Re: Ranaldo Thomas, 2025 CanLII 78523

Ontario Review Board

Re: Ranaldo Thomas

ORB File No: 8706

Hearing held on: Wednesday, June 25, 2025

Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health 1001 Queen Street West, Toronto

Pursuant to: Sections 672.47(1) and 672.48(1) of the Criminal Code

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Weinstein Members: Dr. L.E. Cappe Dr. L.O. Lightfoot Ms. M. den Haan Mr. A. Mete

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Ranaldo Thomas Counsel: Ms. S. Dubb

The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Mr. K. Dow

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. S. Cressman

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated August 6, 2025)

Introduction:

1. On January 16, 2025, Mr. Ranaldo Thomas was found unfit to stand trial on charges of break and enter, criminal harassment, assault, obstruct peace officer, weapon dangerous (x2), sexual assault, assault resist arrest (x2), failure to comply with a release order (x2), robbery, utter threat and sexual assault with a weapon, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”). That finding was based on an assessment, and related report of Drs. Hartfeil and Karayilan, dated January 16, 2025.

2. The Court did not make a Disposition and ordered, pursuant to an Amended Warrant of Committal, that Mr. Thomas be delivered to the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (“CAMH”), as soon as a bed becomes available, pending an initial Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”), pursuant to s. 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code.

3. On June 25, 2025, the Board convened a hearing at CAMH to make an initial Disposition.

4. Mr. Thomas was represented by his counsel, Ms. S. Dubb. Mr. Thomas did not wish to attend the hearing. An order was made on the consent of all parties, pursuant to s. 672.5(10)(a), that Mr. Thomas be permitted to be absent from this hearing.

5. A Hospital Report, dated April 21, 2025 (the "Hospital Report"), was entered as Exhibit 1.

6. In accordance with s. 672.48(1) of the Criminal Code, the Board must decide whether Mr. Thomas is unfit to stand trial on the day of the hearing, within the meaning of s. 2 of the Criminal Code. Specifically, is Mr. Thomas unable, on account of mental disorder, to understand the nature of a trial and the possible consequences of the proceedings and to meaningfully communicate with counsel? If Mr. Thomas is found fit, he must be sent back to court. If he is found unfit, the Board must make a Disposition that is necessary and appropriate, considering the criteria set forth in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

7. For the reasons set out below, and based on the expert evidence before it, the Board concluded that Mr. Thomas is unfit to stand trial. The Board also found that the necessary and appropriate Disposition required to manage the threat posed to the public by Mr. Thomas is a Detention Order.

Current Psychiatric Diagnoses:

8. Schizoaffective Disorder

Cannabis Use Disorder

Outstanding Charges:

9. The circumstances giving rise to the Outstanding Charges are excerpted from the Synopsis for Plea, which was made part of the Record, and is set out in the Hospital Report:

“On Thursday January 12, 2023, the victims in this matter were asleep in their home at... They woke to considerable banging on their front door. The victim ran downstairs and saw an unknown male banging repeatedly on his front entry door. Concerned for his and his family's safety, he looked for something to defend himself with. When he returned to the front door, the accused had broken both panes of glass. The accused then reached his arm through the broken door window, breaking the threshold, to unlock the deadbolt in order to gain entry. Charge #1. The accused was unsuccessful in full entry due to the victim having a secondary lock system on the door. The accused then went around the side of... jumped a wooden fence to the backyard, approached the patio doors, and banged on the door several times before leaving on foot in a westbound direction towards a greenspace.

On Monday February 19, 2023, at 10:05pm, the accused attended... Toronto. Approached the front entrance door and banged on the glass with his right hand. The victims in the matter were away from their home during this time. The victim was notified by his security system, so he checked the captured video footage. The video chronology shows the accused arrive at approximately 10:05hrs. Arrived on foot from the adjacent greenspace. By-passed all the other homes and went straight to ... The male then sat down on the front step of the address before getting up and jogging away back towards the green space. The accused ought to have known the victims resided at the address. The accused beset upon the dwelling-house for unknown reasons, causing the victims to become reasonably fearful for their personal safety. Charge #2.

The following was excerpted from the Synopsis for Plea pertaining to case number 389953:

‘On March 27 2023, at approximately 1300 hours, the victim#1 boarded a TTC bus (route 38 A) at Parkington Crescent and McCowan Road headed toward the University of Toronto Scarborough Campus located at 1265 Military Trail (Military Trail and Ellesmere Road). The accused was already on the same bus. The victim#1 chose a seat closer to the back of the bus. At approximately 1306 hours, the accused became involved in a heated verbal altercation with another male on the bus. The accused then sat down beside the victim#1 and spread his legs out wide pushing the victim#1 into a plastic shield. The accused also put his arm around the victim#1's backpack. The victim#1 got up immediately and sat on another seat.

At approximately 1311 hours, the bus stopped at Military Trail and Ellesmere Road. The victim#1 exited the bus on the southwest corner of the intersection and proceeded walking toward the campus. Within

30-45 seconds the victim#1 felt her left butt cheek being squeezed by the accused (Charge#2). The victim#1 turned around and hit the accused in the nose with her phone as the accused would not let go. After being hit, the accused let go while smiling and then started walking toward the campus. The victim#1 stayed a distance away from the accused before continuing walking toward the campus.

Once on the campus, the victim#1 observed that the accused was being restrained by two campus special constables (Victim#2 and Victim#3). The victim#1 then approached the campus special constables and advised them that the accused just sexually assaulted her. The campus special constables subsequently flagged down the police officers who attended the area for an unrelated matter. Upon further investigation, it came to light that the accused brandished a knife when he entered the campus (Charge#1). While being arrested by the campus special constables, the accused kicked and punched both constables (Charge #3 and Charge#4).’

By committing the above listed offences, the accused failed to abide by the condition set out in his release order listed above. (Charge#5)

The following was excerpted from the Synopsis for Plea pertaining to case number 389127:

‘The victim and accused are strangers. Today, Monday, March 20, 2023, at approximately 1pm, the victim was walking her dog on the sidewalk along Sheldonberry Crescent. She noticed the accused walking on the sidewalk behind her. The accused crossed the street, then crossed back over. The victim continued walking and the accused came from behind, wrapping his right arm around her neck. The victim turned and pushed the accused, breaking free from him. The accused ran away from the victim.

The victim returned home and called police. The accused was located a short time later and placed under arrest for assault. The accused identified himself as: Stenson STROLETH, born January 17, 2006. The accused insisted this was his real name contrary to the fact that he appeared older. The accused was transported to 42 Division where he continued to identify himself as: Stenson STROLETH, born January 17, 2006.

Police continued to investigate the identification of the accused. During the investigation, the accused maintained the given name but advised he was staying with a friend at apartment #1414 but did not know the address of the building. Investigation into nearby buildings and apartment #1414 revealed that the accused was already know to Police and was residing at 2743 Victoria Park Avenue apartment #1414. A mugshot confirmed that the accused was in fact: Ranaldo THOMAS born October 14, 1998. The accused was found to be wanted on a warrant in the 1st for break and enter and harassment.

As a result of the investigation the accused was charged accordingly and held for a bail hearing.’

The following was excerpted from the Synopsis for Plea pertaining to case number 391755:

‘The accused approached the victim while she was walking through the schoolyard towards Fairglen Avenue, which is the route she always takes to go home. The accused approached the victim, brandished a 3 to 4 inch knife that he was holding in his left hand. The accused while holding the knife put his left arm around the victim's shoulders and told her to be quiet. The accused and victim then walked past the school fence line onto Fairglen Avenue, at which point the victim tried to pull away (this was captured on video surveillance). The accused pulled the victim towards him and put his left arm around her shoulders again. The accused then seen the victim was holding her purple Apple iPhone and demanded she give it to him. He told her to unlock the phone, and after examining the phone, he put it in his pocket. The accused and suspect began to walk southbound Fairglen Avenue, and after approximately 30 to 40 feet, they turned around, went northbound on Fairglen Avenue, and proceeded to go westbound on Altair Avenue. The accused told the victim to pretend he was his girlfriend, and then told he her was going to bring her for ice cream and chocolate milk. The accused and victim then proceeded southbound on Leafield Avenue. At one point, while they were walking the accused pulled out a second knife which the victim described as a 12 inch machete from his pocket and told the victim that he would "cut her throat and she would bleed out". The accused then took his left hand and began to caress the victim's left breast. The victim pushed the hand of the accused away, and then the accused began to ask her what her "cup size" was referring to the size of her breast. The accused and victim were on Huntingwood Drive, when the victim saw a male approaching them. The victim yelled out to the male saying "help, he has a knife". The unknown male ran away, but this caused enough of a distraction that the victim was able to get run away from the accused. The accused was last seen running eastbound on Huntingwood Drive towards Pharmacy Avenue.

The victim went home and told her parents what happened, at which point police were called.’

Personal, Substance Use, Psychiatric, and Legal, History:

10. Mr. Thomas’ personal, substance use, psychiatric, and legal, history are set out in detail in the Hospital Report. The following extracted paragraphs are relevant to this hearing:

“Mr. Thomas was the youngest in a sib line of four. His mother passed away in 2016 and his father resided in Jamaica. Between 2011 and 2013, he was placed in foster care because of concerns that he experienced physical abuse from his mother. Outside of this period, he was mostly raised by his biological mother.

Following the passing away of Mr. Thomas’s mother, his aunt and sister (Anastasia) were the main sources of support. His sister also acted as a substitute decision maker (SDM) on his behalf. The SDM role was a source of strife in their relationship such that he opted not to communicate with her.

Mr. Thomas enrolled in the mathematics program at University of Toronto and resided on campus residence. During the first year of studies, he began to struggle but completed the academic year. During the second year of studies, he began to isolate himself. He dropped out of the program in 2021.

In the past, Mr. Thomas resided in subsidized housing through Toronto Community Housing. He was also noted to have been at risk of eviction in the past “due to bizarre and threatening behaviour, with frequent police involvement.”

The following substance use history was obtained from Dr. Hartfeil’s and Dr. Karayilan’s psychiatric report dated January 16, 2025.

“Mr. Thomas’s health records indicated a history of cannabis use amounting to 7g per week. Around August 2021, he was noted to have been using intravenous methamphetamine and experienced a wound at the injection site on his left foot. There was also a history of benzodiazepine (xanax) misuse, and in 2021 his sister reported that he previously used cocaine, alcohol, and possibly heroin.

Mr. Thomas experienced depressive episodes in 2010 and 2013, was diagnosed with “oppositional defiant disorder / cognitive disorder” in 2012, and had a manic or hypomanic episode in 2014. He was admitted to CAMH in 2015, at 16 years of age, after posting a comment about “murdering a little girl” on Facebook.

On May 27, 2019, Mr. Thomas was assessed by psychiatrist Dr. Hawkins as an outpatient at Centenary. At that time, he reported tactile hallucinations and auditory hallucinations of a critical / derogatory nature, but denied any command hallucinations. He presented as grandiose, saying that he had an IQ of 192. Dr. Hawkins’ diagnostic impression was rapid-cycling bipolar disorder – most recent episode depressed with psychotic features, with a differential diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder, cannabis-induced psychotic disorder, and cannabis use disorder.

In 2021, Mr. Thomas was admitted to hospital or attended the emergency department due to mental health concerns on six occasions at various hospitals.

Mr. Thomas was found incapable with respect to treatment decisions during his longest admission to NYGH in the spring of 2021. His sister Anastasia agreed to act as his substitute decision maker. A Community Treatment Order (CTO) was issued, and he was referred to outpatient care at Centenary under Dr. Hawkins.

Mr. Thomas was found capable with respect to treatment decisions in October 2021 and his CTO expired. He attended a November 5, 2021, appointment with Dr. Hawkins and was subsequently lost to follow-up.

According to Mr. Thomas’s Criminal Record, there were no convictions.’”

Course in Hospital Following Finding of Unfit:

11. Mr. Thomas’ course in hospital is set out in detail in the Hospital Report. The following extracted paragraphs are relevant to this hearing:

“For the most part, Mr. Thomas presented as withdrawn.

In this context, he declined to change or launder his clothes, or shower. Infrequently, he attended the unit’s nursing station to request the use of a tablet.

Similarly, Mr. Thomas did not engage in assessments of his mental and physical health.

On February 24, 2025, Mr. Thomas was found incapable of consenting to treatment.

His sister, Anastasia, acted as substitute decision maker (SDM) and consented to treatment with long acting injectable paliperidone and oral olanzapine. Despite the initiation and titration of these two antipsychotics, Mr. Thomas’s symptoms persisted.

On April 17, 2025, Mr. Thomas’s sister consented to treatment with ECT which was to be initiated on April 24, 2025.”

Position of the Parties:

12. Counsel for the hospital, the Attorney General and for Mr. Thomas advised that this was a joint position. All were agreeing with the hospital’s recommendation as follows: a Detention Order within the Forensic Service at CAMH is the appropriate Disposition; and the highest level of privilege to be granted to Mr. Thomas shall be indirectly supervised privileges on hospital and grounds and accompanied privileges to the community of the Greater Toronto Area.

Evidence at the Hearing:

13. The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence from Dr. Jaiswal. Dr. Jaiswal testified as follows:

a) He has been Mr. Thomas’ treating psychiatrist since Mr. Thomas’ admission to the triage unit, on February 19, 2025.

b) He co-authored, and adopts, the contents of the Hospital Report.

c) Mr. Thomas’ original scheduled hearing date of May 5 had to be adjourned, as Mr. Thomas was admitted to St. Michael’s Hospital, for medical issues.

d) Mr. Thomas’ clozapine medication had to be discontinued when he was admitted to St. Michael’s, but it has since been restarted, and he is now at a therapeutic level.

e) As of June 11, Mr. Thomas completed 17 sessions of ECT. The treatment team has noticed minimal change to his mental stability from the treatments. They did notice that Mr. Thomas’ basic hygiene improved, and he was willing to shower twice a week. They will monitor whether Mr. Thomas maintains his basic hygiene or whether it will be necessary to restart treatment with ECT .

f) When Mr. Thomas was at St. Michael’s, the treatment team had requested that Mr. Thomas undergo a head CT, but it was never performed. Mr. Thomas is scheduled to return to hospital for a chest CT, and the treatment team has added a requisition for a head CT scan, to rule out any neurological components to Mr. Thomas’ behavioural issues.

g) He tried to assess Mr. Thomas for fitness this morning, but Mr. Thomas refused to meet with him. Mr. Thomas’ refusal to engage with the treatment team, and to respond to standard fitness test questions, have been consistent throughout his time on the Assessment and Treatment Unit. It is his opinion that Mr. Thomas remains unfit, and he would be unable to meaningfully engage with counsel and to participate in a trial. He would attribute Mr. Thomas’ limitations of engagement to a combination of severe negative symptoms of schizophrenia and paranoia. There could also be a neurological component to Mr. Thomas’ lack of fitness to stand trial.

h) Going forward, the team hopes to engage Mr. Thomas in a behavioural activation program, to help him become more forthcoming, and to communicate openly, with the treatment team.

i) The treatment team is recommending a Detention Order Disposition because of Mr. Thomas’ history of a primary psychotic illness, schizoaffective disorder, as well as a history of substance abuse. Furthermore, while the charges have not been proved in court, the allegations of violence are quite serious, and they represent a risk to public safety.

j) Mr. Thomas’ sister and niece were at the hearing, and they have been very supportive of him.

14. In response to questions from counsel for Mr. Thomas, Dr. Jaiswal testified:

a) His attention was drawn to the following paragraph from the psychiatric Report of Drs. Hartfeil and Karayilan, dated January 16, 2025, which states:

“Mr. Thomas’ apparent inability to engage and communicate with the assessing team is most likely related to paranoia about the Court and police (i.e., asserting that “they” don’t like him and that the charges are “lies”), as well as negative symptoms of psychosis and potentially an underlying depression. It is likely that these same factors will impair his ability to communicate effectively with counsel and the Court to participate meaningfully in his own defence. It is therefore our opinion that he remains unfit to stand trial, from a psychiatric perspective and on balance of probabilities.”

He agreed that it is possible that this assessment is still true today; however, while at CAMH, there were times that Mr. Thomas communicated with nursing staff, when he did not wish to engage in some activities of daily living. Accordingly, it is unlikely that it is purely paranoia that is causing Mr. Thomas to remain unfit to stand trial.

b) It is very important to obtain a head CT scan, to rule out any neurological causes for Mr. Thomas being found unfit.

15. In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Jaiswal testified:

a) It is his opinion that Mr. Thomas not only meets the requirement for lack of fitness set out in the Taylor test, but also in R v Bharwani.

b) Mr. Thomas is unable to fully participate in a trial and to communicate meaningfully with counsel.

16. No other evidence was called.

Analysis and Conclusions:

17. Having heard and considered all the evidence and submissions from the parties, this Board finds that Mr. Thomas is currently unfit to stand trial, based on the test to be applied in R v Taylor, as well as set out in R v Bharwani, 2023 ONCA 203. The uncontroverted evidence of Dr. Jaiswal is that Mr. Thomas would be unable to meaningfully participate in a trial and communicate with counsel. Mr. Thomas remains unresponsive and non-verbal.

18. In particular, the Board believes Mr. Thomas would not be meaningfully present, and he would not be able to participate appropriately, nor to instruct counsel, in criminal proceedings.

19. Having found that Mr. Thomas is unfit, the Board must make a Disposition that is necessary and appropriate, considering the criteria set forth in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code. In particular, the Board relies on the Reoffence Scenario and the Composite Assessment of Risk, set out in the Hospital Report:

“Reoffence Scenario

Absent ORB involvement, the likely reoffence scenario is one where Mr. Thomas falls away from treatment, returns to the use of substances, and/or is exposed to stressors. These factors independently or in combination are likely to lead to further decompensation in his mental state. In this context, he is likely to engage in violent behaviours towards a member of the public. Thus, the threshold for significant threat is met in his case.

In Mr. Thomas’s case, the Mental Health Act is unlikely to mitigate the risk stemming from early stages of decompensation or a return to substances. Additionally, insufficient housing is likely to act as a stressor that precipitates decompensation in his mental state. Thus, at this juncture, the necessary and appropriate disposition is a Detention Order.

Composite Assessment of Risk

Accounting for the assessment of risk based on the SAPROF and HCR20 V3, Mr. Thomas’s risk in the context of an Absolute or Conditional Discharge falls in the high range. In the context of a Detention Order, his risk falls in the low to moderate range.”

20. Mr. Thomas is diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder. He currently presents as guarded, internally preoccupied and thought disordered. He is likely still experiencing active psychotic symptoms.

21. In consideration of all the evidence, submissions of the parties and taking into consideration the criteria set forth in s. 672.54, namely the paramount consideration being the safety of the public, in addition to the mental condition of Mr. Thomas, his reintegration into society and his other needs, the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Detention Order at CAMH, upon the terms set out in our formal Disposition, and as agreed to by all of the parties.

DATED this 6^th^ day of August, 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.

Mr. J. Weinstein Alternate Chairperson

__________________

Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board