Re Gustavo Gonzalez, 2025 CanLII 81168

Re: Gustavo Gonzalez

ORB File No: 4366

Hearing held on: Monday, June 9, 2025

Place of hearing: Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care

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

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Weinstein

Members: Dr. K. Hand

Dr. G. Nexhipi

Ms. M. Chamberlain

Ms. B. Little

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Gustavo Gonzalez

Counsel: Mr. D. Northcott

The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Lefebvre

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

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated August 14, 2025)

Introduction:

1. On December 20, 2005, Gustavo Gonzalez was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder a charge of attempt murder, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada, (the “Criminal Code”).

2. Mr. Gonzalez is subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”) dated July 19, 2024, which orders that he be detained at the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care – High Secure Provincial Forensic Programs (“Waypoint”), with privileges up to hospital grounds privileges, beyond the secure perimeter, escorted by staff.

3. On Monday, June 9, 2025, the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing at Waypoint pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Gonzalez did not attend this hearing. Mr. Northcott, amicus for Mr. Gonzalez, advised the panel that Mr. Gonzalez did not want to attend the hearing. Mr. Gonzalez’s presence was therefore excused per s. 672.5 (10) (a) of the Criminal Code.

Position of the Parties

4. Ms. Lefebvre, on behalf of the hospital, recommended no change to Mr. Gonzalez’s current Disposition. This position was supported by Ms. Curry on behalf of the Attorney General.

5. Mr. Northcott was appointed as amicus to represent Mr. Gonzalez and he informed the Board that he did not have instructions Mr. Gonzalez and therefore was not able to take a position at the hearing.

Current Psychiatric Diagnoses:

• Axis I: Paraphilia – Exhibitionism, Query Pedophilia (based on clinical records and offence history)
• Query Delusional Disorder
• Axis II: Paranoid Personality Disorder with Antisocial and Narcissistic Traits
• Axis III: Depressed Skull Fracture (2005), Resolved
• Axis IV: Psychosocial Stressors – Perceived Unjustified Incarceration
• GAF = 65

Index Offences:

6. The circumstances of the index offences are taken from the most recent Reasons for Disposition, as follows:

“The victim in this case, Dr. Jun Bi Tu, is a psychiatrist operating a practice… in the city of London. The parking lot for this medical practice is at the rear of the building on the north side.

Dr. Tu treated the accused, Gustavo Gonzalez, as a psychiatric patient, circa 1989.About 10 years later, circa 1999, the accused attended at the victim’s practice and told the victim that he did not like him and he will never forgive him. About 6 months later, circa March 29, 2000, the accused wrote a letter to the victim disapproving of his work ethics and calling him a liar and crook. The London Police were called to investigate the receipt of this letter by the victim.

In the matter of today’s charge, on June 7, 2001, at about 12:30 pm, the accused was found in the parking lot of the Medica office at 500 Oxford St. East, in the city of London, by a co-worker of the victim. This co-worker, Dr. Valsa Thomas, spoke to the accused in the parking lot and then she went into the building. Dr. Thomas last saw the accused still in the parking lot sitting at the back corner of the building. Dr. Thomas did not know that this was the person with whom Dr. Tu had been having a dispute.

At about 12:45 pm, the victim drove his vehicle into the parking lot. The victim exited his vehicle and started to walk towards the front of the building. As the victim walked, the accused walked towards him. The accused stabbed the victim striking him in the lefthand and the left lower back. The victim immediately walked to the front of the medical office and went inside where he asked Dr. Thomas to call 911.

Mr. Gonzalez fled the scene. It was known that Mr. Gonzalez was not a resident of London at the time of the offence; his direction and means of travel to and from the crime scene were unknown. Other agencies and psychiatrists who had treated the patient in the past were alerted to watch for the accused and to notify the police. Mr. Gonzalez reported to Dr. Ellis that he traveled to Montreal following the offence and then returned to Bancroft where he was ultimately arrested on June 29, 2001.

The investigation by London Police revealed that Mr. Gonzalez had maintained a “list” of persons he felt had contributed to his situation by forcing his incarceration in psychiatric facilities against his will. The investigation also determined that Gustavo Gonzalez had maintained his vendetta for a period of 12 years before he carried through on his attack on Dr. Tu, with the attack taking place in Dr. Tu’s parking lot.”

Evidence at Hearing:

7. The evidence at the hearing consisted of the Hospital Report dated April 22, 2025, as well as the testimony of Dr. Hudson.

8. The Hospital Report contains the following Risk Assessment by Dr. Hudson:

“Prior to committing his index offense, Mr. Gonzalez consulted with a lawyer who, in turn, documented that Mr. Gonzalez was competent; he further documented Mr. Gonzalez’s prior capable wish not to be treated with psychiatric medications of any sort. The medications available at that time are similar to the medications available at this time, including Clozapine. In any event I note that his historical improvement on antipsychotic medications was only partial and would not significantly mitigate his level of risk, in my opinion.

Given what appears to be a well thought out plan By Mr. Gonzalez to avoid treatment with psychotropic, an ethics consultation was sought about Mr. Gonzalez long-term detention in a Forensic hospital without treatment with psychotropic despite the past partial response. The ethics consultation and analysis suggests that Mr. Gonzalez is comfortable with his current living arrangement and his refusal to engage in any therapeutic activity likely indicates his actual wish to remain in an environment where he is safe and well looked after. The Ethics analysis also speculated that he may wish to protect others, and his current status achieves that goal as well. Essentially, little has changed over the past reporting period in terms of Mr. Gonzalez’s situation, diagnosis and prognosis. His risk of harm to others remains high, in my view, given his past history of extreme opportunistic violence with extensive planning beforehand.

As noted in his last ORB report, Mr. Gonzalez consistently refuses to engage with me in any fashion. As I have noted in previous ORB reports, he refuses to attend his monthly clinical conferences; when I try to speak to him he pretends that I am not there. When I make such efforts, he focuses on something else entirely and ignores me. There is virtually no eye contact. The subject of a second opinion at Ontario Shores for Mental Health Sciences in Whitby, Ontario has been discussed by the treatment team but I do not believe there is much benefit and a higher likelihood of violence in a new environment with less security. I note that his consent is required in order to have a second opinion which he has not historically given.

As before, entreaties from other staff members to speak to him on my behalf results in an absence of any endorsement of doing anything that he perceives as treatment. He insists on an absolute discharge and an apology for his “incarceration”.

Mr. Gonzalez is now 68 years of age with a history of paranoid ideation and extreme violence towards others based upon his paranoia in the past. He has not shown any aggression towards me or staff over the last reporting period but his risk is the same given that his paranoid ideation is likely still present, just not expressed. His history of premediated and well planned violence towards a treating psychiatrist, who had not treated him in many years and had, in fact, moved to a city more than a two hour drive away speaks to his level of risk to others. Adding to the evidence of his antipathy to mental health is his choice to consult with a lawyer prior to committing the index offense to both document his capacity and express a prior capable wish not to be treated with psychotropic medication.

Based upon all of the available evidence I view Mr. Gonzalez’s current risk to others remains significant.”

9. Ms. Lefebvre called Dr. Hudson to give evidence on behalf of the hospital. The doctor agreed with the contents of the Hospital Report and adopted its contents as evidence.

10. Dr. Hudson stated that the treatment team continues to believe that Mr. Gonzalez represents a significant threat to the safety of the public. He noted that the index offence was planned over many months and involved a very complicated plot that was detached to any recent contact with the victim. Mr. Gonzalez has a clear history of planning to harm others with no warning and the Hospital would anticipate the same thing to occur in the future without the oversight of the ORB. The doctor stated that there had been no improvement in Mr. Gonzales in the past year and therefore no change in the risk that he posed to the safety of the public. Dr. Hudson opined that the kind of offense Mr. Gonzalez would likely engage in would be some sort of physical assault.

11. The doctor noted that in October 2024, Mr. Gonzalez engaged in a physical altercation with another patient that he did not get along well with. The assault resulted in modest injuries and Mr. Gonzalez was secluded as a result for a few days.

12. Dr. Hudson stated that Mr. Gonzalez might benefit from anti-psychotic medication, but that without this, the risks to the community remain high. Mr. Gonzalez does not respond to Dr. Hudson but he will respond to some staff and patients. He is capable of having some positive interactions.

13. Mr. Gonzalez feels that he does not belong at the Hospital. The doctor noted that he had just received a $90,000 retroactive payment from CCB so he would be likely to elope if he were in a less secure facility. Mr. Gonzalez would also experience more restrictions if he were to be at a less secure hospital. He has a consistent C5 security level at Waypoint which allows him to be off the ward for a few hours at a time. This would not be possible at a less secure facility.

14. Mr. Gonzalez has continued to refuse to participate in any assessments over the past reporting period. He believes that all psychiatrists are criminals and will not work with any of them.

15. Crown counsel asked the doctor if there had been any progress regarding Mr. Gonzalez’s insight into having a mental illness or his need to take medication in the past year. Dr. Hudson stated that this has remained unchanged since the time of the index offence.

16. Some days Mr. Gonzalez gets up early and goes to the canteen and sits there, some days he sleeps in and some days he goes to the gym. There is one patient on the unit that he does not get along with. Generally, they stay away from each other but they do fight from time to time and it seems to be planned as they always fight off camera.

17. Dr. Hudson noted that a lot of Mr. Gonzalez’s background is unknown. He was born in Cuba and has lived a nomadic life. He spent some time in Guelph living in a van prior to the index offence. He has bullet fragments in his body but will not explain where these came from.

18. The Board questioned if Dr. Hudson had concerns for his own safety. Dr. Hudson stated that he has not been physically threatened by Mr. Gonzalez but he is aware of him. Mr. Gonzalez will hide in dark spots and the doctor is mindful of him when he sees him in the hallway. Mr. Gonzalez feels he is being held in the Hospital criminally and that Dr. Hudson is responsible for this. If Mr. Gonzalez was at any other hospital he would have the same issue with the psychiatrist there.

19. Dr. Hudson agreed that the following paragraphs from last years reasons continue to be true:

“The Hospital Report includes a very helpful summary of previous dispositions at Appendix A. Mr. Gonzalez has been detained since coming under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board. Its narrative describing Mr. Gonzalez’s course over the course of this last reporting period begins at page 241. It indicates that he is currently unmedicated and has capacity to consent to treatment and to manage property. He continues to reside in the Hospital’s Beausoleil B program. He is generally calm and maintains a low profile. He does not participate in programming and does not attend his monthly clinical meetings at which his goals and progress would be discussed. He does not speak with his psychiatrist in any meaningful way and rejects attempts at therapeutic interactions. His deeply ingrained disdain for authority and belief system continue to impede his progress. He manifests anger and agitation when engaged in discussion surrounding his therapeutic needs or progress. He maintains persecutory beliefs about staff, the Hospital and the Ontario Review Board. He displays paranoia associated with the mental health and criminal justice systems. He is rigid in his thinking patterns and insists that he is a victim of an unjust system.

Mr. Gonzalez also presents with several clinical risk factors. He has little insight into his mental illness, need for treatment, or the risk his mental illness and obstinance regarding treatment or therapy poses to the public. He is untrusting of psychiatric professionals and staff and rejects all possibility that he has a psychiatric illness. The Board notes the evidence elsewhere in the Hospital Report that indicates that this rejection and distrust also extends to Mr. Gonzalez’s willingness to receive assistance relative to his physical health or his own reports of suffering seizures over the course of this last review period. He continues to show affective, behavioral and cognitive instability and is easily agitated. He continues to exhibit threatening behavior towards staff and co-patients, particularly when he perceives that his needs are not being met

The Hospital Report goes on to indicate that Mr. Gonzalez has no insight into his risk profile. He shows no remorse for his victims. He does not acknowledge his diagnoses and will not as a result engage in any treatment. Meanwhile he is not amenable to any suggestion that his risk could be managed at a less secure facility. He maintains this as a generalized derision of psychiatry and any type of treatment for mental health.

Dr Hudson’s update echoed all of the contents of the Hospital Report. He confirmed that Mr. Gonzalez has met with several psychologists all of whom have failed to make progress with him. He continues to refuse all medications. He continues to refuse to engage in any form of therapy. In response to questions from amicus, he testified that Mr. Gonzalez’s situation is the same as last year and that Mr. Gonzalez is choosing this to some extent. Mr. Gonzalez has a comfortable life. He has his own room. The environment and extent of his privileges afforded and exercised over this past review period is somewhat palliative for him. But Mr. Gonzalez will not do anything to move forward in terms of addressing concerns to public safety, his own mental health and other needs, or the ultimate objective of reintegration into the community. In this regard Dr Hudson warned that a move of Mr. Gonzalez to a less-secure facility would result in a reduction of his freedoms. He would be required to share a room and facilities. Dr Hudson opined that this would lead to explosive consequences.”

Findings of the Board:

20. The Board unanimously finds that Mr. Gonzalez continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public. In arriving at this determination, the Board considered the position of the parties and accepted the uncontroverted evidence of Dr. Hudson. The Board also relies on the Hospital Report.

21. The Board unanimously determines that the necessary and appropriate Disposition required to manage the threat Mr. Gonzalez poses to the safety of the public while still meeting his needs, is a continuation of the existing Detention Disposition.

22. In making this Disposition, the Board carefully considered the positions and submissions of the parties and the evidence of Dr. Hudson and is satisfied that this determination is both necessary and appropriate. The Board reviewed the provisions of s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code and carefully considered the need to protect the public from dangerous persons, Mr. Gonzalez’s mental condition, their reintegration into society and their other needs.

DATED this 14th day of August 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

Ms. M. Chamberlain

Legal Member

__________________

Office of the Registrar

Ontario Review Board