Ontario Review Board
Re: Gregory Orchard
ORB File No: 6586
Hearing held on: Monday, June 23, 2025
Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health 1001 Queen Street West, Toronto
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(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: Gregory Orchard Counsel: Mr. J. Halberstadt
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. A. Marshall
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. S. Cressman
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated August 19, 2025)
Introduction
On September 16, 2014, Mr. Gregory Orchard was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of assault causing bodily harm and aggravated assault, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”).
Mr. Orchard is subject to the terms of a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”), dated June 17, 2024, which orders that he be detained at the Forensic Service of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto (“CAMH”) with privileges including to live in the community in supervised accommodation.
On June 23, 2025, the Board convened a hearing at CAMH to conduct the annual review of the current Disposition.
Mr. Orchard was present and was represented by his counsel, Mr. J. Halberstadt.
A Hospital Report dated June 1, 2025 (the "Hospital Report") was entered as Exhibit 1.
The issue at this hearing is whether Mr. Orchard is a significant threat to public safety, as defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code. If so, the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances must be determined, bearing in mind the factors enunciated in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
For the reasons set out below and based on the expert evidence and opinions before it, the Board concluded that Mr. Orchard continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board also concluded that this risk can be managed with a continuation of the existing Detention Order Disposition without changes.
Positions of the Parties
At the outset of the hearing, parties were canvassed as to their initial recommendations. On behalf of the hospital, Ms. Marshall indicated that the hospital was recommending no change to the current Disposition. Counsel for the Attorney General, Ms. Cressman, supported the hospital’s position. Counsel for Mr. Orchard, Mr. Halberstadt, also supported the position of the hospital. For the purposes of the hearing, he agreed that significant threat was not in dispute. The Board was therefore presented with a joint submission.
For the reasons set out below, the Board does find that Mr. Orchard continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the terms and conditions of the existing Disposition should continue without change.
Index Offences
- The details of the index offences are taken from last year’s Reasons for Disposition, as follows:
“The Kennedy Residence is a home that is open to a wide array of people – from the mentally ill, to drug users, women, men, elderly, low income and anyone else who is willing to call the residence home.
Parsons, Modgett and the accused reside in the residence.
On the 23rd day of September 2013, the accused was at his residence located at 300 Sherbourne Street, Toronto.
It is not known what set the accused off, but he became involved in a physical altercation with Parsons in the dining room of the residence. Parsons lost consciousness, was bloodied and lying on the ground, as the witness observed the accused kick Parsons in the head, as he was lying helpless.
Shortly after the above incident, Modgett exited his room and encountered the accused, who then turned on him. The accused then assaulted Modgett, rendering [him] helpless and hurt on the ground.
Parsons and Modgett were transported to hospital. Police investigated the incident [and] located the accused. The accused was arrested, transported to 51 Division and held for a show cause [hearing].
Parsons’ injuries:
Loss of consciousness
Swelling to head
Bloodied head
Modgett’s injuries:
Bloodied left ear
Swelling, bruising to right ear
Bloodied and swollen nose
Goose egg right head
Shoe print bruising left head”
Personal History and Background
Mr. Orchard’s background and history are outlined in the Hospital Report and need not be repeated here in detail. Of note, Mr. Orchard is currently 43 years of age. He has never been married and has no dependents.
Mr. Orchard was born in Toronto. His mother likely suffered from Schizophrenia and was a user of crack cocaine. Mr. Orchard’s father gained sole custody when Mr. Orchard was 11 months of age. His father remarried when Mr. Orchard was eight years old and had a son by that marriage.
Mr. Orchard completed grade 9 and may have some grade 10 and grade 11 credits. He had difficulty maintaining employment and has held a variety of jobs including landscaping, construction, factory work, warehouse cleaner, and working at a golf course. He is currently supported by the Ontario Disability Support Program. The Office of Public Guardian and Trustee currently manages his finances, and his father is his substitute decision maker (SDM) for treatment decisions.
Mr. Orchard has a criminal record for a variety of offences between August 2000 (two convictions as a youth) and November 2011. The approximately 16 adult convictions are for offences including mischief under, theft under, theft over, possession of property obtained by crime, possession of Schedule I substance, assault, possession of imitation weapon, and failures to comply with probation orders, undertakings, and recognizances.
Mr. Orchard’s father advised that his son first showed signs of mental illness at about age 16. He was diagnosed with Schizophrenia in 2004. The details of the course of his illness and of multiple admissions to hospital are set out fully at pages 3 to 21 of the Hospital Report. Of note, Mr. Orchard has been historically non-adherent with medications upon discharge from hospital and engaged in regular heavy substance use including use of crack cocaine, heroin, methadone, Ritalin, OxyContin, alcohol, and marijuana.
After the NCR finding, Mr. Orchard was an inpatient at the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health until his transfer to CAMH in April 2017.
Current Diagnoses
- Mr. Orchard’s current diagnoses are Schizophrenia, in partial remission, and substance use disorder, in partial remission in a controlled environment.
Evidence at the Hearing
- Dr. Swayze is Mr. Orchard’s attending psychiatrist and author of the Hospital Report dated June 1, 2025. He adopted the contents of the Hospital Report. Dr. Swayze testified that:
Mr. Orchard has treatment refractory schizophrenia. This means that at no time is he symptom-free;
Mr. Orchard is currently adequately treated with Clozapine and Loxapine;
despite treatment, Mr. Orchard continues to suffer from ongoing symptoms of his illness. There is baseline level of psychosis;
there are unpredictable transient exacerbations of his illness, whereby Mr. Orchard experiences paranoid auditory hallucinations. They resolve in minutes to hours and always last less than one day;
during these periods of exacerbation of symptoms, Mr. Orchard does not respond to direction of staff with respect to behaviour and engages in activities which place himself and potentially others at risk. He has climbed poles, walked into traffic, and otherwise been intrusive and aggressive;
Mr. Orchard currently exercises level 3 privileges, which means that he has no indirect access to the community. Mr. Orchard goes into the community accompanied by staff for recreational purposes, such as going to participate in activities at the stables. He is currently unable to do therapeutic programming due to cognitive deficits and chronic symptoms of his illness;
Dr. Swayze does not believe there are additional pharmaceutical treatments that can assist with Mr. Orchard’s symptoms. He will be consulting with the MAPS program with respect to a possible augmentation of medications;
Mr. Orchard’s father is invested and responsible. He is currently in the process of becoming an Approved Person. If he becomes an Approved Person, he will be able to take Mr. Orchard into the community and potentially to the family home for visits;
Mr. Orchard’s father is the SDM, and he is hesitant to consent to ECT. The hospital is also reluctant to try ECT for Mr. Orchard;
the hospital is actively looking to locate appropriate housing in the community for Mr. Orchard. He does not need to be in the hospital and is currently designated as Alternative Level of Care;
Mr. Orchard has been rejected for long-term care placement, but Dr. Swayze is unsure of the reason for this. Mr. Orchard requires a high level of supervision in order to ensure that he does not wander;
hospital staff are investigating possible placements north of the city, but it is hard to find placements with the level of supervision that Mr. Orchard requires. Mr. Orchard has been on housing waitlists since 2011; and
there have been no physical incidents over the last reporting year, although there have been verbal altercations during Mr. Orchard’s transient episodes of exacerbation of symptoms.
Counsel for the Crown Attorney had no questions for Dr. Swayze.
In response to questions from Mr. Orchard’s counsel, Dr. Swayze testified that:
Mr. Orchard’s father has completed the requirements to become an Approved Person with the exception of fingerprints and a criminal record check. He is unaware why this has not been completed, but when it has, there should be little delay; and
Mr. Orchard has limited insight into his illness, although this is inherent with his illness. The ongoing nature of Mr. Orchard’s symptoms means that he is never in full remission, and therefore he never reaches a state where he realizes that he has been unwell. The nature of psychosis is a lack of appreciation of the unreality of the experiences.
- The panel had no questions for Dr. Swayze.
Analysis and Conclusion
Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence as well as the submissions from the parties, the Board agrees with the joint submission: Mr. Orchard remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.
In Winko, the Supreme Court outlined that, in coming to the conclusion on the issue of significant risk, the Board must closely examine a range of evidence, including: the circumstances of the original offence; the past and expected course of the accused’s treatment; the present state of the NCR accused’s medical condition; the NCR accused’s own plans for the future; the support existing for the NCR accused in the community; and most importantly, the recommendations provided by experts who examine the NCR accused. In coming to our conclusion in this matter, the Board relies on the uncontroverted expert evidence of Dr. Swayze, in addition to the documentary evidence before us.
In particular, the Board relies on the Re-offence Scenario and the Composite Assessment of Risk set out in the Hospital Report:
Clinical Risk Factors/Re-Offence Scenario
“If Mr. Orchard is to reoffend, this will likely transpire in the following way. Discharged from the hospital without supportive community housing placement and follow-up, Mr. Orchard will not be compliant with his treatment, further aggravated by the use of illicit substances, and as a result, his mental condition will deteriorate. With his level of thought disorder, fragmented delusions and heightened psychomotor excitability, Mr. Orchard’s reality testing and self-control will be jeopardized, resulting in idiosyncratic, unpredictable responses leading to a violent re-offence and violation of social norms.”
Composite Assessment of Risk
“Mr. Orchard presents… as at moderate risk for future violent recidivism. The HCR-20 Version 3 overall profile suggests a moderate risk potential. Mr. Orchard, additionally, presents with a variety of significant criminogenic risk factors. Taken in totality, the clinical team opines that Mr. Orchard continues to remain a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in Section 672.4501.”
Due to the nature of Mr. Orchard’s treatment refractory schizophrenia, he has no insight into his major mental illness and is unable to recognize when he is unwell. If not under the jurisdiction of the ORB, the Hospital Report notes at page 66: “risk management items deemed present and relevant would include Problems with Professional Services and Plans, Living Situation, Personal Support, Treatment or Supervision Response and Stress or Coping.”
Although Mr. Orchard has shown an attenuation of his psychosis and a reduction in behavioural disinhibition, the hospital is not considering an increase in dosage of medication as all levels are at therapeutic levels, nor is the hospital considering alternative antipsychotic medications or ECT.
The hospital’s evidence is that the relative stability in Mr. Orchard’s presentation is a direct result of compliance with psychiatric medication and lack of substance use due to careful oversight. The Hospital Report notes at page 69 that Mr. Orchard’s insight into his illness and need for adherence to treatment outside of external obligations is “nonexistent.” Absent significant oversight, the treatment team is of the opinion that Mr. Orchard would revert to his previous patterns of behaviour including the use of substances which would lead to decompensation of his mental state, aggression, and rehospitalization. Historically, while in the community, Mr. Orchard’s compliance with medication and follow-up has been inconsistent, despite high levels of support and supervision.
It is clear on the evidence that a Conditional Discharge Disposition would be inadequate to address Mr. Orchard’s risk. In order to reside successfully in the community, Mr. Orchard will require a supervised residence which will ensure his compliance with medication and abstinence from substance use.
In consideration of all the evidence, submissions of the parties, and the criteria set forth in s. 672.54, the paramount consideration being the safety of the public, in addition to the mental condition of Mr. Orchard, his reintegration into society and his other needs, the necessary, and appropriate, Disposition is to continue with the existing Detention Order as presented in the joint submission of the parties.
DATED this 19th day of August, 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Ms. M. den Haan
Legal Member
__________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board