Re: P. (J.)
ORB File No: 6852
Hearing held on: Wednesday July 30, 2025
Place of Hearing: Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(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: P. (J.)
Counsel: Ms. J. Boisseneault
The Person in Charge of Hospital: Counsel: Ms. A. Marshall
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. N. MacDonald
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated August 21, 2025)
Introduction
On November 9, 2015, P. (J.) was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCR) on charges of possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose (x4), utter death threat (x3) and assault all contrary to the Criminal Code. He is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the Board) dated August 7, 2024, ordering his detention at the General Forensic Unit of the Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (the Hospital) with privileges up to and including living in the community in supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge.
On Wednesday, July 30, 2025, the Board convened a hearing to review Mr. P. (J.)’s disposition pursuant to section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. P. (J.) was present at the hearing and represented by counsel, Ms. Boissonneault. Mr. P. (J.)’s grandfather was also present at the hearing.
The issues to be determined at the hearing were whether Mr. P. (J.) continues 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.
Initial Positions of the Parties
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 position of the Hospital that Mr. P. (J.) 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 order without change. She also advised that she understood that Mr. P. (J.) would be seeking amendment of term 4(a) of the current disposition and she wished to reserve her position with respect to that request pending hearing the evidence.
Counsel for the Attorney General supported the Hospital position both with respect to continuation of the detention order and reserving her position with respect to the request for an amendment to the terms of the disposition pending hearing the evidence.
Counsel for Mr. P. (J.) advised that her position was that the current detention order was the necessary and appropriate disposition but was requesting that condition 4(a) be amended to require abstention from intoxicating substances save and except for alcohol when in the company of an approved person.
Evidence at the hearing
- The evidence at the hearing consisted of the Hospital Report and the oral evidence of Dr. Pallandi, Mr. P. (J.)’s treating physician.
Findings:
- For the Reasons that follow, the Board finds that Mr. P. (J.) 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 without change.
Index Offences:
- The allegations surrounding the index charges as summarized in last year’s Reasons for Disposition are as follows:
On June 23, 2015, Mr. P. (J.) was walking on Gateway Drive in Aurora brandishing a butcher knife and yelling at random children as he was on route to a playground. Upon arriving at the playground, he approached random children and adults with the knife saying, “I may stab you. I might not”. One of the random adults was Mr. (H.) who stumbled and fell to the ground. Mr. P. (J.) waved the knife in his face and asked, “what you say, what do you want”. Mr. P. (J.) then stabbed the ground with the knife beside Mr. (H.). He then told one group of the children that he would cut their throats open while making a chopping motion with his knife.
Background Information Regarding the Accused:
Mr. P. (J.) is currently 33 years of age and was born in Markham, Ontario. His parents separated when he was two years of age. Initially, he and his older brother resided with his mother. When he was in second grade, both he and his brother moved in with his father where he remained until he was 18 years of age.
Mr. P. (J.) graduated from high school and although he reports that he was suspended from school on a few occasions, he was never expelled or engaged in physical fights. After completing high school, he went to “a couple of colleges” including Seneca College and a music production course in Toronto but did not complete either program.
Mr. P. (J.) worked on and off for his father’s business starting at the age of 14. He was working full time with his father’s business until one week prior to the Index Offences when he left the employment because he was feeling stressed, depressed and as he stated, “I didn’t like my life”.
Substance Use History
- Mr. P. (J.) reports that he first tried alcohol at the age of 16 and by the age of 17, he began drinking every other weekend at parties with friends until he was 19 when he decided to “party less”. Subsequently, he reports that he drank approximately three beers every three months and reported stopping drinking entirely eight months prior to the Index Offences. He reported that he started using cannabis at the age of 17 and would smoke “two or three hits of a joint with friends and by myself” every three or four days. This pattern of use continued until he was 18 when he started to experience paranoia towards his father and stopped the use of cannabis. He reports that he tried MDMA and cocaine on a few occasions in his late teens and early 20s but denied using any other illicit substances.
Legal History:
- Mr. P. (J.) was charged with assault peace officer (x2) and robbery in 2010, but all charges were later withdrawn. In 2011, he was found guilty of possession of property obtained by crime and received a conditional discharge and 12 months probation.
Psychiatric History
- A consultation authored by Dr. Katz at the Southlake Regional Health Centre dated June 23rd, 2015, after Mr. P. (J.) was brought to hospital by police with respect to the circumstances giving rise to the Index Offences contains a summary of his previous hospitalizations related to mental health issues as well as a description of his mental state shortly after the Index Offences:
Mr. P. (J.) is a 23-year-old single man with a history of bipolar I disorder who has previous admissions for psychotic mania here at Southlake in 2013 and as well, had a hospitalization at Penetanguishene and most recently was seen last week at Mackenzie Health. Reviewing the note from Mackenzie Health, he appeared to be psychotic with religious delusions that were also grandiose, but given that he presented in the state of rhabdomyolysis with CKs as high as 61,000, as well as significantly elevated liver enzymes, which apparently had occurred as a result of extreme exercise in the context of being psychotic and manic and a level of dehydration. From the notes available, it looks like he was medically stabilized and released. After the fact, I wonder about whether or not he should have been kept on a Form given the significant medical state he had gotten himself into in his psychosis. He may well have been certifiable under the third criteria. Nevertheless, he was released and brought to hospital today after apparently wielding a knife in a schoolyard, police were called, and he was brought to hospital. He presented as extremely psychotic. I interviewed him while he was in restraints and he was actually quite menacing, volatile and irritable. He endorsed religious delusional material. He was hearing the voice of God or God’s thoughts in his head and they were telling him to do things.
He had apparently indicated that he wanted to somehow save the children from demons. He indicated this to the crisis worker and to me, he said he had a plan to release all the prisoners from jail because they might be innocent and so he was going to get himself arrested so he could go to jail and then release everybody. In any case, it was not a very clear coherent story and the interview was curtailed by his level of agitation. His speech was pressured and he was labile.
Mr. P. (J.) is clearly in the midst of a manic psychotic episode and is a danger to others. We need to urgently draw some blood and make sure that he is not still in the state of rhabdomyolysis. …medicine may need to get involved depending on his bloodwork and as mentioned, the emergency physician will stay involved for now. He is certainly not medically clear at this point. From a safety point of view; however, he should be managed on the Mental Health Unit rather than in MACU or medical ward. I will ensure that PRNs of Olanzapine continue to be available. The police who have apparently arrested him are going to continue to be involved over the course of his hospitalization.
Current Diagnoses
- Mr. P. (J.)’s current diagnoses are:
Schizoaffective Disorder (Bipolar Subtype)
Antisocial And Narcissistic Personality Traits.
Evidence of Dr. Pallandi
Dr. Pallandi indicated that he was Mr. P. (J.)’s attending psychiatrist and had read and adopted the contents of the Hospital Report. He noted that Mr. P. (J.) had been overall cooperative throughout the reporting year, that he had commenced treatment with clozapine in July 2024 and that the transition was seamless. Initially, the treatment team was quite optimistic with respect to the effect of clozapine, but Mr. P. (J.) appears to be “sort of stalled” currently. However, improvements on clozapine can continue for up to 18 months.
Dr. Pallandi indicated that Mr. P. (J.) still experiences some residual symptoms of his illness such as his ideas getting scattered over time as well as some negative symptoms. Mr. P. (J.) spends the vast majority of his time in his room and is not involved in any programming. However, he had not displayed verbal or physical aggression over the reporting year.
In Dr. Pallandi’s expert opinion, the Hospital required the authority to approve housing in order to monitor Mr. P. (J.)’s compliance with the treatment as well as to monitor for changes in his mental state. He also indicated that, in his opinion, the provisions of the Mental Health Act would not be sufficient to manage Mr. P. (J.)’s risk.
Dr. Pallandi indicated that a contained and moderate consumption of alcohol would not likely substantially increase Mr. P. (J.)’s risk but agreed that alcohol is clearly a disinhibitor and that the interaction of alcohol and clozapine would increase that effect.
In response to questions from panel members, Dr. Pallandi indicated that Mr. P. (J.) had not raised the issue of consuming alcohol in the presence of approved persons with him and that consumption of alcohol could well be a problem.
Final Submissions of the Parties.
At the conclusion of the hearing, all parties agreed that the position with respect to disposition was joint save and except for the request for an amendment to allow for consumption of alcohol in the presence of approved persons. Counsel for the Hospital submitted that the proposed term was, first of all, unenforceable, and second of all, that neither the Hospital nor the Board had jurisdiction to bind an approved person.
Counsel for the Attorney General indicated that perhaps a term allowing for alcohol consumption “with the consent of and in the presence of approved persons” might be manageable. However, she noted that there was no information before the Board with respect to the views of Mr. P. (J.)’s approved persons with respect to this request.
Counsel for Mr. P. (J.) noted that her client had a good year and that there had been some improvements with the hope for further ones. She submitted that the Board can only impose such restrictions on an accused’s liberties as are necessary to protect the public and that a term such as that proposed by the Crown would not create a substantial risk to public safety.
Analysis and Conclusion, significant threat:
Although the issue of significant threat was not contested at the hearing, the Board nevertheless makes an independent finding that the evidence clearly supports a finding of significant threat. Mr. P. (J.) suffers from a major mental illness, schizoaffective disorder (bipolar type), and continues to have a diagnosis of antisocial and narcissistic personality traits. Despite adherence to medication, Mr. P. (J.) continues to experience positive symptoms of his illness including hallucinations and delusions as well as negative symptoms of his illness. He has limited insight into his mental illness, need for medication and risk for violence.
Mr. P. (J.) has a history of aggression both in the community and in hospital, placing members of the public at risk of physical and/or psychological harm. The most recent risk assessment indicates that there would be a moderate risk of violent re-offence if Mr. P. (J.) was granted a conditional discharge. There is a clear need for monitoring his medication compliance, substance use, continued psychotic symptoms and any early signs of decompensation in order to effectively manage risk. Therefore, the Hospital does require the authority to approve accommodation.
Analysis and Conclusion, Necessary and Appropriate Disposition:
The Board also finds that the evidence supports the joint submission that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a detention order. The Board also finds that the terms of the current disposition remain necessary and appropriate.
The term proposed by counsel for Mr. P. (J.) to allow for consumption of alcohol in the presence of approved persons has a number of issues. Firstly, the Board agrees with counsel for the Hospital that enforcement of such a term would be problematical and that neither the Board nor the Hospital have any jurisdiction to bind approved persons. The Board also notes a significant concern with respect to impact of alcohol consumption on Mr. P. (J.)’s risk.
The Hospital report summarizes an incident which occurred in January 2023 with respect to consumption of alcohol and its impact on Mr. P. (J.)’s mental state as follows:
On January 9, 2023, a staff member from the hospital happened upon Mr. P. (J.) at the plaza down the street from the hospital, and notified EMS due to Mr. P. (J.) presenting with significant alcohol intoxication, distress, and vomiting. He was accompanied by another male co-patient from FPRU, who had also engaged in consuming alcohol. When EMS attended the premises, he was heard singing sexually explicit lyrics in a loud manner. He also presented as significantly obtunded and when a female paramedic attempted to rouse him, he grabbed her buttocks. He was subsequently transferred to Lakeridge Health Oshawa for observation, where he was described as acting in a sexually disinhibited manner, including masturbating in bed and asking for sexual favours. After a few hours, he was deemed sufficiently sober and medically stable to be returned to Ontario Shores; of note, upon his return, a breathalyzer still detected an elevated level of 0.084.
When canvassed about this incident, Mr. P. (J.) admitted to – whilst accompanied by another male co-patient from FPRU – “chugg[-ing]” approximately 1-2 bottles of wine purchased from the LCBO, before attending a pub in the plaza and “chugging” another beer. He reported limited recollection of the event except to say his last memory before waking up in the ER was him exiting the pub, feeling physically unwell, and then vomiting. When canvassed about his sexually inappropriate behaviours, he denied saying before cavalierly adding, quote “that’s pretty awesome, I blacked out, I have no responsibility….now I know how much I can drink, next time I’ll only drink a bottle”. When asked about his motivation to relapse after approximately four years of sobriety, he explained how we considered the male co-patient as a friend and “I thought we would have a good time”.
- Mr. P. (J.) displayed limited insight into the impact that his consumption of alcohol had on his behaviour on that occasion and minimized his sexually inappropriate and sexually assaultive behaviour. Given those circumstances, the Board finds that removal of the prohibition from consumption of alcohol would establish an increased risk of physical and/or psychological harm to members of the public and accordingly we find that the requested amendment is not appropriate.
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