Re: Kelvin Johnston
ORB File No: 6909
Hearing held on: July 7, 2025
Place of hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. P. Capelle
Members: Dr. R. Kunjukrishnan
Dr. W. Loza
Mr. D. D’Intino
Ms. N. Lemieux-McKinnon
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Kelvin Johnston
Counsel: Mr. P. Azzi
The person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. J. Gojer
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. M. Dufort
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated August 11, 2025)
Introduction
On February 10, 2016, Kelvin Johnston, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of uttering threats to cause death and interference with the lawful use of property, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (the Criminal Code).
Mr. Johnston is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated June 10, 2024, which detains him at the secure forensic unit of the hospital with terms and conditions up to and including to live in the community in supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge.
On July 7, 2025, a panel convened in person and a hearing was held at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre (ROMHC). The purpose of the hearing was to determine if Mr. Johnston represents a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in the Criminal Code of Canada, and if so, the necessary and appropriate disposition.
For the reasons set out below, the Board unanimously finds that Mr. Johnston continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition to manage that risk while meeting his needs is a continuation of the his existing Detention Order Disposition, with no changes to its terms and conditions.
Current Psychiatric Diagnoses:
Schizoaffective Disorder in partial remission
Stimulant Use Disorder in partial remission.
Social Phobia
Anxiety Disorder NOS.
Index Offences:
- The nature of the allegations giving rise to the charges on the index offences is described in last year’s Reasons for Disposition as follows:
“Since June 2015, Mr. Johnston had been residing in an apartment building where the victim of the index offences had resided for 25 years. Since June 2015, the victim had filed five reports to the management because of Mr. Johnston’s behaviour which had escalated to the point where she was not able to lawfully enjoy her apartment including having her sleep and rest disrupted. She had even slept at a hotel on a few occasions to be able to rest.
On December 31, 2015, Mr. Johnston was making a lot of noise by stomping, pacing, and moving things around in his apartment. The victim called 911 and contacted the building manager who had had previous dealings with Mr. Johnston. Prior to the arrival of the police, the manager went to attempt to quiet Mr. Johnston down. As he approached Mr. Johnston’s apartment, he could hear him yell that he was going to “hunt down and slay” both the manager and his wife. He went on to state that he was going to kill everyone else in the apartment building. The police attended and arrested Mr. Johnston and charged him with the index offences as well as other charges that were later withdrawn.”
Without Prejudice Position of the Parties:
At the commencement of the hearing, the parties were canvassed for their initial positions.
Counsel for the Hospital took the position that the necessary and appropriate disposition was continuation of the existing Detention Order with no changes to the conditions.
Counsel for the Attorney General supported the Hospital’s position.
Counsel for the accused joined the other parties in their positions, and thus the Panel had a joint recommendation submitted for its consideration which was maintained at the conclusion of the hearing.
Evidence at the Hearing:
The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence from Dr. Gojer.
Dr. Gojer testified by way of an update to the Hospital Report that in discussions with Mr. Johnston, the treatment team felt that Abilify was no longer an efficacious medication and Mr. Johnston agreed to discontinue that medication and switch to Invega. Dr. Gojer testified that Mr. Johnston was happy with this switch and further that he feels the medication change has substantially reduced or even eliminated his psychotic symptoms altogether.
According to Dr. Gojer, a few weeks prior to the hearing Mr. Johnston had relapsed into substance use which did not trigger a psychotic episode but did result in a loss of privileges. Then over the weekend, Mr. Johnston got into an altercation with a co-patient which involved the former sending threatening text messages to the latter, resulting in a police investigation for the possible laying of charges. Mr. Johnston recognized that he didn’t handle the situation well, was remorseful for actions and took responsibility for them.
Dr. Gojer testified that Mr. Johnston has not posed a physical risk to anyone, that he is a likeable person and that they relate well to each other. Mr. Johnston is attending an impulse control group to assist with his judgment and Dr. Gojer sees him quite regularly as a result. Further, that in the last few months Dr. Gojer has been looking for a community placement for Mr. Johnston.
Dr. Gojer testified that while he is concerned about Mr. Johnston’s long-standing struggle to abstain from the use of illicit substances, he is also concerned about Mr. Johnston becoming institutionalized on account of the many years he has remained in Hospital.
In response to questions from Ms. Dufort, Dr. Gojer confirmed that he has arranged for Mr. Johnston to see a psychotherapist to address some childhood trauma, and that he will work in concert with Mr. Johnston’s social worker and addictions counsellor to construct another behavioural plan for this gentleman.
Dr. Gojer confirmed that while Mr. Johnston can at times be a bit paranoid with nursing staff, Mr. Johnston has always been open in his communication with him.
Mr. Johnston is able to continue with his impulse control group therapy while living in the community at Springfield Manor, which is a supervised residence. He will continue to see Dr. Gojer twice weekly, will be attending the Hospital five days weekly and will commence a trial leave from the Hospital before being discharged.
In response to questions from Mr. Azzi, Dr. Gojer confirmed that Mr. Johnston has been mostly friendly and compliant with staff, has been medication adherent and has partial insight into his need for medication.
Dr. Gojer further agreed that Mr. Johnston is motivated to remain abstinent from substances because he is able to appreciate that his ability to live in community depends on it.
In response to Panel questions, Dr. Gojer confirmed that to treat Mr. Johnston’s anxiety symptoms, he has a number of learned skills at his disposal, including deep breathing and talking to staff but also has Ativan to be used as needed.
Dr. Gojer further testified that Mr. Johnston accepts that he has a mental illness and recognizes that the support of the Hospital is helpful to his mental stability. He is currently optimally medicated with no changes to his medication regime planned at this time.
According to Dr. Gojer, the biggest risk for Mr. Johnston going forward is in relation to a return to substance abuse, with concern surrounding his potential for verbal aggression. Dr. Gojer is not concerned that Mr. Johnston will engage in any sort of physical aggression.
In response to questions from the Alternate Chair, Dr. Gojer confirmed that there is work to be done in the area of Mr. Johnston’s insight into the importance of medication compliance. Mr. Johnston still occasionally expresses a desire for a reduction but when Dr. Gojer has stated to him that reducing his clozapine dose would likely lead to readmission, Mr. Johnston then back off his request for a medication reduction.
As it concerns the discharge plan, Dr. Gojer testified that it is not going to be a quick discharge. Mr. Johnston will be doing some short visits at first before moving on to some overnight visits, all spread out over a period of several weeks.
The Panel also heard the testimony of Mr. Johnston’s mother, who while expressing support for his eventual discharge into the community and sharing Dr. Gojer’s concern about her son’s institutionalization, opined that due to his recent drug use and the altercation with a co-patient in Hospital, that her son may not yet be safe in the community.
Ms. Johnston spoke at length about the frequency and severity of her son’s anxiety attacks and his inability to function after them. She is also concerned about the addictive potential of the Ativan he is prescribed to address his anxiety. Ms. Johnston testified that she is very fond of Dr. Gojer and supports her son’s treatment team, but she wants assurances that if he is going to be discharged that this time will be successful.
Ms. Johnston wants her son to get a job before his discharge and wants a much slower transition into the community than what is envisioned. She wants him to understand the rules and the consequences that will result if he breaches his disposition by for example, returning to substance use.
Lastly, in response to Ms. Johnston’s concerns, Dr. Gojer confirmed that he would hold Mr. Johnston’s bed at the Hospital for a longer period of time, in case he experiences any issues with his discharge.
No further evidence was called by any of the parties, and all parties maintained their initial positions at the conclusion of the hearing.
Analysis and Conclusions
Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence as well as the submissions from the parties, the Board finds that Mr. Johnston remains a significant threat to the safety of the public and therefore a continuation of the existing Detention Order Disposition is both necessary and appropriate.
Ongoing significant threat to the safety of the public cannot be speculative. It must entail a real risk of serious physical or psychological harm arising from conduct that is both serious and criminal in nature.
In determining whether Kelvin Johnston continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public the Board has carefully analyzed the evidence as it relates to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Winko, 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625.
Mr. Johnston suffers from schizoaffective disorder, as well as a stimulant use disorder, social phobia, and anxiety disorder. While Mr. Johnston’s current medication regime treats his psychotic symptoms quite effectively, he still struggles with cravings for stimulants and debilitating anxiety attacks.
Over the past few months, Mr. Johnston had relapsed into substance abuse, experienced a return of some paranoid symptoms, and got into a dispute with a co-patient recently which led to police involvement.
He still occasionally expresses to Dr. Gojer a desire to reduce his medication dosages but seems to be easily persuaded against this. His insight into his mental illness and need for medication is superficial and there is still work to be done.
While Mr. Johnston has made some good progress in the past reporting year, the Panel finds that absent a Detention Order Disposition, Mr. Johnston would reduce or discontinue his psychiatric medication, relapse into substance use and likely commit acts of verbal or physical aggression toward others.
In consideration of all the evidence, the 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. Johnston, his reintegration into society and his other needs, the necessary and appropriate Disposition is continuation of the existing Detention Order Disposition with the no changes to its terms and conditions.
The Panel wishes Mr. Johnston well as he begins his transition back into the community.
DATED this 11th day of August 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. D. D’Intino Legal Member
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board