Re Bernard Durant, 2025 CanLII 84075

Re: Bernard Durant

ORB File No: 6347

Hearing held on: Friday, August 1, 2025

Place of Hearing: Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences

Pursuant to: Sections 672.81(1) and 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. R. Bigelow

Members: Dr. A. Park Dr. A. Kerry Mr. J. Goldenberg Mr. J. Cyr

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Bernard Durant Counsel: Ms. J. Boissonneault

The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Mr. K. Dow

Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. N. MacDonald

REASONS FOR DECISION AND DISPOSITION

(Dated August 21, 2025)

Introduction

1. On May 27, 2013, Bernard Durant was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCR) on charges of robbery with violence, robbery with a weapon, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, possession of property obtained by crime over $5000, fail to stop at the scene of an accident (2), dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, flight from police and mischief under $5000, contrary all to the Criminal Code. He is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the Board) dated June 5, 2024, ordering his detention at the Forensic Program of the Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (the Hospital) with privileges up to and including residence in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge.

2. By letter dated July 17, 2025, the Hospital advised the Board pursuant to section 672.56(2) of the Criminal Code that Mr. Durant had been readmitted to hospital on July 10, 2025, and his readmission was anticipated to be more than seven days and requested that his restriction of liberty hearing be scheduled for August 1, 2025, when his annual review was already scheduled to proceed. The Board responded and indicated that the restriction of liberty hearing would be added to the schedule for August 1.

3. On Friday, August 1, 2025, the Board convened a hearing to review Mr. Durant’s disposition pursuant to section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Durant was present at the hearing and represented by counsel, Ms. Boissonneault The issues to be determined at the hearing were firstly whether Mr. Durant continued to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and, if so, to determine what was the necessary and appropriate disposition that was also the least onerous and least restrictive taking into account the factors set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code. In addition, the Board was to determine if both the initial and continuing restriction of Mr. Durant’s liberties commencing July 10, 2025, was necessary and appropriate.

Initial Positions of the Parties

4. At the commencement of the hearing the parties were requested to provide their initial without prejudice positions with respect to the issues before the Board. Counsel for the Hospital indicated that it was the Hospital’s position that Mr. Durant continued to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition was a continuation of the current detention without change and further that both the initial and continuing restriction of Mr. Durant’s liberties were both necessary and appropriate.

5. Counsel for the Attorney General supported the Hospital position both with respect to disposition and the restriction of liberty.

6. Counsel for Mr. Durant submitted that her client was no longer a significant threat to the safety of the public and accordingly was entitled to be discharged absolutely. In the alternative, should the Board find that he did constitute a significant threat to the safety of the public, she submitted that the necessary and appropriate disposition was a conditional discharge and advised that her client would agree to a provision requiring treatment pursuant to section 672.55 of the Criminal Code. She further submitted that, should the Board determine that a detention order was the required disposition, a hybrid disposition would be appropriate.

Evidence at the hearing

7. The evidence at the hearing consisted of the Hospital Report and the oral evidence of Dr. Wang, Mr. Durant’s treating physician.

Findings:

8. For the Reasons that follow, the Board finds that Mr. Durant continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a continuation of the current detention order with the same terms and conditions as the current order save and except that the detention be on the Forensic Service at the Hospital be amended to require his detention on the General Forensic Service

9. With respect to the restriction of Mr. Durant’s liberties, the Board finds that although Mr. Durant’s detention in Hospital was necessary and appropriate, his detention within a Secure Forensic Unit and in particular the FAU (Forensic Assessment Unit) was not necessary and appropriate.

Index Offences:

10. The allegations surrounding the index offences as summarized in last year’s Reasons for Disposition are as follows:

On May 30, 2012, Mr. Durant, who was then 22 years old, entered a convenience store in Oshawa armed with a screwdriver, demanded money and threatened to kill the cashier. When he was told there was no money in the till, Mr. Durant stole ten packages of cigarettes and fled.

Several hours later, a man exited a motor vehicle and approached a different variety store in Oshawa holding his car keys. Mr. Durant, who had been seated nearby, assaulted the man, knocked him to the ground, grabbed his car keys and stole his car. Mr. Durant proceeded to drive the car erratically and collided with two other vehicles, one of which was trying to stop him. When the police cornered Mr. Durant, he refused to stop, drove into a police vehicle and was ultimately shot before being apprehended.

Background Information Regarding the Accused:

11. Mr. Durant was born in Toronto and is a 34-year-old single man with no dependents. His mother died from alcoholism when he was 10 years old. He became involved with the Children’s Aid Society when he was 11. After his mother died, he lived with an aunt. When the aunt died, he lived with his father and stepmother. When his father and stepmother separated, he remained with his stepmother.

12. Mr. Durant graduated from high school and attended a college program for one year. He worked for approximately a year at a retail outlet and worked in garages as part of his apprenticeship for a college program. He lived with his grandmother in 2010, and then moved into a shelter. He was homeless at the time of the index offences and supported by ODSP.

Substance Use History

13. Mr. Durant states that he drank alcohol socially and typically on weekends. He would drink with his friends, preferring beer. However, he also indicated that he binged drank approximately once per month, and consumed up to 26 ounces per night when he was binging. A binge could last anywhere from one day to one week. He stated that he began using marijuana from the age of 14 and that prior to his arrest on the index offences, he had been using two grams of marijuana per day. He also indicated that he had experimented with several drugs including MDMA, ecstasy, cocaine, Percocet, Tylenol 3, Lorazepam, Morphine and Methadone.

Legal History:

14. Although Mr. Durant had no criminal record at the time of the index offences, he had been charged with assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm, but those charges were stayed upon his entering into a peace bond. However, subsequent to the NCR finding on February 10, 2022, he was convicted of assault in relation to an attack on a hospital security guard. On April 23, 2021, Mr. Durant eloped from hospital, and was followed by security staff. He was observed to attempt to get into an unlocked car, then steal a bicycle and make his way to the GO station. At one point, Mr. Durant threw the bicycle at a security guard, pinned him against a police cruiser and assaulted him, causing facial lacerations. Mr. Durant was tasered by police and detained. The court imposed a four-month conditional sentence on him for the offence.

Psychiatric History

15. Mr. Durant was admitted to hospital in December 2010 for several weeks after crisis workers brought him there from a shelter. He had expressed suicidal ideation and made superficial cuts to his neck. He stated that he had been hearing voices for several years, but they had worsened in the 7 to 8 weeks prior to his admission. He was placed on antipsychotic and antidepressant medication. The discharge diagnosis was schizoaffective disorder and rule out major depressive episode with psychotic features.

16. At the time of his initial admission to Ontario Shores, he stated that he had been diagnosed with depression a couple of years earlier and had made four suicide attempts on his life.

Current Diagnosis

17. Mr. Durant’s current diagnoses are:

• Schizophrenia

• Cocaine use disorder

• Alcohol use disorder, in remission

• Cannabis use disorder, in remission.

18. Mr. Durant was discharged from hospital to reside at Ballantyne House, a small four-bedroom group home staffed 24/7, in July 2024 shortly after his last annual review. However, he continued to struggle with challenges of addiction and was readmitted to hospital in August 2024 for a period of seven days following a relapse. Shortly after his discharge, he had a further relapse and was readmitted to hospital and remained in hospital until February 2025 when he was again discharged back to Ballantyne House.

19. In late February and early March, Mr. Durant reported what he thought were visual hallucinations on several occasions and his Olanzapine as well as Sertraline were increased. Mr. Durant reported excessive fatigue and low mood and requested that his medication be reviewed. His Olanzapine was discontinued and Abilify IM every 28 days was commenced. Mr. Durant was successful for approximately four months before relapsing to substance use in mid June which he reported to his treatment team on July 2 and requested an admission to hospital for support. He was admitted to FCRU, a General Forensic Unit, but requested to be discharged on July 7 because he felt his mental health would be negatively impacted if he stayed on that unit because his ex-girlfriend was also residing there. He was discharged back to his group home where he continued to use crack cocaine and requested a longer-term admission on July 10 when he was admitted to the FAU, a Secure Forensic Unit, where he remained as of the date of the hearing.

20. At the time of his admission to hospital, Mr. Durant also expressed dissatisfaction with the group home and stated that he wanted to return to hospital so that he could be discharged to independent housing. The treatment team also noticed a change in his mental state with increased suspiciousness, irritability and pressured speech. Given all of those factors, the treatment team was of the view that detention in hospital was necessary and appropriate to manage his risk.

Evidence of Dr. Wang

21. Dr. Wang indicated that his first involvement with Mr. Durant was in July 2024, and he remained his most responsible physician until his admission to the FAU when his care was taken over by Dr. Pearce. Dr. Wang had reviewed the Hospital Report and adopted its contents with a few updates since the completion of the report. The main update was that Mr. Durant’s bed at Ballantyne House was no longer available to him and accordingly there was currently no viable release plan. There had also been some changes to Mr. Durant’s medication.

22. Dr. Wang noted that on the FAU, there were a number of patients with a lower level of functioning and individuals awaiting disposition of charges in court. He noted that Mr. Durant’s experience in the community was fairly good and that he had been stable for a period of time until increasing substance use became a concern. He also noted some changes to Mr. Durant’s mental state in that he was more suspicious and paranoid which was probably related to substance use but also noted possible mood-related symptoms.

23. Dr. Wang stated that the FCRU where Mr. Durant was placed when he came to hospital on July 2 was not a good unit for him due only to interpersonal issues that Mr. Durant had. He also noted that, although Mr. Durant came to hospital voluntarily seeking admission on July 10, it is likely that the Hospital would have brought him in shortly after that if he had not come in himself.

24. Dr. Wang agreed that Mr. Durant had played a pivotal role in protecting a peer and staff from an assaultive co-peer and his actions clearly prevented significant potential harm. He also noted that the aggressive co-peer involved in that incident was also currently housed in the FAU.

25. Dr. Wang also agreed that the individuals placed in the FAU essentially had no access to privileges and that Mr. Durant found this lack of privileges to be extremely frustrating.

26. Dr. Wang stated that he expected Mr. Durant would be moved to a General Forensic Unit likely in the next 8 to 12 weeks. The basis for his continued placement in a Secure Forensic Unit was his change in mental state, in particular that he appeared to be more elated than one would expect, the potential change in medication and diagnosis, and a history of elopement.

Final Submissions of the Parties.

27. All parties maintained their initial positions at the conclusion of the hearing.

Analysis and Conclusion, Significant Threat

28. The Board finds that the evidence clearly supports a finding that Mr. Durant continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. Mr. Durant suffers from a major mental illness, schizophrenia, as well as cocaine use disorder and alcohol, and substance use disorders, in remission. When unwell, Mr. Durant has a history of acting out aggressively causing physical and/or psychological harm to members of the public.

29. Since his discharge from hospital in the summer of 2024, Mr. Durant has struggled with crack cocaine use and remains vulnerable to relapse and decompensation in his mental state from his use. The Board accepts the evidence of the Hospital Report that “[s]ubstance use clearly remains an active and highly relevant risk factor in Mr. Durant’s case.”

Analysis and Conclusion Restriction of Liberty

30. The Board also finds that the initial decision to keep Mr. Durant in hospital after his voluntary admission on July 10 as well as his continued detention in hospital is necessary and appropriate. In the weeks leading up to his voluntary admission to hospital, Mr. Durant was using crack cocaine on a regular basis and began to display changes in his mental state. Once in hospital, although he has not exhibited psychotic symptoms, he has exhibited signs of irritability, hyper talkativeness and a somewhat expansive mood which may be due to recent substance use or may be reflective of a mood component to his illness that was not previously identified. Mr. Durant has now lost his community residence and there is no longer a viable release plan.

31. However, the Board finds that Mr. Durant’s detention on a Secure Forensic Unit is not necessary and appropriate. When Mr. Durant came to hospital requesting admission on July 2, he was placed in a General Forensic Unit and remained there without incident despite interpersonal issues arising due to the placement of an ex-girlfriend on the same unit. The evidence of the Hospital is that the only reason Mr. Durant was initially placed in the FAU, the most Secure Forensic Unit on the Forensic Service, was that there were no beds available in any other forensic unit.

32. The Hospital’s rationale for Mr. Durant’s continued placement on a Secure Forensic Unit is the changes in his mental state, the potential for change in medication and or diagnosis and a history of elopement. Although there have been elopements in the past, it is noteworthy that Mr. Durant came into hospital voluntarily on both July 2 and July 10 and that he returned to hospital at the request of the treatment team in both August and October 2024 and his placements were on a General Forensic Unit without issues.

33. With respect to the changes in his mental state, although the treatment team has noticed an increase in irritability, there has been no verbal or physical aggression or psychotic symptoms, and Mr. Durant has actually opened up to the treatment team with respect to traumatic events in his life. It is also noteworthy that the individual whom Mr. Durant prevented from assaulting staff and co-patients remains on the FAU, resulting in an increased level of tension.

34. The Hospital presented no evidence as to how the potential change in medication or diagnosis supported a need for placement on a Secure Forensic Unit.

35. The Board finds that the only justification for placing Mr. Durant on the FAU upon his initial admission to hospital was lack of bed space in other forensic units and that the Hospital should have moved Mr. Durant to a General Forensic Unit as soon as space became available. Therefore, although the Board accepts that the initial decision to change Mr. Durant’s status from voluntary to involuntary was justified and his continued detention in hospital is justified, his placement on a Secure Forensic Unit is not justified.

Analysis and Conclusion, Necessary and Appropriate Disposition

36. Given Mr. Durant’s struggles with substance use in the community and current lack of a viable release plan, the continuation of his current detention order is clearly necessary and appropriate. The Hospital continues to require the ability to approve housing in order to ensure that Mr. Durant is appropriately monitored both with respect to substance use and any early signs of decompensation. However, for the reasons referred to above with respect to the restriction of liberty, the panel directs that his detention be on the General Forensic Service.

DATED this 21st day of August 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

Robert Bigelow

Alternate Chairperson

Office of the Registrar

Ontario Review Board