Ontario Review Board
Re: Mark-Antony Colquhoun
ORB File No: 7864
Hearing held on: Tuesday July 29, 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: Mark-Antony Colquhoun Counsel: Ms. J. Boissonneault
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. A. Marshall
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. N. MacDonald
AMENDED REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated August 21, 2025)
Please see underlined changes to original reasons, made August 21, 2025: The accused’s name has been corrected to read “Colquhoun” throughout the document.
Introduction
[1]. On March 9, 2001, Mark-Antony Colquhoun was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCR) on a charge of criminal harassment contrary to the Criminal Code. He is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the Board) dated June 27, 2024, ordering that he be discharged subject to conditions.
[2]. On Tuesday, July 29, 2025, the Board convened a hearing pursuant to section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code to review Mr. Colquhoun’s disposition. Mr. Colquhoun was present at the hearing and represented by counsel, Ms. Boissonneault. The issues to be determined at the hearing were whether Mr. Colquhoun 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
[3]. 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. Colquhoun 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 discharge on conditions with the only change to the terms being the amendment of the minimum reporting requirement to once every four weeks.
[4]. Counsel for the Attorney General supported the Hospital position.
[5]. Counsel for Mr. Colquhoun submitted that her client no longer represented a significant threat to the safety of the public and that accordingly he was entitled to be discharged absolutely. In the alternative, she submitted that, should the Board find that her client continues to represent a significant threat, she would recommend a continuation of the current discharge on conditions with the deletion of terms 1(a), 1(h), 1(i) and 1(j).
Evidence at the hearing
[6]. The evidence at the hearing consisted of the Hospital Report dated April 2, 2025, an Addendum to the Hospital Report dated July 4, 2025, and the oral evidence of Dr. Wang, Mr. Colquhoun’s treating physician.
Findings:
[7]. For the Reasons that follow, the Board finds that Mr. Colquhoun no longer represents a significant threat to the safety of the public and that accordingly he is entitled to be discharged absolutely.
Index Offences:
[8]. The allegations surrounding the index offence as summarized in last year’s Reasons for Disposition are as follows:
Mr. Colquhoun began dating Helen Luu when he was 14 and she 13. They dated for approximately a year and a half and then dated again when he was 22 years old for another two and a half years. Mr. Colquhoun attempted to gain access to the residence of the Luu family on April 7, 2020. He stated he wanted to speak with Ms. Helen Luu. Ms. Luu’s father told him not to return to the residence and called police. Mr. Colquhoun was arrested and given a condition not to be within 500 metres of the residence. He returned on April 18, whereupon Ms. Sarah Luu, Helen’s sister, called 911. Mr. Colquhoun admitted that he was aware that her father had told him not to return, and that the police had arrested him for it, but thought that the charges were not real and did not apply to him. On April 20, 2020, the police again were called and Mr. Colquhoun again was arrested. He reported that he had consumed at least 13 oz of whisky that day.
Background Information Regarding the Accused:
[9]. Mr. Colquhoun is a 32-year-old male at the time of the hearing. He is single and with no dependants. He has a high school diploma and three months in an automobile mechanic program at Durham College. He had various general labourer jobs and has a history of being precariously housed, living at times with his mother, friends, and in shelters.
Substance Use History
[10]. Mr. Colquhoun reported that he began using marijuana occasionally in his teens, started to use about 1 g per day when he was a bit older, and continued daily use until he was admitted to hospital in 2017 with psychotic symptoms. He stated that he stopped using marijuana after this because “the feeling it gave me was not a good feeling.”
[11]. Mr. Colquhoun recalled using magic mushroom about four times in his early 20s and denied any other substance use except for alcohol. Although he was initially “never really a drinker”, he reported that his alcohol use increased since the emergence of his psychotic symptoms in 2017. He would drink between 26 and 40 ounces of alcohol “pretty often” and would drink as much alcohol as he could afford. When asked why he was drinking so much, he stated that it seemed to help with his psychotic symptoms.
Legal History:
[12]. Mr. Colquhoun has a criminal record commencing in 2020, including convictions for assault (x3) and failure to comply (x2).
Psychiatric History
[13]. In March 2017, Mr. Colquhoun was referred to the Prompt Care Clinic at Ontario Shores for a psychiatric consultation regarding diagnostic clarification and treatment recommendations by his family physician. He had endorsed paranoia throughout the three weeks prior to the assessment, believing that “others are trying to harm” him. He also believed that his apartment was wired with listening devices and cameras and that his mother’s phone was tapped. He also believed that others could hear his thoughts. The assessor’s diagnostic impression was that Mr. Colquhoun was most likely experiencing a cannabis-induced psychotic disorder as well as cannabis use disorder (severe) and noted that a primary psychotic disorder and major depressive order with psychotic features needed to be ruled out.
[14]. In February 2019, Mr. Colquhoun was brought to hospital after he was assessed by a crisis worker who reported that Mr. Colquhoun had difficulty organizing his thoughts and answering even simple questions. He was also suspicious, paranoid and had reported that there were cameras in his apartment, and he was being monitored. While in the emergency department of the hospital, two code whites were called, the first because he attempted to leave and the second because he assaulted four security guards and one nurse. He was admitted to a psychiatric intensive care unit. He was discharged after approximately one week with a discharge diagnosis of drug-induced psychosis.
Current Diagnosis
[15]. Mr. Colquhoun’s current diagnoses are:
Schizophrenia
Simulant Use Disorder
Cannabis Use Disorder, moderate, in sustained remission
Alcohol Use Disorder, moderate, in sustained remission
Evidence of Dr. Wang
[16]. Dr. Wang indicated that he had two updates to the Addendum to the Hospital Report. The first update was that Mr. Colquhoun was now scheduled to move into his own apartment as of August 1, three days after the hearing. The second was that since the date of the completion of the addendum, there had been two positive and one negative urine screens for cocaine, and that the sequence of the screens was a positive followed by a negative and then a further positive, suggesting there was more than one incidence of cocaine use.
[17]. Dr. Wang indicated that overall, Mr. Colquhoun had a good year. There were no behavioural issues and substance use did not appear to have any effect in terms of his psychotic symptoms. In June 2025, Mr. Colquhoun was brought to the Hospital by the police because they believed that he met the description of an individual who had been alleged to be harassing a woman. Mr. Colquhoun denied having harassed anyone, cooperated with the police and volunteered that he was a patient at the Hospital. On admission, he was noted to have consumed alcohol but was not drunk. No charges were laid. He remained in hospital voluntarily until Dr. Wang was able to meet with him. His mental state was at baseline with no evidence of any symptoms or safety concerns and he was discharged home.
[18]. Shortly after his discharge, a urine drug screen returned positive for cocaine which Mr. Colquhoun admitted having used. He also revealed that he had been experiencing a recurrence of psychotic symptoms for auditory hallucinations and some paranoid ideas. With his consent, medications were adjusted with the intramuscular antipsychotic injection administration changed from every three months to every 21 days and the addition of a further antipsychotic medication, aripiprazole.
[19]. The treatment team also noted some changes in behaviour including missing appointments, increase in irritability, and his declining to visit a new apartment. These changes caused the treatment team to be concerned that they were possible early signs of decompensation. Dr. Wang believed that these changes were likely due to chronic use of cocaine largely because he was unable to find any other explanation. However, he also noted that over a significant period of time with regular use, there had been no significant changes in Mr. Colquhoun’s mental state. He suspected that the use may have passed a threshold resulting in changes to Mr. Colquhoun’s mental state.
[20]. Dr. Wang noted that currently the symptoms all appear to be in remission and that Mr. Colquhoun was no longer irritable. His opinion was that if Mr. Colquhoun continues to use cocaine, there is a risk associated with its use but it is difficult to measure the level of risk.
[21]. In response to questions from counsel for the Attorney General, Dr. Wang indicated that the consumption of alcohol by Mr. Colquhoun was a concern but of much more concern was the use of cocaine. Generally, alcohol does not affect psychosis. He believed that a harm reduction approach might well be the best way to assist Mr. Colquhoun.
[22]. In response to questions from counsel for Mr. Colquhoun, Dr. Wang indicated:
Mr. Colquhoun had been medication-compliant for the last four years with injectable antipsychotic medication with the recent addition of an oral antipsychotic medication. The intramuscular antipsychotic medications have a protective nature.
Although Mr. Colquhoun’s insight into his need for medication was intact, he would not describe it as robust. However, in his opinion, Mr. Colquhoun was more likely than not to continue with this medication whether or not he was under the jurisdiction of the Board.
At the time of the Index Offences, Mr. Colquhoun was precariously housed and he had been in the community for two years with no significant issues.
The use of cocaine can lead to the recurrence of psychotic symptoms.
Mr. Colquhoun and the victim of the Index Offence had established a positive consensual relationship for a period of time while he was under the jurisdiction of the Board and that when she ended the relationship, Mr. Colquhoun was sad but displayed no psychotic symptoms similar to those he experienced at the time the Index Offences.
[23]. In response to questions from panel members, Dr. Wang indicated that his understanding of Mr. Colquhoun’s rationale for cocaine use was boredom and that it felt good.
Final Submissions of the Parties.
[24]. At the conclusion of the hearing, counsel for the Hospital maintained her initial positions with respect to significant threat and the continuation of the conditional discharge with the amendment to the reporting requirement suggested at the commencement of the hearing. She indicated she had no instructions with respect to the request from counsel for Mr. Colquhoun for the deletion of a number of terms from the disposition and therefore was not able to take a position.
[25]. Counsel for the Attorney General indicated that having heard the evidence, she was now taking the position that the evidence did not establish that Mr. Colquhoun represented a significant threat to the safety of the public and accordingly was entitled to be discharged absolutely.
[26]. Counsel for Mr. Colquhoun maintained her initial position that her client no longer represented a significant threat and was therefore entitled to be discharged absolutely and in the alternative, should the Board find significant threat has been established, that a continuation of the conditional discharge with the deletion of the terms referred to at the commencement of the hearing.
Analysis and Conclusion, significant threat:
[27]. The Board finds that Mr. Colquhoun no longer represents a significant threat to the safety of the public and accordingly is entitled to be absolutely discharged.
[28]. The jurisprudence with respect to what is required to make a finding of significant threat clearly indicates that there is no onus on the accused person, that the onus on the other parties was a high one, and that:
….the threat posed must be more than speculative in nature; it must be supported by evidence: D.H. v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1994] B.C.J. No. 2011 (QL)(C.A.), at para 21. The threat must also be “significant,” both in the sense that there must be a real risk of physical or psychological harm occurring to individuals in the community and in the sense that this potential harm must be serious. A minuscule risk of a grave harm will not suffice. Similarly, a high risk of trivial harm will not meet the thresh-old. Finally, the conduct or activity creating the harm must be criminal in nature. (Winko v British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatry Institute 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), 1999 2 SCR 625 paragraph 57)
[29]. Dr. Wang’s evidence was that it was more likely than not that Mr. Colquhoun would continue with medication if no longer under the jurisdiction of the Board and that if he continues to use cocaine, there is a risk associated with its use, but it is difficult to measure the level of that risk. Despite continuing use of cocaine, Mr. Colquhoun has been in the community for two years without significant incidents and has been cooperative with the treatment team.
[30]. With respect to the incident in June 2025 when Mr. Colquhoun was brought to the Hospital by police, Mr. Colquhoun denied having harassed anyone, was cooperative with police and no charges were laid. It is also noteworthy that when he met with Dr. Wang, his mental state was at baseline and there was no evidence of any psychotic symptoms. The Board finds that no negative inferences with respect to Mr. Colquhoun’s mental state can be inferred from those circumstances.
[31]. With respect to the use of cocaine in violation of the terms of his disposition, the Board notes that despite regular use of cocaine, there did not appear to be any significant return of psychotic symptomatology, although Dr. Wang suspected that perhaps continued use had led to the return of minor symptoms. However, those symptoms resolved after a change in medication. In order for use of intoxicating substances to reach the level required to support a finding of significant threat, there must be evidence, which is not merely speculative, supporting a finding that the use resulted in an increase of risk to public safety. (Re: Davies 2022 ONCA 716). The Board finds that the evidence does not reach the level required to draw an inference that there has been an increase of risk to public safety.
[32]. There is little doubt that it would be in Mr. Colquhoun’s best interest to remain abstinent from the use of cocaine; however, that is not the test to be applied by the Board. The Board finds that the evidence does not reach the level required to establish that Mr. Colquhoun represents a significant threat to the safety of the public at this time and accordingly he is entitled to be discharged absolutely.
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