Re: Gerry Viloria Baguistan, 2025 CanLII 86836

Ontario Review Board

Re: Gerry Viloria Baguistan

ORB File No: 4017

Hearing held on: Friday, June 27, 2025

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

Pursuant to: Section 672.81(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: Gerry Viloria Baguistan Counsel: Mr. B. Irvine

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

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. S. Cressman

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated August 25, 2025)

Introduction

1. On July 16, 2004, Mr. Baguistan was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on a charge of aggravated assault, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”). Mr. Baguistan is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB”) dated June 17, 2024, which provides that he be discharged subject to conditions.

2. On Friday, June 27, 2025, Board convened a hearing at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto (“CAMH” or the “hospital”) and conducted the annual review of Mr. Baguistan’s Disposition pursuant to section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Baguistan attended his hearing and was represented by his counsel, Mr. B. Irvine. A Hospital Report, dated June 5, 2025, was entered as Exhibit No. 1.

3. The issue at this hearing is whether Mr. Baguistan continues to represent a significant threat to public safety, 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.

Positions of the Parties

4. At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed for their initial recommendations to the Board. On behalf of the hospital, Ms. Marshall submitted that the existing Conditional Discharge Disposition remains the necessary and appropriate Disposition with no changes.

5. Counsel for the Attorney General supported the recommendation of the hospital.

6. Counsel for Mr. Baguistan submitted that his client was seeking an Absolute Discharge. In the alternative, if the Board determined that the threshold for significant threat was met, Mr. Baguistan would support the hospital’s recommendation to continue the current Disposition, including the consent to treatment clause.

7. For the reasons set out below and based on the expert evidence and opinions before us, the Board concluded that Mr. Hall continues to present a significant threat to the safety of the public and that his risk can be properly managed with a continuation of the existing Conditional Discharge without changes. The Board concluded that the above is the necessary, and appropriate, Disposition in the circumstances.

Index Offence

8. The circumstances giving rise to the index offence are taken from last year’s Reasons for Disposition as follows:

“The index offence occurred on March 13, 2004. The victim and the accused in this matter are cousins who live in the same house. The accused has been diagnosed with schizophrenia and takes medication to control his illness. According to the family, the accused, within the previous few days, had stopped taking his medication. On Saturday, March 13, 2004, the victim was asleep in her bedroom at 1 Renoak Drive. At approximately 1335 hours the accused entered the victim’s bedroom and approached the victim. For no apparent reason or provocation the accused grabbed the victim from the bed and threw her on the floor. As the victim lay on the floor, the accused began stabbing the victim repeatedly in the head and face area. The victim began to scream and other family members ran to her bedroom. The accused was pulled off of the victim and was taken downstairs. The accused later told the police “yeah, I stabbed my aunt. I got a knife and she is forcing me to do it”. The police asked why he did so. He replied, “she is challenging my ability”.

The index offence occurred while Mr. Baguistan was residing in a home shared with other family members including his mother and three sisters."

Diagnoses

9. Schizophrenia Borderline Intellectual Functioning

Background

10. Mr. Baguistan’s background and course following the index offence are detailed in the Hospital Report in evidence and need not be repeated in detail, but the following points are noted.

11. Mr. Baguistan is currently 52 years old. He is single and has no dependents. He resides in supportive housing in the community and is financially supported by the Ontario Disability Support Program and by his mother. He is incapable of consent to treatment and the Public Guardian and Trustee serves as his Substitute Decision Maker (“SDM”).

12. In 1994, at age 22 Mr. Baguistan moved to Canada from the Philippines where he was raised. He is one of seven children. He completed high school in the Philippines and has had a variety of jobs (restaurant work, factory/warehouse work) but has not been employed since 1997.

13. Mr. Baguistan first experienced psychiatric symptoms when he was 17 or 18 years old in the Philippines. He attempted suicide, was hospitalized, and was diagnosed with schizophrenia. He reported attempting suicide “maybe five” times while in the Philippines (before age 22).

14. He moved to Canada in 1994 and was admitted to hospital for two weeks in 1998. He was admitted again in 1999 due to hallucinations and agitation as a result of discontinuing his medication and required chemical restraint. In 2000 he was hospitalized after a suicide attempt.

15. He has a long history of violent behaviour toward family members including threatening his brother-in-law with a knife, punching his sister, and threatening to kill his mother.

16. Following the 2004 NCR finding, Mr. Baguistan remained at CAMH until early 2007. He was followed in the community by outpatient teams from that time until 2012, at which time he was briefly incarcerated awaiting trial for assaulting a police officer. He remained on a Detention Order in the community with some hospital re-admissions until he was granted a Conditional Discharge on June 5, 2023.

Evidence at the Hearing

17. Dr. Dupré is Mr. Baguistan's outpatient forensic psychiatrist and adopted the contents of the Hospital Report. She testified as follows:

• Mr. Baguistan has recently experienced delusional thoughts with respect to his sisters. The sisters and the treatment team have asked Mr. Baguistan not to return to their residence, and he has agreed
• within the last month, he did go once to their residence for financial assistance, but was not allowed in. This caused the treatment team concern, and, as a result, they increased Mr. Baguistan's reporting to the Forensic Outpatient Service (FOPS)
• Mr. Baguistan’s delusional beliefs were similar to those that he was experiencing at the time of the index offence in that they were about a relative, and this was very concerning to the treatment team
• Mr. Baguistan’s illness is treatment resistant, and he continues to experience psychotic symptoms despite his adherence to medication
• a medication consult was previously completed, but the treatment team has requested another in order to get further treatment recommendations
• she discussed an Absolute Discharge with Mr. Baguistan. If given an Absolute Discharge, his plan is to stop his medication and move to the Philippines, where he has no housing, no psychiatric support, and has had no contact for years with family there. He suggested that he might begin to drink alcohol again
• his risk of violence would increase in conditions where he is not receiving treatment for his ongoing psychotic symptoms, has no community support team, and does not have stable housing
• historically, when Mr. Baguistan has stopped his medication, the decompensation in his mental state has been quick (days to weeks)
• he would be at high risk of violence if he was not adherent to medication. While under the jurisdiction of the ORB he was charged with assaulting a police officer when he was not taking medication
• his insight into his illness and need to abstain from substances is extremely limited. He is incapable of consenting to treatment. Any insight into the connection between symptoms of his illness and his risk of violence is extremely limited
• he has agreed not to consume alcohol, but this is externally motivated, and he has indicated that he would resume consuming alcohol if allowed
• the re-offence scenario outlined at page 32 of the Hospital Report remains accurate

18. In response to questions from Counsel for the Attorney General, Dr. Dupré testified that:

• in May, Mr. Baguistan experienced delusions about one sister and thought that she had been replaced by an imposter. More recently, he experienced delusions about both sisters and thought that they might have been replaced by imposters or that they might be involved with the National Security Agency in the Philippines. The treatment team and sisters have concerns for their well-being, as the index offence was a serious aggravated assault against a family member

19. In response to questions from counsel for Mr. Baguistan, Dr. Dupré testified that:

• Mr. Baguistan has attended all of his outpatient appointments. If he was not under the jurisdiction of the ORB, he would fall away from treatment
• while supervised, he is reasonably compliant with his medication regime. Without the oversight of the ORB, he said he would stop taking his medication. He does not recognize the benefit of his medication
• Mr. Baguistan has not used alcohol, but this is at least in part because of supervision he is subject to. More frequent follow-ups would be done if Mr. Baguistan were to use alcohol
• Mr. Baguistan has declined to participate in therapeutic group programming and does not see the need to do so or benefit from doing so
• in terms of symptoms of his mental illness, Mr. Baguistan has near total lack of insight and he has limited insight into his mental illness
• if Mr. Baguistan were to discontinue taking his medication, the lack of insight becomes a serious problem
• other than social assistance benefits, Mr. Baguistan would not have access to supportive resources. One referral to a team in the community was declined due to his history
• Mr. Baguistan does not have a passport
• Mr. Baguistan does not have any friends. He receives support from the FOPS team but has no social support with the exception of his mother. His sisters were supportive, but with the re-emergence of Mr. Baguistan's symptoms, and statements he has made, have led them to not want him to come to their home until their mother returns from the Philippines in the summer
• Mr. Baguistan has complained of physical symptoms including issues with energy, breathing, and urologic concerns, but has declined to be assessed
• Mr. Baguistan continues to experience residual symptoms of his mental illness although he has experienced a long period of stability. There is now further concern due to his expressed delusions about his sisters, and he will be monitored more closely and frequent contact with the family will continue

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

• there is a real, non-speculative risk of serious criminal act
• Mr. Baguistan lacks insight into his illness and across most domains and this lack of insight does impact his risk to public safety
• the new emerging belief regarding his sisters is within the diagnosis of schizophrenia
• before an Absolute Discharge could be considered, Mr. Baguistan would require a community support team who could support and monitor his illness and medication adherence
• in the past, Mr. Baguistan was granted a Conditional Discharge and followed by ACT in the community. This was insufficient, and Mr. Baguistan did not do well. He was then placed on a Detention Order again for several years before the current Conditional Discharge. He requires long term forensic support
• the delusion that his sister belongs to a secret agency demonstrates risk in that Mr. Baguistan exhibits a distortion in his understanding of reality. There is a concern about this belief about his sisters, as they are some of his only contacts
• Mr. Baguistan is a poor historian and is unable to share information about what he is experiencing internally; therefore, the treatment team does not know what other symptoms Mr. Baguistan may be experiencing
• the delusion that his sisters may belong to a secret agency may be perceived by Mr. Baguistan as a threat to him. Frustration that he is not able to go to their home may occur and be a source of dysregulation
• Mr. Baguistan's sisters provide him with financial assistance and there is now stress in this relationship. There is a risk of violence given his misperception of events
• Mr. Baguistan has very limited coping skills
• when granted a Conditional Discharge, Mr. Baguistan initially misunderstood and believed that meant that he was absolutely discharged and no longer under the jurisdiction of the Board

21. No further evidence was called.

Final Submissions of the Parties

22. Counsel for the hospital submitted that Mr. Baguistan continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. A continuation of the existing Conditional Discharge is the necessary and appropriate Disposition to balance Mr. Baguistan's liberty and his risk factors. Mr. Baguistan has recently been experiencing new delusions about his family, which are similar to delusions he was experiencing at the time of the index offence. The evidence is clear, and Mr. Baguistan has stated himself, that absent the oversight of the ORB, he would discontinue taking medication. If he were to discontinue his medication, he would experience rapid decompensation in his mental state, become violent, try to leave the country, and present a risk to the safety of the public. He would disengage from psychiatric treatment if absolutely discharged. The hospital will continue to try to find follow-up care in the community in order for Mr. Baguistan to progress further under the jurisdiction of the Board.

23. Counsel for the Attorney General submitted that the significant threat threshold is clearly met. Mr. Baguistan suffers from treatment-refractory schizophrenia. When untreated, he experiences psychosis, and even with treatment he is currently experiencing symptoms. Mr. Baguistan initially misunderstood his Disposition, refused injectable medication, and required re-admission to the hospital. If granted an Absolute Discharge, Mr. Baguistan's historically assaultive behavior is likely to recur. In addition to the index offence, in June 2012, Mr. Baguistan punched a police officer, demonstrating that in addition to the risk posed to his family, there is risk to other members of the public.

24. Counsel for Mr. Baguistan submitted that even if Mr. Baguistan wished to leave the country, he would be unable to do so. Whether he understands this or not is unclear. Counsel for Mr. Baguistan further submitted that his client wants to be released.

Analysis and Conclusion

25. Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence, as well as the submissions from the parties, the Board has no difficulty reaching the conclusion that Mr. Baguistan remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.

26. In Winko, the Supreme Court outlined that, in coming to the conclusion on the issue of significant risk, the 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.

27. Mr. Baguistan continues to have very limited insight into his illness, his symptoms, the need for medication, the destabilizing effect of alcohol on his mental condition, and the risk of violence when he is unwell. Mr. Baguistan has stated that he wishes to be discharged, and essentially to be left alone without psychiatric follow-up or medication.

28. Mr. Baguistan suffers from treatment-refractory schizophrenia and is never completely symptom free. When unwell, he presents with paranoid and persecutory delusions, auditory hallucinations, disorganization, and agitation, which have resulted in violent behaviour.

29. Concerningly, even while adherent to his medication, he has very recently experienced delusions surrounding his sisters which are similar to those which led to the index offence against a family member. His mother and sisters are his only social support and also provide financial support. Due to his most recent delusions, his sisters are afraid and do not want him to attend their home.

30. Although Mr. Baguistan is aware of his diagnosis, his insight across all domains is extremely limited. Historically, Mr. Baguistan has been non-compliant with treatment, which has led to mental decompensation and increased risk for violence. His lack of insight into the need for treatment increases his risk of discontinuing treatment if given the opportunity.

31. In particular, the Board relies on the Re-Offence Scenario and Composite Assessment of Risk set out in the Hospital report:

Re-Offence Scenario

“In risk assessment, one of the best predictors is a patient’s history of violence. While under the influence of psychotic symptomatology, Mr. Baguistan has engaged in both verbal and physical violence that has resulted in serious harm to others, including the use of weapons. His violence has been motivated by delusional persecutory beliefs and fears, and has often been directed to immediate family members, but also at police. He has made threatening comments to professional staff, as was evident in September 2018.

If Mr. Baguistan is to reoffend, this will likely transpire by falling away from treatment services and non-compliance with psychotropic medications, resulting in decompensation of his mental state and exacerbation of psychotic symptomatology. Further destabilizing factors include consumption of intoxicants and exposure to stressors (e.g. housing, conflictual peers). When experiencing heightened psychosis, he will be at increased risk of acting out violently, likely motivated by persecutory and paranoid delusions, similar to his circumstances during the index offence.”

Composite Assessment of Risk

“Based on Mr. Baguistan’s psychotic and intellectual disorder, residual psychotic symptomatology, history of significant violence, problems with compliance and supervision, lack of insight into his mental disorder and need for treatment, and actuarial risk assessment scores, it is our clinical opinion that he continues to meet the threshold for significant threat to the public as defined in Section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code.”

32. In light of the Board’s finding of significant threat, it is charged with shaping a Disposition for the coming year. The panel accepts the uncontroverted expert opinion of Dr. Dupré that a continuation of the existing Conditional Discharge Disposition is the least onerous and least restrictive Disposition to manage Mr. Baguistan’s risk. The evidence is clear that Mr. Baguistan’s illness is fragile, and he continues to experience active symptoms which increase his risk to the safety of the public, and particularly to members of his family.

33. In consideration of all the evidence, 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. Baguistan, his reintegration into society and his other needs, the necessary, and appropriate, Disposition is a continuation of the existing Disposition without changes.

DATED this 25th 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