Ontario Review Board
Re: James S. Halliday
ORB File No: 3060
Hearing held on: Friday, June 20, 2025
Place of Hearing: Brockville Mental Health Centre
Pursuant to: Sections 672.48(1) and 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: James S. Halliday
Counsel: Mr. R. Barr
Person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. A. Alabi
Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. K. Schultz
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated August 7, 2025)
Introduction:
On November 25, 1999, the accused, James S. Halliday, was found unfit to stand trial on charges of invitation to sexual touching and indecent act, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (the “Criminal Code”). He is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (ORB) dated July 4th, 2024, which detains him at the Secure Forensic Unit of the Brockville Mental Health Centre with privileges up to and including residing in the community in supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge.
On June 20th, 2025, the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing at the Brockville Mental Health Centre (“BMHC”), hereinafter referred to as the Hospital, to review Mr. Halliday’s current disposition pursuant to s. 672.48(1) and 672.81(1). Mr. Halliday was present at his hearing and represented by his counsel, Mr. Robert Barr. Dr. Alabi represented the Hospital and Mr. Schultz appeared as counsel for the Attorney-General of Ontario.
The issues for this hearing are whether Mr. Halliday remains unfit to stand trial and, if so, to determine the disposition that is necessary and appropriate in the circumstances.
For the reasons set out below, the panel is unanimous in finding that Mr. Halliday remains unfit to stand trial and that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a continuation of the current detention order without amendment.
Alleged Index Offences
- The circumstances of the alleged index offences are described in the hospital report as follows:
“According to the Crown Brief synopsis on August 3rd, 1999, at 1520 hours the O.P.P. Prescott received a call from a C.l., stating that his son was just approached by a man who asked him to touch his private parts. Mr. C.l., the 12-year-old male, son of the caller, stated that a man on a bike said to him and his friend that he would give them $20 if they touched his "dick". When stating this, the accused, James Halliday, was exposing himself by pulling his penis out of his pants. He also stated to the victims that he would buy them a beer if they touched his "dick". At this point the two boys got scared and left to call the police and tell their parents.
The O.P.P. then located Mr. James Halliday, the accused, riding his bike on Shanly Road in the Township of Edwardsburg. He met the full description of what the victims had stated and therefore was arrested for invitation to sexual touching. He was then read his rights to counsel and fully cautioned, which he indicated that he understood. He was transported to the Brockville Jail for a show cause hearing on the 4th of August 1999. Subsequent investigation revealed that there are multiple victims of the accused and there are attempts being made to contact them for further investigation."
Background History
Mr. Halliday’s personal history is set out in detail in the hospital report dated May 15th, 2025, which was filed as an Exhibit at the hearing. For that reason, there will be no detailed reference to its contents. Briefly summarized, he was born in 1964, and his developmental delay became apparent early on. He suffered from mental and motor delay and attended a special school. On assessment as a child, he appeared to be emotionally unstable, insecure, and an oral dependent child. Psychological testing could not be completed due to his lack of vocalization. It was noted that both his older brother and older sister suffered from the same developmental issues.
Mr. Halliday completed three years of schooling in a special school. Later on, he worked in sheltered workshops and did fairly well under supervision until he stopped working. His self-care has always been problematic. He resided in a number of different group homes but always left the home and returned to live with his parents. Prior to the date of the alleged index offences, Mr. Halliday had numerous admissions to hospital for assessment and treatment. Throughout his stay in group homes and hospital, it was noted that Mr. Halliday was primitive in his understanding of relationships and was quite inappropriate towards female co-patients and staff members. His unsophisticated attitude towards sex has led him to expose himself to young children in the community as alleged in the index offence. Mr. Halliday resided in the hospital from 1999 until January 10th, 2023, when he was discharged to supportive housing in Brockville.
Position of the Parties
- At the outset of the hearing, Dr. Alabi stated that in the opinion of the treatment team, Mr. Halliday remains unfit to stand trial, and that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a continuation of the current detention order without amendment. Mr. Schultz supported the recommendation of the hospital. On behalf of Mr. Halliday, Mr. Barr conceded that his client remains unfit to stand trial and indicated that he wished to explore the possibility of a conditional discharge disposition.
Evidence at the Hearing
The evidence on behalf of the hospital was presented by Dr. Alabi. He is the co-author of the hospital report which was filed as an exhibit at the hearing. Dr. Alabi stated that he took over Mr. Halliday’s care in January of 2025. Dr. Alabi stated that by way of update a significant incident took place at the group home on June 2, 2025. On that date, a female staff member was working alone at the home. Mr. Halliday grabbed the staff member by the hair. Dr. Alabi stated that Mr. Halliday was very remorseful after doing this and there was no additional aggressive behaviour. Dr. Alabi said it was his impression that Mr. Halliday understood the warning he received about his conduct. The team does not know what triggered the incident. It could have been caused by Mr. Halliday’s intellectual deficit, or it was just an opportunistic event. Dr. Alabi had no additional evidence and relied upon the contents of the hospital report in support of the recommendation.
Mr. Schultz asked about the future plans for Mr. Halliday. Dr. Alabi agreed that the current residence is a transitional home and that ultimately, the team will attempt to secure Mr. Halliday a permanent residence. No timeline has been established for this move. Dr. Alabi confirmed that the current residence is a 24-hour a day 7 day a week supervised accommodation. He stated that Mr. Halliday would be incapable of residing anywhere but a 24/7 supervised residence. Dr. Alabi stated that he had assessed Mr. Halliday’s fitness and found him to be unfit to stand trial, that it was likely that this was a permanent state and not expected to change. Dr. Alabi stated that given Mr. Halliday’s intellectual disability, he did not expect there to be much change in the well documented history of inappropriate behaviour and acting out. He said that all of the incidents involving females which are set out in the hospital report are adults. Dr. Alabi said that Mr. Halliday suffers from an inability to understand boundaries.
When asked about the possibility of a Conditional Discharge, Dr. Alabi stated that the treatment team need the safeguard of the detention order in order to be able to return Mr. Halliday to the hospital quickly. In the event that Mr. Halliday stops taking his medication he would decompensate very quickly. Mr. Halliday does not like the hospital and wants to leave as soon as he arrives. He would likely not agree to return voluntarily under the provisions of the Mental Health Act. Dr. Alabi did agree that if the disposition was a conditional discharge, then the current residence could be named as his address. Finally, in response to questions from Mr. Schultz, Dr. Alabi stated that Mr. Halliday is a new patient for him, and he is gradually getting to know him better.
In response to questions from Mr. Barr, Dr. Alabi agreed that Mr. Halliday had been under the jurisdiction of the ORB for more than 25 years. He has spent the last two and a half years residing at his current supportive residence. Dr. Alabi characterized the June 2nd events as a serious incident for the victim female staff member. When asked if an individual’s risk level decreases with age, Dr. Alabi stated “that depends”. Dr. Alabi agreed that Mr. Halliday is not in the best of health. He also agreed that if the disposition was a Conditional Discharge, Mr. Halliday would have to remain in the same residence for the next reporting year. Dr. Alabi did not know of any events that had occurred in the past two and a half years which had required Mr. Halliday to be returned to the hospital.
In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Alabi agreed that in the previous reporting year, Mr. Halliday had grabbed a female by the arm while out in the community. With respect to the June 2nd incident, Dr. Alabi characterized it as a boundary violation. He said that Mr. Halliday had asked the female for a hug earlier but had been refused. The hair pulling occurred later that same day. Dr. Alabi wondered if it was a reaction to the rejection by the staff member. Dr. Alabi said that it was not a new staff member but someone familiar with Mr. Halliday. Dr. Alabi stated that the team is exploring other options for a permanent residence in the community, but this is in the very early stages.
Neither Mr. Schultz nor Mr. Barr called evidence at the hearing.
Submissions of the Parties
At the conclusion of the evidence, Dr. Alabi reiterated the submission made at the outset that the necessary and appropriate disposition was a continuation of the current detention order without amendment. Mr. Schultz joined the hospital recommendation that Mr. Halliday remains unfit to stand trial and supported the continuation of the current disposition. Mr. Schultz submitted that the key difference between the two hospital dispositions was the ability for the treatment team to readmit Mr. Halliday to the hospital quickly. He submitted that the conditional discharge would be problematic in getting Mr. Halliday back to the hospital in the event of a decompensation in his mental status. Due to his limited intellectual capabilities and lack of insight, it is unlikely that Mr. Halliday would agree to return to the hospital voluntarily. Furthermore, as testified to by Dr. Alabi, Mr. Halliday does not like the hospital and wants to leave as soon as he gets there. Mr. Schultz stated that the Mental Health Act would not give the treatment team the flexibility it requires to protect the safety of the public.
Mr. Barr asked the panel to consider that Mr. Halliday has been under the jurisdiction of the ORB for more than 25 years. He submitted that it took the treatment team nearly ten years to find a place suitable for Mr. Halliday to reside in the community. He submitted that the evidence was that the treatment team had not had to use the Detention Order to return Mr. Halliday to the hospital at any time in the past two and a half years. He submitted that this was evidence that the detention order was not necessary and appropriate and that the disposition should be a conditional discharge with the same terms and conditions.
Analysis and Disposition
Mr. Halliday was unfit to stand trial in 1999. As set out above, he suffers from an intellectual disability which renders him completely incapable of meaningfully participating in a trial. In the opinion of Dr. Alabi and the treatment team, this condition is likely permanent. The panel has no hesitation in accepting the joint submission of the parties that Mr. Halliday is unfit to stand trial.
A review of the Hospital Report demonstrates the significant challenges that Mr. Halliday presents to not only the treatment team but to the staff at his current residence. As stated by Dr. Alabi, Mr. Halliday has significant boundary issues which have resulted in numerous incidents of inappropriate behaviour, often with a sexual theme. The most recent incident took place shortly before the annual hearing. Sometime after a female staff member refused to give Mr. Halliday a hug, he in effect, assaulted her by pulling on her ponytail. Dr. Alabi stated that this caused the staff member significant concern and described the incident as “serious.” To his credit, Mr. Halliday was apparently immediately remorseful and apologized for his action and appeared to understand the warning he was given by Dr. Alabi about the potential consequences.
The panel acknowledges Mr. Barr’s submission that Mr. Halliday has had a long history with the ORB and has spent more than 2 decades in the hospital. As submitted by Mr. Barr, the hospital has not had to utilize the authority of the detention order to return Mr. Halliday to the hospital in the time he has resided in the community. The panel accepts the evidence of Dr. Alabi that if Mr. Halliday were to decompensate then there would be a rapid decline in mental status requiring an immediate return to hospital. Given his limited intellectual capacity and his stated , and understandable, dislike for the hospital, the provisions of the MHA would be inadequate to protect the safety of the public.
Mr. Halliday will require 24-hour a day/seven day a week supervised residential support for the rest of his life. In the opinion of Dr. Alabi, he will never be capable of living independently. The panel is unanimous in agreeing with the opinion of the Hospital as supported by counsel for the Attorney-General of Ontario that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a continuation of the current detention order without amendment.
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