Re Solomon Akintoye, 2025 CanLII 84081

Ontario Review Board

Re: Solomon Akintoye

ORB File No: 8683

Hearing held on: Friday, June 27, 2025

Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health 1001 Queen Street West, Toronto

Pursuant to: Section 672.47(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: Solomon Akintoye Counsel: Mr. C. Hynes

The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. A. Marshall

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. V. Culp

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated August 19, 2025)

Introduction

1. On December 11, 2024, Solomon Akintoye was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on charges of two counts of possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose and one count each of mischief under $5,000, assault with a weapon, and assault causing bodily harm.

2. The Court did not make a Disposition but referred the matter to the Ontario Review Board (“ORB”) for an initial hearing under s. 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Akintoye is currently on judicial interim release and resides in the downtown area of Toronto.

3. On June 27, 2025, the Board convened at CAMH for an initial hearing to make a Disposition. Mr. Akintoye was present at the hearing along with his counsel, Mr. Hynes.

4. A Hospital Report dated June 11, 2025 (“the Hospital Report”) was entered as an Exhibit.

5. The issue at this hearing is whether Mr. Akintoye is a significant threat to the safety of the public 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.

6. For the reasons set out below and based on the expert evidence and opinions before it, the Board concluded that Mr. Akintoye presents a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board further concluded that his risk can be properly managed with a Detention Order on the terms and conditions set out in our formal Disposition. The Board concluded that this is the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances.

Positions of the Parties

7. At the outset of the hearing, all parties were canvassed as to their initial recommendations to the Board. Counsel for the hospital submitted that Mr. Akintoye represents a significant threat to public safety and that a Detention Disposition with privileges up to and including community living in approved accommodation is the necessary and appropriate Disposition.

8. Counsel for the Attorney General supported the hospital’s recommendation.

9. Counsel for Mr. Akintoye submitted that his client was in support of the hospital’s recommendation and, for the purposes of this hearing, conceded the issue of significant threat.

10. At the conclusion of the evidence, all parties maintained their initial joint recommendation to the Board.

Index Offences

11. The details of the index offences are taken from the Hospital Report, as follows:

“Synopsis

BACKGROUND:

The accused, the victim, and the complainants, live on the same floor at 10 Glen Everest Road. The victim and the witnesses have had constant problems with the accused in regards to noise, threats. They have lodged several complaints to TCHC as well as the Toronto Police Service. There have been no previous allegations of assaults and no occurrences on file with the Toronto Police Services.

SYNOPSIS:

On Tuesday June 8th, 2021, at approximately 0852 hours, the accused was in hallway on the 8th floor on 10 Glen Everest Road, in the City of Toronto. The accused had come out of his apartment, #811, and started banging on the door of apartment #814 with a steel pipe and a large black knife causing 3 gauges in the door. The complainant in #814 [redacted], was looking through the peep hole of the door and saw the accused with the pipe in his hand. The complainant did not open the door because he thought if he did the accused would kill him. The accused then tipped over [the complainant]’s bicycle, which was standing just outside the apartment door and smashed the bicycle once with the knife causing a dent to the front rim and bent the left handlebar (Charge 1, 2, 3). The accused then goes to apartment #816, which is the residence of the victim, [redacted]. The victim had his door open slightly after hearing the commotion at which point the accused rushed at the victim with both weapons raised. The victim attempted to close his door, but it appeared as though the accused stuck a pipe in the door causing it not to close. The victim grabs a bat from his apartment and tries to defend himself with it. The accused starts swinging both the pipe and the knife at the victim, striking the victim above the right eye with the knife causing a 3-4 inch cut (Charge 4 and 5). The accused then ran back into his apartment, #811 and closed the door. The victim then went back to his apartment and asked the other complainant to call the police.

Officers arrived on scene and went to the 8th floor. Officers saw blood in the hallway leading to apartment #816. The complainant came out of his apartment and gave a brief story of what happened. While speaking with [the complainant], the victim came out of his apartment and was bleeding profusely from the wound above his eye and was unable to give much information at that time. The resident from #813, came out of his apartment and told officers that he had video footage of the entire incident. Officers ensured that paramedics were on the way to tend to the victims injuries and then went into Oscar’s apartment to view the video. The above sequence of events was visible on the video footage.

While officers were speaking with the parties in the hallway, the accused slammed his door once. Officers then went to the accused's apartment, #811 and knocked on the door. The accused opened the door and officers asked him to come out. The accused came out into the hallway at which point officers placed him under arrest and cuffed him to the rear. The accused was sweating profusely and didn't appear well, so an ambulance was ordered for him too. The ambulance arrived and transported the accused to Michael Garron Hospital. Officers attempted to read the accused his rights to counsel several times prior to being transported to the hospital and during transportation.”

Background

12. The Hospital Report outlines Mr. Akintoye’s history and background and need not be repeated here in detail. Briefly summarized, Mr. Akintoye is a 41-year-old divorced man who was born in Nigeria. He has one adolescent son, with whom he has limited contact.

13. Mr. Akintoye is the seventh of eight children. After living with his grandmother beginning when he was two or three years of age, he returned to live with his parents at the age of six or seven. Mr. Akintoye graduated high school in Nigeria and immigrated to Canada at the age of 17. He attended several different colleges in Canada for short periods but did not complete any programs.

14. After moving to Canada, Mr. Akintoye volunteered during the day and worked at night in a warehouse from 2004 to 2008. He worked first as a cleaner, then as a pallet packer, then in production, then in shipping and receiving. After an injury at work in 2008, he stopped working. Due to his injury, he was unable to work from 2008 to 2011.

15. In 2011, Mr. Akintoye moved to Vancouver, B.C., where he worked in shipping and receiving for a short time. Mr. Akintoye reported that while in Vancouver, police “attacked me and molested me” on April 18, 2011. He claimed that he sustained a brain injury during the altercation with police and has been unable to work since that time and that he is trying to sue the police in British Columbia.

16. Mr. Akintoye reported a history of seizures which began when he was quite young. He was assessed for a witnessed seizure in January 2023 and was prescribed carbamazepine. He has attended emergency departments with complaints of pain and reports of being assaulted by police or civilians. No acute findings were shown on medical imaging.

17. Mr. Akintoye stated that he first drank alcohol and began smoking cigarettes at approximately 17 years of age. He began using cannabis in 2008, and the amount varied depending on his financial situation. He stated that he stopped using cannabis three years ago. He did not find that cannabis use caused him to be more paranoid or worsened the voices that he hears when unwell. He stated that he had driven a car while impaired in the past.

18. Although it is unclear, it appears that Mr. Akintoye first had contact with the mental health system beginning in 2011. Mr. Akintoye denied any mental health concerns before 2011. Beginning in 2011, he reported hearing voices speaking to him, and believed the television was speaking to him. He stated he had one suicide attempt when he walked into the ocean.

19. In 2012, Mr. Akintoye was admitted to Vancouver General Hospital but was unable to provide details about why. He moved to Victoria, British Columbia and was admitted to hospital for eight months before he was released and followed by an Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) team in the community. During this admission, Mr. Akintoye was treated with paliperidone long-acting injectable medication. As an outpatient, he switched to the oral formulation. Mr. Akintoye had two more hospitalizations in British Columbia for durations of approximately six months each time.

20. Mr. Akintoye reported that he frequently heard voices and banging sounds, which he believed were being made intentionally to disturb him. He was unable to clearly state who he thought was responsible for this, but at one point stated that he thought it was connected to the police because of his lawsuit in B.C.

21. After returning from B.C. in 2014 following his unsuccessful lawsuit against the police, Mr. Akintoye moved to Toronto and briefly lived with his ex-partner and son. She reported that after being ill, when Mr. Akintoye begins to feel better, he stops taking his medication.

22. In June 2015, Mr. Akintoye was seen at the Humber River Hospital for an outpatient follow up due to his pre-existing schizophrenia diagnosis. He stopped attending follow up appointments in November 2015. In April 2016 he was briefly admitted to hospital on a Form 1 due to delusions and auditory hallucinations. He was discharged the next day at his request.

23. Mr. Akintoye was admitted to hospital under the Mental Health Act in White Rock, British Columbia for approximately two weeks in the summer of 2016. He was transferred to Abbottsford Regional Hospital due to severely violent behaviour, but no information about the hospitalization was available at the time that Mr. Akintoye was assessed for criminal responsibility.

24. Mr. Akintoye does not have any criminal convictions prior to the index offences. He reported that he was charged with sexual assault in 2004 or 2005, but the charges were dismissed. In 2011 in Vancouver, B.C., he was charged with resisting arrest. The charge was dropped, and he took his case to the Human Rights Tribunal. The Human Rights Tribunal ruled against him.

25. Mr. Akintoye was charged again with sexual assault in Langford, B.C., in 2013 but not convicted at trial. In 2020, Mr. Akintoye was charged in the United States for what he believes was mischief, but he was told his charge had been dismissed and he was returned to Canada.

26. At the time that Mr. Akintoye was assessed for criminal responsibility, he was employed part time as a cleaner and financially supported by the Ontario Disability Support Program. Mr. Akintoye was released on bail following the index offences but was evicted from his apartment and has lived in shelters and at friend’s houses since his release from custody.

27. Mr. Akintoye’s current diagnoses are Schizophrenia and Cannabis Use Disorder.

Evidence at the Hearing

28. Dr. Dupré assessed Mr. Akintoye for risk and adopted the contents of the Hospital Report in evidence. She stated that there are no updates to the Hospital Report. Most recently, Mr. Akintoye has been treated with oral paliperidone prescribed by his family doctor. In late March 2025, Mr. Akintoye was seen by outpatient psychiatrists at Humber River Hospital.

29. Dr. Dupré testified that Mr. Akintoye has a history of inconsistent adherence to medication. In her opinion, his insight into the need for medication to treat his mental illness is limited. She stated that Mr. Akintoye is not currently hearing any voices or experiencing florid psychotic symptoms.

30. In terms of housing, Mr. Akintoye is currently staying with a friend on his couch, but the friend has asked him to leave. Mr. Akintoye has nowhere else to stay.

31. Dr. Dupré testified that:

• housing instability has negatively affected Mr. Akintoye’s mental state in the past, and the hospital requires the authority to approve any accommodation;

• due to Mr. Akintoye’s potential for rapid psychiatric decompensation, historical medical non-adherence, and poor insight into his illness and associated risk, a Conditional Discharge would not be appropriate, as the Mental Health Act would be insufficient to respond to any early signs of risk escalation;

• currently, the bail program is a key protective factor. Absent a Detention Order Disposition, Dr. Dupré is of the opinion that Mr. Akintoye would stop taking his medication as he has in the past;

• Mr. Akintoye might voluntarily agree to come into hospital initially, but the length of time needed for stabilizing his mental state would be longer than he would agree to;

• more time is required to build a more thorough therapeutic relationship;

• Mr. Akintoye has historically been mobile in the country and has few Ontario ties with the exception of his son and his ex-partner who he has not contacted.

32. In response to questions from counsel for the Attorney General, Dr. Dupré testified:

• the Forensic Outpatient Service team will perform an assessment to determine appropriate housing for Mr. Akintoye on a priority basis. Housing stress has historically led to mental decompensation for Mr. Akintoye. If they are unable to find suitable housing for Mr. Akintoye which will assist him in adherence to his medication, he will be admitted to hospital. The Forensic Outpatient Service would decide whether this should occur depending on Mr. Akintoye’s cooperation;

• the hospital needs the ability to bring Mr. Akintoye into hospital if required; and

• currently during the day Mr. Akintoye states that he cleans, he studies, he goes to church, and he goes for walks. He has no structured activities in his day.

33. In response to questions from counsel for Mr. Akintoye, Dr. Dupré testified:

• Mr. Akintoye is looking forward to moving out of his friend’s apartment and understands the need for an ORB Disposition; and

• the treatment team is aware that Mr. Akintoye stays on his friend’s couch, but it is unknown if his friend is residing in the apartment at this time.

34. In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Dupré testified:

• if Mr. Akintoye deemed that a residence was not suitable and that he wanted to leave, he would have nowhere to go;

• she has not canvassed with Mr. Akintoye whether he would be prepared to come to the hospital if required to do so;

• if Mr. Akintoye agreed to come to the hospital for medications and follow-up, it would be possible to apply for community-based housing. Alternatively, Mr. Akintoye might be hospitalized and then discharged to housing;

• Mr. Akintoye is currently functionally homeless, which is a major risk factor for him;

• Mr. Akintoye does not have the financial means to obtain housing, as he is on ODSP;

• medication has been optimized in the past, but Mr. Akintoye then stops taking the medication, and it must be started again;

• It appears that Mr. Akintoye has been prescribed higher doses of medication in the past, but she is unsure if he was taking it;

• psychological testing will be undertaken, as the treatment team has concerns about Mr. Akintoye’s self-reporting;

• when in hospital, there has been more objective observation of Mr. Akintoye’s symptoms, his delusions and paranoia. In her opinion, his psychotic symptoms are consistent with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, although objective assessment and observation is required;

• it will be important to closely monitor Mr. Akintoye’s mental state, and that he be open with the treatment team;

• if outpatient treatment for Mr. Akintoye is not successful, he will be admitted to hospital;

• the hospital contacted Mr. Akintoye’s son’s mother and invited her to reach out to the hospital, but she indicated that she does not want contact with Mr. Akintoye, nor does her son; and

• Mr. Akintoye is at risk of living on the street. In Dr. Dupré’s opinion, this is destabilizing and the level of stimulation in shelter programs with noise and people when Mr. Akintoye is unwell leads him to misinterpret what is occurring.

35. No further evidence was called by the parties.

Analysis and Conclusion

36. Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence, as well as the submissions from the parties, the Board finds independently that Mr. Akintoye presents a significant threat to the safety of the public.

37. In Winko, the Supreme Court outlined that, in coming to the conclusion on the issue of significant risk, a Review Board should 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 examined the NCR accused. In coming to our conclusion in this matter, the Board relies on the uncontroverted expert evidence of Dr. Dupré, in addition to the documentary evidence before us.

38. Mr. Akintoye has a well-documented history of psychotic symptoms including auditory hallucinations, paranoia, and referential and somatic delusions. These have been exacerbated by substance use and have led to episodes of aggression. Mr. Akintoye lacks awareness of his illness and does not recognize the connection between his psychotic symptoms and the risk of violence. Mr. Akintoye has a longstanding history of non-adherence to medication and psychiatric follow-up. Further psychological testing is required to determine the extent and effects of his illness, as the treatment team has concerns with Mr. Akintoye’s reporting and possible malingering.

39. The Hospital Report notes at page 39 that:

“The following clinical items were rated as present and highly relevant: insight, symptoms of major mental disorder, instability, and treatment and supervision response. Mr. Akintoye demonstrated problems with insight, including limited awareness of his index offence, his potential for violence, and his need for ongoing treatment. He also exhibited active symptoms of a major mental disorder, which resulted in psychiatric rehospitalization. Instability was evident in the form of affective and cognitive dysregulation, particularly in the context of psychotic decompensation. Additionally, Mr. Akintoye showed a problematic response to treatment and supervision, including discontinuation of his prescribed antipsychotic medication, difficulty disclosing relevant information, and inconsistent attendance at scheduled appointments with Ms. DaCosta. Problems with violent ideation or intent were not identified and are considered not present or relevant at this time.”

40. The Board also relies on the re-offence scenario at page 44 of the Hospital Report:

“In risk assessment, one of the most reliable predictors of future violence is a patient’s history of violent behaviour. Mr. Akintoye was found Not Criminally Responsible on account of Mental Disorder (NCRMD) for the above offences, which involved violent and concerning conduct in the context of active psychotic symptoms. His mental state has improved since being re-initiated on antipsychotic medication; however, recent non-adherence has led to psychiatric decompensation and rehospitalization.

Mr. Akintoye continues to hold paranoid beliefs about police. He demonstrates limited insight into his illness, including a lack of appreciation for the connection between treatment discontinuation, decompensation, and risk of future violence. If he were to become non-adherent with medication, disengage from psychiatric services, and resume substance use, a further psychotic relapse would be likely. This risk is heightened in the context of psychosocial stressors, particularly housing instability. In such a state – without appropriate monitoring or support – he may display disorganized, impulsive, or threatening behaviour.

Based on his history, a future violent incident could involve a sudden, unprovoked confrontation with a member of the public, triggered by perceived persecution or delusional misinterpretation. Consistent with his index offence and prior behaviour, the violence would most likely involve physical aggression and could involve the use of an object as a weapon. Substance use – particularly cannabis – may further disinhibit Mr. Akintoye, intensify psychotic symptoms, and reduce his capacity to seek help or comply with treatment. Without structured intervention and external controls, such an incident could result in harm to others and renewed legal involvement.”

41. Given the Board’s finding of significant threat, it is charged with shaping a Disposition for the coming year. The Board agrees with the hospital recommendation that the necessary and appropriate Disposition to manage Mr. Akintoye’s risk in the following reporting year is a Detention Order.

42. In coming to this conclusion, the Board notes the risk factors highlighted in the expert evidence of Dr. Dupré and in the Hospital Report. Mr. Akintoye suffers from schizophrenia and cannabis use disorder. Due to his history of violence, major mental illness, treatment nonadherence, and limited insight, the panel finds that there is a foreseeable and substantial risk that Mr. Akintoye would be likely to commit a serious criminal offence, if discharged absolutely. The hospital’s evidence was clear that if not under the Board’s jurisdiction, based on his history, Mr. Akintoye would be likely to experience stressors including homelessness, which would lead to his deterioration into an acute psychotic state. He would likely disengage from psychiatric follow up and medication as he has in the past, and he would be at risk to act out violently.

43. The panel finds that a Detention Order Disposition is both necessary and appropriate to safely manage Mr. Akintoye’s risk to public safety. Further assessment is required to determine his housing needs and Mr. Akintoye may require a hospital admission to allow his mental state to be closely monitored. If suitable community placement cannot be found for Mr. Akintoye, he will be admitted to hospital.

44. Dr. Dupré’s expert evidence was clear that the provisions of the Mental Health Act are not sufficient to mitigate the risk that Mr. Akintoye poses to the public. The hospital requires the ability to quickly bring Mr. Akintoye to hospital in the case of rapid decompensation in his mental state. It is also clear on the evidence that the hospital requires the authority to approve appropriate housing for Mr. Akintoye.

45. In light of the foregoing, we accept Dr. Dupré’s expert evidence that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a Detention Disposition with the terms as noted in our formal Disposition.

46. In making this Disposition, the Board has reviewed the provisions of s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code and has carefully considered the need to protect the public from dangerous persons, Mr. Akintoye’s mental condition, his reintegration into society, and his other needs.

DATED this 19^th^ 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