Re: Kyle D. Williams
ORB File No: 7421
Hearing held on: Wednesday, June 18, 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: Kyle D. Williams Counsel for Accused: Mr. C. Bracken The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Mr. P. Trenker The person on behalf of hospital: Ms. C. Condie Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. M. Mazurski
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated August 15, 2025)
Overview
On September 19, 2018, Kyle Williams was found not criminally responsible (NCR) on Criminal Code charges of assault (x2), resisting or obstructing a peace officer, and attempt to commit a dual procedure offence.
Mr. Williams is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the Board) dated July 5, 2024, which detains him at the Forensic Programs, North Bay Regional Health Centre – North Bay Site (the Hospital). Mr. Williams has the outer limit privilege to live in the community within the catchment area of North Bay, in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
On June 18, 2025, this panel of the Board convened a hearing at the Hospital for the annual review of Mr. Williams’ disposition, pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Willams was present for the hearing and represented by counsel, Mr. Bracken.
The issues for the Board to decide at the hearing were whether Mr. Williams 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 canvassed for their initial positions. Hospital counsel, Mr. Trenker, recommended no change to the current detention order disposition. Crown counsel, Ms. Mazurski, joined the Hospital. Mr. Bracken indicated it was a joint submission and significant threat to the safety of the public was conceded. During the hearing, Mr. Bracken raised an issue concerning paragraph 2 (e) of the current disposition. This term reads as follows:
Passes for up to 7 days to enter the community of Ontario, accompanied by an approved person, with indirectly supervised travel to and from the destination.
Counsel wanted the passes (up to 7 days) to be entirely indirectly supervised and not restricted to travel to and from the destination.
For the reasons which follow, the Board finds Mr. Williams is a significant threat to the safety of the public and the necessary and appropriate disposition for the coming year is a continuation of the current detention order disposition with the modification to paragraph 2 (e) as requested.
Index Offences
- The circumstances giving rise to the Index Offences are excerpted from last year’s Board Reasons, dated July 5, 2024, at paragraph 9, as follows:
On May 21, 2018, Mr. Williams approached the driver’s door of a vehicle parked in downtown London. The driver, a 60-year-old woman, who had her three-year-old granddaughter in the back seat of the car, locked her door. Before the grandmother could get the back door locked, Mr. Williams opened the back door and tried to pull the three-year-old out of the car – he was prevented because the child was strapped into a car seat. The grandmother got out of the car to intervene but as she did, Mr. Williams bit her on her hand. Mr. Williams was then chased away again.”
When, in response to the complaint, the police tracked down Mr. Williams, he resisted arrest and attempted to flee.
Background and Course Since Last Hearing
- Mr. Williams’ history and background are outlined in the Hospital Report (Exhibit 1) dated May 27, 2025. It is not necessary to detail this information in these Reasons. In last year’s Reasons this information was set out at paragraph 10:
Mr. Williams is a 32-year-old male with a relatively long history of mental illness, medication non-compliance, extensive cannabis and crystal methamphetamine abuse, and a history of significant problems following supervision.
Mr. Williams was raised by his mother – his father left when he was young and is reported to have died of an overdose when Mr. Williams was 11 years old. His mother reportedly has an “unspecified” mood disorder and Mr. Williams is largely estranged from her. Mr. Williams does have an older sister, who is highly supportive and with whom he speaks every day.
Mr. Williams graduated high school and attended college for a year. Since then, he has had jobs, on and off. He reported that he has little trouble getting work but a hard time keeping one.
Mr. Williams is reported to have started using cannabis at the age of twelve and, soon after, stimulants, that he found helpful for his ADHD. In addition to misuse of his prescribed ADHD medication, Mr. Williams used cocaine and, most persistently, crystal methamphetamine.
When he was 19 years old, Mr. Williams was diagnosed with bipolar disorder.
In the year before the index offences, Mr. Williams mental condition appears to have deteriorated significantly – he had a series of psychiatric hospital admissions, was placed on a Community Treatment Order, moved from Sudbury (and away from his mental health supports) to London and after six months living in shelters, became homeless. Drug use figured prominently in his deteriorating mental condition leading to his hospitalizations but when released from hospital, he almost immediately went back to using crystal methamphetamine and cannabis.
Mr. Williams own description of his mental state leading up to the index offences conveyed increased disorganization, ideas of reference, and grandiosity. He was using drugs and taking his prescribed medications sporadically and then not at all after he “ran out.” He also described getting into physical confrontations with others, either because he interpreted them as treating him badly or because he viewed them as needing him to intervene to help them – including one incident where a man, in response to Mr. Williams interventions, pulled a knife and Mr. Williams grabbed a “big stone” to defend himself. This event led to him being kicked out of the Salvation Army residence.
In reference to the index offence, Mr. Williams described just greeting the women in the car but when she didn’t say hello back, he wondered if “everything was alright.” He saw the young girl “grabbing a mini baseball bat” and thought she was frightened. He asked questions but didn’t get answers and he “got a feeling” that she had been abducted and needed to be rescued.
The Hospital Report and last year’s reasons for disposition detail unsuccessful attempts to transition Mr. Williams to community living that ended with substance abuse, decompensation, and readmission to hospital.
Mr. Williams is capable of consenting to treatment and has adhered to his medication regime. Bloodwork includes monthly serum level monitoring to ensure the therapeutic range for lithium. There was a period in December of last year when Mr. Williams asked about discontinuing his antipsychotic medication and only using a mood stabilizer. It was explained to Mr. Williams by Dr. Le (his treating psychiatrist) that the medication was necessary to allow him to recover from his extensive history of illicit drug use, before consideration would be given to tapering off the antipsychotic medication.
In May 2024, Mr. Williams was admitted to the Ken Brown Recovery Home in Sault Ste. Marie to participate in a 90-day residential treatment program. Mr. Williams informed the staff at the home that he had relapsed on July 1, using methamphetamines. Following the relapse, he attended the Northway Wellness Centre detox centre with the initial goal of returning to the treatment program. Despite this, in the days after his relapse, Mr. Williams struggled to take accountability for his actions and blamed staff for not prescribing him certain medication. Mr. Williams was ultimately presented with the option of returning to the North Bay hospital which he did on July 8, 2024. He has remained an in-patient at the Hospital since that time. It is significant that since July 2, 2024, Mr. Williams has maintained his sobriety.
The most recent assessment of Mr. Williams by his treating psychiatrist, Dr. Le, was done in late May of this year. The Hospital Report details this assessment at pages 67 to 68. In summary, Mr. Williams expressed a sincere desire to remain abstinent and despite knowing where he could obtain drugs and persons to obtain drugs from in the North Bay area, he has not done so despite numerous excursions into the community as part of his indirectly supervised privileges. Overall, Mr. Williams has been physically and mentally well. He has struggled at times in groups and finds that he will disengage at times. It is important that he has insight regarding this limitation and is something he is working on improving.
Evidence at the Hearing
Dr. Le gave the evidence for the Hospital at the hearing. The doctor has been Mr. Williams’ treating psychiatrist since July of last year. She authored the Hospital Report and adopted its contents in her evidence.
Dr. Le started her evidence by remarking on the tremendous progress that Mr. Williams has made this reporting year. It has been approximately one year of sobriety for him. The doctor said this is significant as Mr. Williams has a long history of struggling with use of methamphetamine and cannabis throughout his tenure under the Board (approximately 7 years). Despite stressors and lows that he has experienced throughout the year, Mr. Williams has remained abstinent. He also presents as less angry, and he is more cooperative with staff and co-patients. He is better at recognizing his anger issues and continues to work with a psychotherapist.
Dr. Le noted that in the past Mr. Williams would struggle with coping skills but overall, there has been a marked improvement, which is in keeping with his overall improved mental health due to abstinence.
Mr. Williams is scheduled for discharge to community living on August 4th. He will be residing at 501 Morris which is a group home managed by the Canadian Mental Health Association (CMHA) and is a 24-hour supervised facility.
The outreach team at the Hospital will continue to see Mr. Williams on a regular basis and Dr. Le will remain as his psychiatrist. The doctor agreed with suggestions from counsel for Mr. Williams that substance use is the main driver of instability for Mr. Williams’ mental health. The doctor noted that Mr. Williams has had indirect passes into the community that he uses regularly four hours at a time, and there have been no concerns expressed by the treatment team regarding his access to the community and exposure to substances. He is tested regularly and all results for illicit drugs have been negative.
Dr. Le said that Mr. Williams experiences ups and downs with some issues of anger, irritability and frustration, but she does not characterize this as out of the norm for the patient population at the Hospital. The doctor believes this state of mind is due to Mr. Williams believing (at times) that he is more entitled than others. The team is working on addressing the issues of empathy and understanding towards others as part of his treatment plan. The doctor noted that Mr. Williams has started to connect with a more positive peer group.
The doctor agreed that paragraph 2 (e) could be modified to permit Mr. Williams’ indirectly supervised passes up to 7 days in the community. The idea being that he would like to go camping and his mother would drive him to a provincial park where he would stay for a few days and then return with the assistance of his mother driving. The doctor said she is not comfortable with this scenario as of today, but it is something she could foresee in the coming year for Mr. Williams. He enjoys nature and travel.
The Board was grateful to receive the evidence of Mr. Williams at the hearing. He described that he has significantly improved insight regarding the negative effects of substance use on his mental health. He described his determined effort to walk away from drug addiction and that he is looking forward to living in a group home and continuing with the positive aspects of his life. He said that he has skills and assets to offer, and he intends to progress in the coming year with more social experiences, potentially a job, and furthering his interests as a creator, artist, and writer of poetry. He is determined to make his life whole, and he is going to work very hard towards these goals. The Board thanked Mr. Williams for his evidence.
No further evidence was called at the hearing. In final submissions the parties maintained their initial positions from the outset of the hearing. For clarification, Crown counsel and Hospital counsel supported the request of Mr. Williams to modify paragraph 2 (e) to extend indirectly supervised privileges.
Analysis and Conclusion
The Board finds Mr. Williams is a significant threat to the safety of the public based on consideration of s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code, and Winko, and its related authorities.
The Board notes that the parties jointly submitted that Mr. Williams remains a significant threat to the safety of the public. Despite this, the Board makes its own independent positive finding of significant threat based on the expert evidence of Dr. Le as supplemented by the contents of the Hospital Report.
As set out in the Hospital Report, Mr. Williams is at risk of disengaging from treatment and discontinuing his psychotropic medication with a relapse in substance use. He has a long history of substance abuse, and this is a pattern of relapse leading to instability in his mental health and a potential risk of harm to others in the community. To his credit, Mr. Williams has remained abstinent from substances for a year and has not tested positive for substances including cannabis, methamphetamines, and cocaine metabolites.
Mr. Williams has attempted to address substance use by participating in several treatment programs, including relapse prevention, one-on-one counselling, and residential programs. In the past year despite attendance in a 90-day treatment program, he left the program due to a relapse into methamphetamine and has been an in-patient at North Bay since July of last year.
As the Hospital Report also notes, Mr. Williams has a long history of problems with treatment compliance and supervision. The Hospital Report notes a pattern of medication non-compliance and instances of leaving the hospital against medical advice. Rule adherence is also a struggle for Mr. Williams both historically and in the past year.
The Board relies on the actuarial risk assessments as set out at page 72 of the Hospital Report. In consideration of the PCL-R: 2 and the HCR-20 version 3, it is the current opinion that Mr. Williams’:
- Risk for Future Violence is High (without all the supports in place)
- Risk for Serious Physical Harm (i.e., severity of the violence) is High
- Risk for Imminent Violence is Low (given all the supports in place)
In consideration of all these risk factors, the Board has no hesitation in making a positive finding that Mr. Williams remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.
The Board agrees with the joint submission of the parties that a continuation of the detention order disposition is necessary and appropriate for the coming year. Mr. Williams is due for discharge to community living within the next month (or so) and during this time of transition it will be necessary for the Hospital to intervene and act quicky in the event of any relapse into drug use resulting in destabilization of Mr. Williams’ mental health. If this were to occur, the Board is satisfied a detention order is necessary to act immediately to prevent harm to others in the community by Mr. Williams. The Hospital also requires the authority of a detention order to direct where Mr. Williams will reside. As noted, 501 Morris is a supervised setting and at least for Mr. Williams’ initial transition to the community, this level of supervision is required. On the evidence of Dr. Le, this necessity for close supervision could change in the coming year and the Board is satisfied the Hospital requires the authority to change the residence term if deemed appropriate. Only a detention order affords this discretion and authority to the Hospital. See Runnalls (Re) 2012 ONCA 295 at para.12.
With Mr. Williams’ imminent discharge from the Hospital to community living, we wish him all the best in the coming year. He is to be commended on his commitment to abstinence and an impressive past year in that regard.
In arriving at our disposition, the Board has considered the paramount factor of public safety, Mr. Williams’ 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