Re: Elijah Fricker
ORB File No: 6797
Hearing held on: Thursday, June 19, 2025
Place of hearing: North Bay Regional Health Centre – North Bay Site
Pursuant to: Sections 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. C. Fraser
Members: Dr. R. Kunjukrishnan Dr. G. Stones Ms. C. Murray Mr. A. Bouvier
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Elijah Fricker Counsel for Accused: Mr. A. Schieck
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Mr. P. Trenker The person on behalf of hospital: Ms. J. Doyon
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. M. Wlodarczyk
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated August 15, 2025)
Overview
On June 30, 2015, Elijah Fricker was found not criminally responsible (NCR) on Criminal Code charges of criminal harassment and failure to comply with probation.
Mr. Fricker is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the Board) dated September 10, 2024, which detains him at the Forensic Programs of the North Bay Regional Health Centre – North Bay Site (the Hospital). Mr. Fricker has the outer limit privilege pursuant to that disposition to live in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
On June 19, 2025, this panel of the Board convened a hearing at the hospital to review Mr. Fricker’s disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Fricker was present for the hearing and represented by counsel, Mr. Schieck.
The issues for the Board to decide at the hearing were first whether Mr. Fricker remains a significant threat to the safety of the public and, if so, what is the necessary and appropriate disposition for the coming year based on a consideration of the factors in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
At the outset of the hearing, the parties were asked for their positions. Hospital counsel recommended a change to a conditional discharge with terms as set out at pages 66 and 67 of the Hospital Report. The terms included a consent to treatment provision pursuant to s. 672.55(1) of the Criminal Code.
Crown counsel agreed with the Hospital position.
Counsel for Mr. Fricker also agreed with the Hospital position and indicated Mr. Fricker’s consent to the treatment term. In the result, the Board was presented with a joint recommendation by the parties.
For the reasons which follow, the Board finds Mr. Fricker is a significant threat to the safety of the public, and the necessary and appropriate disposition for the coming year is the one jointly recommended by the parties which is a conditional discharge with the terms agreed upon by the parties.
Index Offences
- The circumstances of the Index Offences are excerpted from last year’s Board Reasons dated September 10, 2024, at paragraph 12 as follows:
The accused and the (55 year old female) victim do not know each other and have had no contact prior to the incident.
The accused was placed on a Probation Order for a term of twelve months on the 12th of May 2015 before Justice G. Rodgers with a condition to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for the offense of False Alarm – Fire.
At 8:30 a.m. on the 18th of May 2015, the accused was at the bus stop on Algonquin Avenue, just north of Jane Street, eating out of a garbage bin. As the victim walked by, the accused began speaking with the victim in a very erratic manner. The accused followed the victim, saying inappropriate comments (offered to sleep with the victim, said he loved her and hated her, talked about things he's seen during his service with the military) and harassing the victim.
The victim felt anxious, concerned and fearful. The accused continued to follow the victim for approximately five to seven minutes. All the while, the victim was attempting to change her pace and lose the accused. The victim repeatedly asked the accused to leave her alone.
The victim had reached the intersection of Copeland Street and Harvey Street where a male in a vehicle stopped, and seeing that she was having a difficult time with the accused, offered her a ride. The victim was so fearful of the accused that she got into a stranger's motor vehicle. The male brought her to his house on McIntyre Street where police were called. The accused followed the vehicle to the 500 block of McIntyre Street West where he waited on the curb until police arrived.
The accused was arrested for Criminal Harassment and Breach of Probation. He was provided with his Rights to Counsel and Cautioned and declined to speak with legal counsel.
Background and Course Since Last Hearing
The Hospital Report dated May 21, 2025 (Exhibit 1) contains detailed information on Mr. Fricker’s personal background, psychiatric history, and course while under the jurisdiction of the Board. It is not necessary to refer to the report in detail, but some relevant information will be highlighted.
Mr. Fricker is 40 years of age and has current diagnoses of bipolar disorder, cannabis use disorder, and alcohol and stimulant use disorders (these disorders are in remission). Mr. Fricker is treatment capable for psychiatric decisions and can manage his own finances. He has been under the jurisdiction of the Board for approximately ten years.
Mr. Fricker has a history of using substances including cannabis, alcohol, methamphetamines, and cocaine. Substance use has played a prominent role in precipitating episodes of his illness.
Mr. Fricker has an extensive psychiatric history with at least nine admissions to hospital at various intervals during his adult life.
Mr. Fricker has had employment in the past at car dealerships and for some time he has been employed full-time at his father’s medical office. His father is a family physician in North Bay.
Mr. Fricker returned to reside at Maplewood House in September 2024. He was in hospital because of his own decision to titrate himself off his antipsychotic medications. Mr. Fricker agreed to restart his medications in May 2024 and reached baseline mental status over the following several weeks and then remained in hospital voluntarily, for further stabilization and treatment.
Following his transfer back to Maplewood House, Mr. Fricker made quick strides in resuming his activities as they were prior to his admission to hospital. He returned to work for his father in October of last year and has kept himself busy with employment and engagement with family and relationship with a long-time family friend.
Mr. Fricker’s attendance with programs was variable over the past reporting year. The program’s occupational therapist reported that he had not been returning phone calls despite several weeks of attempts. Mr. Fricker had commenced the Wellness Recovery Action Plan while in hospital and was almost complete, however he disengaged from this as well as from the Forensics Outreach Clinician Concurrent Disorders Program. Mr. Fricker has stated his sporadic attendance for programs and psychotherapy sessions because of his bad feelings and memories towards his exposure to the Hospital.
Mr. Fricker has not been a management concern during this reporting period and this was confirmed by staff with the outreach team, and staff at the Maplewood residence.
Evidence at the Hearing
Dr. Gagnon who is Mr. Fricker’s treating psychiatrist gave the evidence for the Hospital at the hearing. The doctor authored the Hospital Report and adopted its contents in his evidence.
Dr. Gagnon has been the treating psychiatrist for Mr. Fricker for the past approximately three years.
The doctor described the use of the provisions of the Mental Health Act during the readmission to the Hospital, which arose from Mr. Fricker’s decision to come off his antipsychotic medication. Mr. Fricker had been on a conditional discharge disposition and at last year’s hearing the Hospital recommended a detention order as they were concerned about the delay in time to have Mr. Fricker readmitted when he was clearly in a mental status deterioration phase.
The doctor described that Mr. Fricker had on his own initiative come up with a program with his pharmacist to slowly ween off all his antipsychotic medication, which was contrary to the advice given by Dr. Gagnon. It was Mr. Fricker’s belief that all his past problems and episodes of mental destabilization were drug related and did not have anything to do with a major mental illness.
The doctor noted that eventually Mr. Fricker became formable under the provisions of the Mental Health Act, however, Mr. Fricker would have been treated much earlier if he was subject to a detention order.
The doctor said that more fulsome discussions have taken place with Mr. Fricker recently wherein he has indicated a willingness to be subject to a community treatment order (under the Mental Health Act) to ensure his stabilization while in the community.
The Maplewood facility where he currently resides has staff six days a week during work hours and is supervised remotely overnight and is supported by the outreach team at the Hospital including Dr. Gagnon.
Dr. Gagnon explained that the inconsistent attendance at various programs and engagement with clinicians over the past year is not surprising given Mr. Fricker’s length of tenure under the Board and his past participation in similar programs. There is a sense that he has done this before and doesn’t feel the need to fully engage again.
Dr. Gagnon said that Mr. Fricker has good insight into his illness and does not want to be in and out of the hospital as a matter of routine.
The doctor indicated that the significant change in Mr. Fricker has revolved around family support. The family’s relationship with the treatment team is now much healthier. In the past, it was Dr. Gagnon’s concern that the family contributed to Mr. Fricker believing that he did not have a mental illness and that his past periods of destabilization were solely a result of drug use. The family now believes that Mr. Fricker has a mental illness that requires medication to attenuate its symptoms, and ongoing treatment to control.
Apparently, a friend of Mr. Fricker has recently purchased a house and there is a basement apartment which Mr. Fricker intends to move to (subject to the Hospital’s approval on the current detention order) in July. The Board heard evidence from Ms. Green who is Mr. Fricker’s concurrent disorders program clinician who advised that a staff member of Maplewood had visited the proposed residence earlier this week and said that it was suitable. For this to be approved by the Hospital, the occupational therapist and transitional case manager must attend to be satisfied it is appropriate. Ms. Green anticipated no issues in this regard, but it has yet to be formalized. The Board observed that if we agree with the joint submission of the parties for a conditional discharge disposition, the Hospital will not need to approve where Mr. Fricker lives.
No further evidence was called at the hearing.
In final submissions, the parties maintained their initial joint recommendation to the Board from the outset of the hearing.
Analysis and Conclusion
The Board finds Mr. Fricker is a significant threat to the safety of the public based on s. 672.54(01) of the Code, and Winko, and its related authorities. The Board notes that the issue of significant threat to the safety of the public was not contested by the parties. Despite this, the Board makes its own finding of significant threat based on the expert evidence of Dr. Gagnon and the contents of the Hospital Report.
Mr. Fricker suffers from a major mental illness, bipolar disorder which is complicated by a cannabis use disorder and alcohol and stimulant use disorders. To his credit, in the past reporting year the substance use disorders have been well controlled. The concerning events in the past year centred around Mr. Fricker’s ill-fated decision to stop taking his antipsychotic medication. This foundational lack of insight into his need for medication has now been fully addressed with the assistance of family members, as well as Mr. Fricker’s own appreciation of requiring medication to control the symptoms of his major mental illness.
The Board accepts that the relevant risk factors for significant threat for Mr. Fricker are a significant history of alcohol and substance use, and a history of non-compliance with treatment and psychiatric follow-up when living in the community. Mr. Fricker has had encounters with police which have been diverted under the Mental Health Act. It is noted that in the past he has responded poorly to supervision, including when he was bound by probation orders from court. The Board notes that the events of the past year highlight a fundamental need to monitor Mr. Fricker while he gains a lasting appreciation of the need for medication to control his bipolar disorder. The Board adopts the risk assessment at paragraph 65 of the Hospital Report which considered the actuarial risk tests, the PCL-R and the VRAG-R:
- Risk for Future Violence is High (without all the supports in place)
- Risk for Serious Physical Harm (i.e., severity of the violence) is Moderate
- Risk for Imminent Violence is Low (given all the supports in place)
Based on a consideration of these risk factors, the Board accepts that Mr. Fricker remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.
The Board agrees with the joint recommendation of the parties that a conditional discharge disposition is necessary and appropriate for Mr. Fricker. The Board is impressed by the significant change in Mr. Fricker’s appreciation of the need for medication to control the symptoms of his bipolar disorder. The Board is also impressed by Mr. Fricker’s full-time employment and his abstinence from substances during the past reporting year. Mr. Fricker has earned the additional liberties that he will be afforded while subject to the conditional discharge disposition.
The evidence at the hearing did not support a specified residence provision in the conditional discharge. It is anticipated that for now Mr. Fricker will continue to live at Maplewood, but more independent living is a goal supported by the treatment team and appears to be a likelihood in the coming months in an apartment at his friend’s house. The only stipulation in this regard is that Mr. Fricker reside in the North Bay area.
In arriving at our disposition, the Board has considered the paramount factor of public safety, Mr. Fricker’s community reintegration, his mental condition and his other needs, all as required by s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
A disposition will issue accordingly.
DATED this 15th day of August 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. Craig Fraser, Alternate Chairperson
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board