The accused was subsequently transported to 23 Division and held pending a show cause hearing.

Weapons Dangerous, Mischief Under

SYNOPSIS: On Sunday, October 8th, 2023, the accused entered into the Burger King restaurant located at 243 Yonge Street, in the City of Toronto. Once inside, the accused approached an unidentified female, took her pair of glasses, threw them to the ground, and stepped on them, causing the glasses to break. The female left the restaurant before police arrived on scene. The accused then turned his attention to a male that had just entered the Burger King. The accused asked the male, "where do you think you're going", before picking up a chair and holding it above his head aimed toward the male, prompting 911 calls from concerned witnesses (CHARGE #1). The accused then chased the male out of the store, and the unidentified male left prior to police arrival. The accused remained in the restaurant and stood in front of the main entrance, blocking customers from entering or exiting, and in turn, interfering with the operation of the establishment (CHARGE #2). 51 Division officers arrived on scene, and located the accused, still inside the Burger King. The accused was arrested, read his rights to counsel, and transported to 51 Division pending a bail hearing.

Assault Peace Officer

DATE: Thursday October 19th 2023 at approximately 1015 hours 10 Armoury Street Toronto, Ontario Court of Justice. At the time of the offence the accused was being held in custody at the Toronto South Detention Centre. He was scheduled to appear in Mental Health Court on this date for a fitness assessment prior to a bail hearing. He is not physically disabled but refuses to walk so he was escorted through the detention centre to the Toronto Police Wagon in a wheelchair. He was placed in compartment 6 of the Toronto Police Wagon and transported to the Ontario Court of Justice at 10 Armoury Street Toronto. Upon arrival in the sally-port of the courthouse Court Officer K-- went to get a wheelchair while Court Officer A-- opened the compartment doors. The compartments have and interior and exterior door. The interior door is metal with a grate for a window. As A-- leaned in to open the interior door the accused, unprovoked and without warning, spat at him through the grate with his sputum landing in A--‘s left eye and on his left cheek. A-- immediately left the area and notified a supervisor and was relieved of this duty. Other Court Officers responded by removing the accused from the wagon, placing him on the ground and placing a spit mask over his head. The prosecutor of the court requested that the bail be added to her docket, as a result the male was arrested in the cell area, read his rights to counsel and remained on scene for his original matter and his bail.

Background Information Regarding the Accused:

8. Mr. Sutherland is a 37-year-old individual who had a tumultuous childhood. Both of his parents suffered from mental health issues. He was physically abused at the hands of his mother including an incident that resulted in him requiring stitches. He entered the foster care system at approximately the age of 10 and also was abused by various foster parents including one foster father kicking his head. It should also be noted that in 2007 Mr. Sutherland was assaulted while in custody and suffered a head injury.

9. Mr. Sutherland performed at an average level in elementary school. However, in high school, he was truant, suspended on multiple occasions for fighting and expelled from Western Tech. He ultimately left school in grade 10 after the birth of his daughter.

Substance Use History

10. Mr. Sutherland began consuming alcohol at age eleven and cannabis in grade seven. After he returned to the family home at the age of 15 from foster care, he smoked cannabis with his mother and stepfather, often up to three grams per day. Further, he has tried ecstasy and crystal methamphetamine.

11. Cannabis has been noted to exponentially exacerbate his symptoms when he is ill.

Legal History:

12. Mr. Sutherland has a lengthy criminal record commencing in 2002. His record includes convictions for 10 assaults, one conviction for robbery, one conviction for assault causing bodily harm, several convictions for uttering threats, 2 convictions for mischief under $5000, and numerous convictions for breaches of court orders. The full particulars of Mr. Sutherland’s criminal record is set out at pages 20 and 21 of the Hospital Report.

Psychiatric History

13. Mr. Sutherland has an extensive psychiatric history prior to the index offences. His first admission to hospital with respect to mental health issues was in September 2017 when he was brought to hospital by police after being found in his residence assaulting another individual. He remained in hospital for 10 days and during the course of his hospitalization he displayed sexually inappropriate, aggressive and threatening behaviours. He used a lighter to burn off his four-point restraints. He gradually improved after commencing antipsychotic medications and was discharged to the supervision of his stepfather with follow-up with his community psychiatrist. Between that admission and dates of the index offences, Mr. Sutherland was admitted to hospital for mental health related issues on seven further occasions often showing high levels of aggression requiring restraints. In February 2022 he was diagnosed with Schizophrenia, Antisocial Personality Disorder, Traumatic Brain Injury, and Cannabis Use Disorder.

Current Diagnosis

14. Mr. Sutherland’s current diagnoses are Schizophrenia, Cannabis Use Disorder (in remission in a controlled environment), and Antisocial Personality Disorder.

Evidence of Dr. Kravtsenyuk

15. Dr. Kravtsenyuk indicated that she had been Mr. Sutherland’s attending psychiatrist since his move to her unit in December 2024. She had read and adopted the contents of the Hospital report. She indicated that Mr. Sutherland had a progressive year and had been compliant with medications and agreed to an increase in his intramuscular medication, Zuclopenthixol, from 250 mg to 300 mg every two weeks. There had been no significant incidents over the reporting year. He had recently been approved for transfer to a general unit and she expected that he would be transferred as soon and as a bed became available.

16. Dr. Kravtsenyuk indicated that the rationale for requesting the addition of community living was the progressive gains he had made with respect to his mental status and level of engagement and his stability over the reporting year. In her opinion, Mr. Sutherland would now be able to successfully reintegrate into the community in a gradual fashion, should he continue on his current trajectory.

17. In response to questions from counsel for the Attorney General, Dr. Kravtsenyuk advised that she did not anticipate any changes in prescribed medications over the next year , that Mr. Sutherland currently had level 5 privileges which included indirectly supervised passes on to hospital grounds and had been active in programs throughout the year.

18. In response to questions from panel members with respect to the type of housing that Mr. Sutherland would require, Dr. Kravtsenyuk indicated that once he had been transferred to a general unit his needs with respect to housing would be assessed. In response to further questions from the panel with respect to the diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder Dr. Kravtsenyuk noted that she had not seen any evidence of antisocial acts since she took over his care but would like to see a longer period of stability and psychological testing before she would be prepared to reconsider that diagnosis.

Final Submissions of the Parties.

19. All parties maintained their initial positions at the conclusion of the hearing.

Analysis and Conclusion, significant threat:

20. Although the issue of significant threat was not contested at the hearing, the Board nevertheless makes an independent finding that the evidence clearly supports a finding of significant threat. Mr. Sutherland suffers from a major mental illness, schizophrenia, as well as a cannabis use disorder (in remission in a controlled environment) and continues to have a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder although Dr. Kravtsenyuk indicates that diagnosis may be reviewed over the upcoming year. Mr. Sutherland has a long history of acting out aggressively both in hospital and in the community causing both physical and psychological harm to members of the public when unwell.

21. Although Mr. Sutherland has demonstrated notable clinical improvement particularly since his antipsychotic medication was increased, those improvements have been within a secure hospital unit where he has had limited access to the community and a high level of supervision. He continues to have limited insight into his treatment needs and was reluctant to engage with the treatment team including a refusal to participate in psychological testing. Given his history of serious physical aggression when unwell, long history of cannabis use resulting in an exacerbation of the symptoms of his mental illness and limited insight into his treatment needs, there is a substantial risk that absent the supervision of the Board he would fall away from treatment and return to the use of cannabis resulting in a return of the symptoms of his illness similar to those he experienced at the time of the index offences.

Analysis and Conclusion, Necessary and Appropriate Disposition:

22. The Board also finds that the evidence supports the joint submission that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a detention order on the terms as recommended by the Hospital. Given Mr. Sutherland’s long history of serious aggression when unwell, access to the community must be gradually increased and monitored to ensure medication compliance, abstinence from cannabis use and to identify any early signs of decompensation which would place the public at risk. Accordingly, the Hospital needs the authority to approve accommodation in order to ensure that the necessary monitoring is available. In addition, given Mr. Sutherland’s history of lack of cooperation with authorities when unwell there is a significant concern with the efficacy of the Mental Health Act to manage risk.

23. However, given the substantial clinical improvement the addition of a provision allowing for community living in approved accommodation is appropriate. Should the clinical improvement continue over the upcoming reporting year, it is a reasonable possibility that after a gradual increase of access to the community, Mr. Sutherland’s risk could be managed in an appropriate residence.

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

Mr. R. Bigelow

Alternate Chairperson

Office of the Registrar

Ontario Review Board