Introduction

On May 10, 2012, Sheldon Brown was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCR) on Criminal Code charges of attempt murder and possession of a restricted firearm (with ammunition). Mr. Brown is subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated September 22, 2023, discharging him on conditions.
On Friday, August 1, 2025, the Board convened a hearing to review Mr. Brown’s disposition pursuant to section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Brown was present at the hearing and represented by counsel, Ms. Boissonneault. Mr. Brown’s father also attended the hearing.
The issues to be determined at the hearing were whether Mr. Brown 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 Hospital’s position that Mr. Brown 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.
Counsel for the Attorney General supported the Hospital position.
Counsel for Mr. Brown submitted that her client no longer represented a significant threat to the safety of the public and accordingly was entitled to be discharged absolutely. In the alternative, should the Board find that her client does represent a significant threat, she submitted that the necessary and appropriate disposition would be a continuation of the current discharge on conditions with the deletion of the requirement that he accept treatment as it was no longer necessary. However, her client would continue to consent to the term pursuant to section 672.55 of the Criminal Code, should the Board find that the term was necessary and appropriate.

Evidence at the hearing

The evidence at the hearing consisted of the Hospital Report and the oral evidence of Dr. Wang, Mr. Brown’s treating physician.

Findings:

For the Reasons that follow, the Board finds that Mr. Brown continues represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a continuation of the current discharge on conditions and the majority finds that the condition requiring accepting treatment is to remain in the disposition. The minority would have deleted that term.

Index Offences:

The circumstances surrounding the index offences as summarized in last year’s reasons for disposition are as follows:

On May 10, 2012, Mr. Brown was found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder on a charge of attempt murder and a charge of a possession of a loaded firearm. Mr. Brown, who at the time of the incident was 20 years old, boarded a TTC bus and, with many passengers on board, shot a person known to him in the left side of the abdomen.

Background Information Regarding the Accused:

Mr. Brown is 35 years of age and was born and raised in the Scarborough area. His parents were not married, and they lived apart from the time their son was two years old. He has one full brother and three half-siblings and has a close relationship with all of his siblings.
Mr. Brown suffered a number of traumatic events as a young person including the murder of his half-brother Ryan in November 2007 as well as the murder of a cousin. His father reports that Mr. Brown never recovered from the death of his brother. Mr. Brown became angry and started “blaming God” for the losses he had suffered. For a time, he used church as a coping mechanism but lost that support when he stopped participating in church activities.
Mr. Brown did well in school until grade 10 when he started to struggle academically. Following his brother’s death Mr. Brown began carrying a knife due to fear for his own safety and was suspended from school after a knife was found in a search of his locker. However, Mr. Brown did complete grade 12 but did not continue education beyond that.

Substance Use History

Mr. Brown reported having used cannabis with friends on a social basis but indicated this was not a regular occurrence. He did not describe any abnormal mental states as a result of his cannabis usage. Otherwise, he denied any misuse of alcohol or other illicit substances. His father confirmed his sons report regarding his use of alcohol and illicit substances.

Legal History:

Mr. Brown has the following history of involvement with the criminal justice system:

Date	Charge(s)	Sentence
2010 – 03 – 05 Newmarket Ontario	1) Possession of break-in instruments 2) theft under $5000	1-2) conditional discharge and probation for 18 months on each charge concurrent
2010-03 – 05 Newmarket Ontario	1) Obstruction 2) carry concealed weapon 3) theft under $5000	1-3) withdrawn
2012 – 05 – 10 Toronto Ontario	1) Attempted murder 2) aggravated assault 3) careless storage of a firearm 4) possession of a restricted firearm with ammunition 5) possession of a firearm knowing its possession is unauthorized 6) unauthorized possession of a firearm 7) weapons dangerous 8) careless storage of ammunition 9) altering, defacing or removing serial number on firearm 10) 10 discharge firearm, endanger life 11) point firearm 12) common nuisance 13) fail to comply with probation	1 & 4) found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder 2, 3, 5 –13 withdrawn

Psychiatric History

Mr. Brown had never been admitted to hospital with respect to mental health related issues prior to the index offences.

Current Diagnosis

Mr. Brown’s current diagnoses are:

Schizophrenia
Paranoid and antisocial personality traits

Evidence of Dr. Wang

Dr. Wang indicated the following:

He had been Mr. Brown’s most responsible physician since 2022. He had reviewed and adopted the contents of the Hospital Report and had no significant updates.
Mr. Brown had an overall unremarkable year. He was compliant with medication and there had been no behavioural issues although at times he displayed irritability and suspicion resulting in some increases to his medication.
The treatment team’s recommendation for no change to the disposition was based on the fact that despite compliance with medication Mr. Brown continued to display an overall mistrust of everyone and doesn’t engage. He continues to believe that he is being treated unfairly and wants to be free of all supervision. Mr. Brown’s compliance with medication is mostly due to the requirement in his disposition. He also continues to refuse to talk about the index offences and accordingly Dr. Wang has little idea of his mental state at the time of the offences. He indicated that it could be a reasonable step to delete the requirement in the disposition that he take medication as a test to determine whether he would continue absent a requirement to do so in a disposition.
The treatment team was unanimously of the view that Mr. Brown continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public Mr. Brown has no organized follow-up for mental health care in the community absent the forensic system. In order to manage his risk to the treatment team would like to see him develop an ability to engage with community services to assist him with mental health related issues.
Although a robust insight into his illness and need for medication isn’t necessary some level of insight into his need for assistance and medication would be required in order to manage risk. The treatment team would like to have a psychological risk assessment, but Mr. Brown has refused to cooperate with such an assessment.
The treatment team would like to see Mr. Brown develop some more independence and he is currently on the waiting list for independent housing. Two possible residences had come up over the reporting year, but both were deemed not to meet Mr. Brown’s needs.

In response to questions from counsel from the Attorney General, Dr. Wang indicated that Mr. Brown does not agree that he has a mental illness and has no insight into his need for medication. He is not confident that Mr. Brown would continue with medication absent a disposition requiring it and noted that Mr. Brown had no plans for how to arrange for continuing prescriptions for medication. He noted that although family doctors can prescribe clozapine, most will not, and was not aware of a family doctor for Mr. Brown. He also noted that Mr. Brown continues to be quite susceptible to stress and when experiencing stress becomes more suspicious and irritable. Absent medication he was very likely to become even more susceptible to those stressors.
In response to questions from counsel for Mr. Brown, Dr. Wang agreed that Mr. Brown had no criminal convictions prior to the index offences¹, and he could not recall any aggressive incidents since Mr. Brown’s discharge into the community in October 2020. However, he noted that Mr. Brown’s father has alerted the team to concerns with respect to Mr. Brown’s mental stability on a number of occasions. Although Mr. Brown has been compliant with clozapine (initiated in February 2024) as well as the required blood testing, he regularly complains about side effects.
In response to questions from panel members Dr. Wang indicated that the current risk assessment was based solely on a file review due to Mr. Brown’s lack of cooperation, and Mr. Brown’s risk may be higher due to the lack of information available to the assessor. He also indicated that in his professional opinion, the public safety would be placed at risk if Mr. Brown ceased his medications.

Final Submissions of the Parties.

All parties maintained their initial positions at the conclusion of the hearing.

Analysis and Conclusion, significant threat:

The Board finds that Mr. Brown continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. He suffers from a major mental illness, schizophrenia, as well as displaying and paranoid and antisocial personality traits. Despite adherence to medication, he continues to display symptoms of his illness including distrust and suspicion that almost everyone intends to harm him. As recently of March of this year when Mr. Brown heard sirens near his home, he called his FOS clinician in a panic believing that she had sent police to his home to get him readmitted to hospital. As well in March of this year Mr. Brown’s father, who is his SDM, contacted the treatment team expressing concern over a significant decrease in phone calls and visits with him and other family members which resulted in an increase in his medication.
Mr. Brown does not accept that he suffers from a mental illness or that medication is required in order to manage his mental health. Although insight into his illness and the need for medication is not in and of itself a sufficient basis to make a finding of significant threat to the safety of the public, (Re: Kalra 2018 ONCA 833), it remains a factor to be considered when assessing risk. The evidence supports a finding that, absent compliance with medication, there is a substantial risk of an exacerbation in the level of symptoms of Mr. Brown’s illness resulting in a mental state similar to that at the time of the index offences which resulted in a fatality. Mr. Brown also has a history of possessing weapons capable of causing death or serious bodily harm. That history suggests that the gravity of the potential harm would be high.

Analysis and Conclusion, Necessary and Appropriate Disposition

The Board also finds that the evidence supports a finding that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a continuation of the current discharge on conditions. The majority finds that the continuation of the term requiring compliance with treatment continues to be necessary and appropriate while the minority would find that that term is no longer necessary.

Reasons of the Majority

The evidence establishes that the cornerstone of the management of Mr. Brown’s risk is medication compliance. However, Mr. Brown does not accept that he has a mental illness or that compliance with prescribed medications is essential to his mental health and has been determined to be incapable of consenting to psychiatric treatment. He continues to exhibit symptoms of his mental illness including suspiciousness and distrust of both the treatment team and others including a recent concern that his father was “up to something.”
Although Mr. Brown has been compliant with medication for a number of years, the majority finds that this compliance is in the context of a requirement in his disposition to do so. Although Dr. Wang indicated that the removal of the treatment provision could be reasonable as a test of his compliance absent the requirement, he also indicated that Mr. Brown was compliant mainly due to the requirement, had very little idea of what would happen if he stopped his medication. Dr. Wang was not confident he would continue to take medications without the requirement. Although Mr. Brown has consented to take treatment, given his distrust and suspiciousness there is a significant risk of his falling away from medication thereby increasing his risk to the public absent a requirement that he take medication.

Reasons of the Minority

(J. Cyr, Public Member; Dr. A. Kerry, Psychologist Member)

We concur with the majority’s Reasons articulated above with one exception: we agree with Mr. Brown’s request, presented by his counsel Ms. Boissonneault, for the removal of condition 1. (g) “on his consent, shall take medications as prescribed, pursuant s.672.55(1) of the Criminal Code”.
Mr. Brown agreed with a change in medication to clozapine in February 2024 with an initial dosage of 200 mg. In October 2024 and March 2025, Mr. Brown’s clozapine dosage was titrated upwards by 50 mg to total of 300 mg following concerns expressed by his father, Mr. Oliver Brown, who is Mr. Brown’s Substitute Decision Maker (SDM), to Dr. A. Wang, Mr. Brown’s Most Responsible Physician (MRP) and expert witness at the hearing. Mr. Brown (accused) acquiesced to both recommended increases.
Beginning in the 2023-2024 reporting year, Mr. Brown started taking his own medication and attending at the Hospital on his own to get his bloodwork done. However, it was also Dr. Wang’s opinion at that time that Mr. Brown would be unlikely to continue taking his medication without the oversight of the Board. As noted by Dr. Wang in the most current Hospital Report dated July 8, 2025, as well as in his viva voce testimony at this year’s Ontario Review Board hearing, while there have not been any concerns regarding medication adherence, it remains unclear whether he would continue to be adherent, absent oversight from the ORB. Dr. Wang testified that although the clinical team informed Mr. Brown that they had no concerns about his medication adherence, Mr. Brown continued to show them a monthly photograph of his empty clozapine blister pack to demonstrate that he was taking his medication. This is important particularly given that taking antipsychotic medication is the most critical aspect and mainstay of Mr. Brown’s treatment. Despite Mr. Brown’s limited insight, he remained adherent to his medication. In response to a question posed by Mr. Brown’s counsel, Dr. Wang agreed with the recommendation for the removal of the treatment condition in Mr. Brown’s Disposition.
In response to a question from a panel member, Dr. Wang agreed that despite Mr. Brown believing that he did not have a mental illness and, therefore, would not likely continue to take medication in the community once he was granted his Absolute Discharge, there remains a possibility that Mr. Brown would remain adherent to his medication despite having stated otherwise.
Dr. Wang testified that Mr. Brown has been medication adherent since clozapine was initiated in February 2024. We surmise that removing the treatment condition would provide Mr. Brown an opportunity to demonstrate that he would remain medication adherent while remaining under the Board’s jurisdiction. There is no positive evidence that Mr. Brown would stop taking his clozapine medication since he has remained adherent from the outset. To consider otherwise is speculative. Additionally, Dr. Wang highlighted frequent ambivalence between Mr. Brown’s stated preferences and his demonstrated behaviour. For example, in the past reporting year, Mr. Brown complained about his involvement with the hospital, yet regularly voluntarily attended the hospital to socialize and use the gym, which increased his clinician’s opportunities for monitoring. Also, despite comments demonstrating limited insight regarding his medication, he has remained compliant, including voluntarily sending photographs even after reminders from the team that this is not expected or required. Thus, while his expressed intentions suggest limited insight, his behaviours have demonstrated adherence.
If the treatment condition remains in effect while Mr. Brown continues under the Board’s jurisdiction of a Conditional Discharge, both he and the treatment team will likely be in the same position one year from now, assuming he continues to adhere to medication under the externally imposed condition. It would continue to remain unclear how or whether he will engage in follow-up or treatment in the context of an Absolute Discharge and flowing from that, it would remain unclear how he would decompensate if he were to discontinue treatment. Another year would have passed, and nothing would have been gained to inform the treatment team, the hospital and the Board that Mr. Brown may be ready for an Absolute Discharge. While under the Board’s jurisdiction on a Conditional Discharge provides an excellent opportunity to make this determination prior to considering granting an Absolute Discharge. A gradual reduction of the externally imposed restrictions, while maintaining Board and clinical oversight, provides an opportunity to assess Mr. Brown’s capacity for sustained compliance in a less structured context. This approach functions as a controlled test period, enabling the treatment team to evaluate his stability, insight, and adherence, while safeguarding public safety through continued monitoring.
Removing the treatment condition does not obviate the need for Mr. Brown to remain under the Board’s jurisdiction under a Conditional Discharge Disposition. He remains a significant threat to the safety of the public as per Winko. A continuation of the Conditional Discharge without a treatment condition is the least onerous, least restrictive and the necessary and appropriate Disposition in these circumstances.

DATED this 28^th^ day of August 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

Robert Bigelow

Alternate Chairperson

Office of the Registrar

Ontario Review Board

Footnotes

However, as noted above, in 2010 Mr. Brown was found guilty of possession of break-in instruments and theft under and granted a conditional discharge. Charges of obstruction, possession of a concealed weapon and theft under were withdrawn.

Re Sheldon Brown, 2025 CanLII 86840

Case Summary