Ontario Review Board
Re: Anne Norris
ORB File No: 7731
Hearing held on: Wednesday, July 30, 2025
Place of hearing: Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences 700 Gordon Street, Whitby
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before: Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Goldenberg Members: Dr. A. Park Dr. A. Kerry Mr. R. Bigelow Mr. J. Cyr
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Anne Norris Counsel: Ms. J. Boissonneault
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. A. Marshall
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. N. MacDonald
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated August 25, 2025)
On February 24, 2018, Anne Norris was found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder, on a charge of first-degree murder.
Those events took place in St. John’s, Newfoundland. Ms. Norris was detained under the Newfoundland and Labrador Review Board until April of 2020. At that time, Ms. Norris was transferred to Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (“Ontario Shores”).
On Wednesday, July 30, 2025, the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing at Ontario Shores and conducted the annual review of Ms. Norris’ Disposition.
Position of the Parties:
At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as to their recommendations to the Board.
Ms. Marshall appeared for Ontario Shores. She advised of the hospital position that Ms. Norris remains a significant threat to public safety, and if the Board so finds, the hospital is recommending a continuation of a Conditional Discharge as set out in last year’s Disposition.
Ms. MacDonald appeared for the Attorney General. She supported the hospital’s recommendation, namely, that Ms. Norris remains a significant threat to public safety, and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is continuation of the Conditional Discharge.
Ms. Boissonneault appeared for Ms. Norris. Ms. Boissonneault advised of her position that Ms. Norris no longer represents a significant threat to public safety and accordingly she is entitled to receive an Absolute Discharge.
Ms. Boissonneault advised of her alternative position, namely, if the Board finds her client to remain a significant threat to public safety, she agrees that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is continuation of a Conditional Discharge. Ms. Boissonneault is now requesting that the Board delete clause 1(e) and 1(f) from her Disposition. The first clause is for travel passes for up to 14 days. The second clause is a consent to take treatment. It is Ms. Boissonneault’s position that neither of those clauses are necessary or appropriate. The Board understands that Ms. Boissonneault had discussed this matter with her friends and that both Ms. Marshall and Ms. MacDonald agree to the removal of those two clauses in the event the Board finds Ms. Norris to be a significant threat to public safety.
Index Offences:
- “The following was obtained from the Agreed Statement of Facts:
In the early morning hours of May 9th, 2016, City Wide taxicab driver Paul Noseworthy drove Anne Norris and Marcel Reardon to 91 Brazil Street, St. John's, NL. At that time, Anne Norris lived in apartment #307, 91 Brazil Street, St. John's, NL.
On May 9th, 2016, at approximately 9:42 a.m., RNC Cst. Vanessa Woodman responded to 91 Brazil Street, St. John's, NL. Upon arrival, she observed Marcel Reardon's body located under a set of stairs outside the apartment building (see Photo Book 2, Tab 1, photos 6 and 9-12). He was deceased. Marcel Reardon's body had been discovered a few minutes earlier by Shawn Pumphrey and Jack Huffman who called police to report it.
Anne Norris admits that she caused Marcel Reardon's death by striking him a number of times in the head with a hammer.
Anne Norris further admits that she placed Marcel Reardon's body under the outside stairs at 91 Brazil Street where he was subsequently located by Shawn Pumphrey, Jack Huffman and first responders.
On May 11th, 2016, Larry Daley was operating a Fast Rescue Craft (FRC) in St. John's Harbour, NL. At approximately 7:30 p.m. Mr. Daley overheard a call on the radio from the Coast Guard Vessel, Terry Fox, that there was a blue backpack floating in the harbor in the area between Pier 9 and Pier 10, off the front of the bow of the Terry Fox. Mr. Daley was close to the area and at 7:40 p.m. he offered to retrieve the backpack. Approximately 5 minutes later, he arrived in the area and observed the blue backpack floating in the water. Mr. Daley pulled his boat alongside the backpack and used a gaff on his boat to book the backpack and pull it to his FRC.
When he got the backpack alongside his boat Mr. Daley noticed there was significant weight to it. He described the pack as a blue, personal sized, LL. Bean brand backpack. Once he got the backpack into his boat, Mr. Daley opened it.
Anne Norris admits that the backpack Mr. Daley located in St. John's Harbour was owned by Jessica Peach and that Anne Norris put the hammer, jeans and rope into it and threw it into St John's Harbour after she killed Marcel Reardon.
Anne Norris admits that the hammer found in the backpack recovered from St. John's Harbour was the hammer she used to kill Marcel Reardon. Anne Norris admits that the hammer she used to kill Marcel Reardon was the hammer she purchased from Walmart.”
Evidence at Hearing:
- The Board admitted into evidence a Hospital Report dated July 14, 2025. The Hospital Report provides a great deal of information concerning Ms. Norris, her personal history, her mental health history, details of the index offence and Ms. Norris’ course in hospital and in the community subsequent to the date of the NCR finding. As the Hospital Report was made an exhibit in this hearing, it is not necessary to reproduce the information contained in the Hospital Report in these Reasons. We do note, however, the stated diagnoses of:
Schizophrenia
Substance use Disorder (historically primarily cannabis, and some alcohol and cocaine – in sustained remission)
Cluster B Personality Traits (Borderline, Histrionic, Antisocial)
In addition, the Hospital Report notes previous criminal convictions of obstruct peace officer and uttering threats for which she received a suspended sentence and probation; and fail to comply with undertaking for which she received four days concurrent, with credit for the equivalent of three days pre-sentence custody.
In addition, the Board entered into evidence at the request of Ms. Boissonneault, two status reports concerning her client. One status report is from 24/09/24 and the second status report is from 19/03/25.
As indicated, all parties were in agreement with the removal of the two clauses as requested by Ms. Boissonneault and accordingly, the major, if not only issue to be determined by the Board, was whether or not Ms. Norris remains a significant threat to public safety.
Dr. Pallandi testified. Dr. Pallandi has been following Ms. Norris since July 2022. On July 24, 2022, Ms. Norris was discharged to transitional rehabilitative housing where she has her own one-bedroom apartment. At that time, Ms. Norris’ care was transferred to Dr. Pallandi.
Ms. Marshall then asked the doctor his opinion on whether or not Ms. Norris remains a significant threat to public safety.
Dr. Pallandi noted that his patient has made progress over the last three years while in the community. There was a significant event last year in that Ms. Norris had a very significant episode of depression.
Dr. Pallandi then set out his reasons why the doctor and the clinical team remain of the opinion that Ms. Norris remains a significant threat to public safety. The first issue is the gravity of the index offence. Secondly, Ms. Norris still requires a very high degree of support from a forensic clinical team. Next, Ms. Norris requires a very strong and experienced community team to be in place before she receives an Absolute Discharge. Apparently just this last week, Ms. Norris advised a member of the clinical team that she has found a physician in the community who would be prepared to prescribe Ms. Norris’ future medication needs. It is of great concern to Dr. Pallandi when he learned that a member of the clinical team had spoken to that physician, and that physician was unaware of Ms. Norris’ main medication, Abilify, and had no experience regarding that medication.
Ms. Norris’ insight has improved. She recognizes that she suffers from a major mental illness. On the other hand, Dr. Pallandi notes that Ms. Norris has been treated with injectable medication. She frequently did not attend as required to receive her medication and it took a threat by the clinical team to readmit Ms. Norris to hospital before she finally attended to receive her injectable medication.
Dr. Pallandi also notes that Ms. Norris has used cocaine since moving into the community.
Next, Dr. Pallandi repeated that Ms. Norris relies heavily on the clinical team and the services provided by this clinical team cannot be matched by a physician who is not part of a clinical team.
Dr. Pallandi believes that Ms. Norris understands her need for medication. She certainly does not want to act out in the manner she did at the time of the index offence. Dr. Pallandi’s attention was drawn to a formal risk assessment which concluded that Ms. Norris remains a significant threat to public safety. Dr. Pallandi agrees with the risk assessment and its conclusion.
In response to questions from Ms. MacDonald, Dr. Pallandi acknowledged that Ms. Norris has a history of starting an activity, including employment activity, and then stopping. Ms. MacDonald asked about community supports for his patient. The doctor noted that her parents’ main residence is in Newfoundland, but they remain a strong support. Ms. Norris has a sister in British Columbia who also remains a strong support.
Again, in response to questions from Ms. MacDonald, Dr. Pallandi thinks that there is a real risk of aggressive conduct to a member of the public should Ms. Norris no longer be under the oversight of the Board.
Once again, Dr. Pallandi repeated that there must be a non-forensic team in place with an appropriate plan for follow up and supervision. Dr. Pallandi noted that when Ms. Norris advised her worker that she had found a community physician, she at first was unable to remember his name.
In response to questions from Ms. Boissonneault, Dr. Pallandi agreed Ms. Norris has not acted out in a violent manner since the time of the index offence. Dr. Pallandi agreed that at the time of the index offence, Ms. Norris was not on medication. Dr. Pallandi agreed that Ms. Norris’ psychosis has been in remission for a number of years.
Ms. Boissonneault directed Dr. Pallandi to the two progress reports. The doctor accepted the comments of Ms. Norris’ improved insight. The doctor, however, repeated his concern that notwithstanding her improved insight, she frequently delayed attending to receive her injectable medication. The doctor repeated that notwithstanding that, Ms. Norris has no appreciation for the potential effects on Ms. Norris regarding her use of cocaine.
Ms. Boissonneault suggested the possibility that there was a false reading concerning using cocaine. Dr. Pallandi agreed of the “possibility” of a false positive but noted that this patient tested positive for the use of cocaine six times over a 15-month period. It was, and is, concerning to Dr. Pallandi that when confronted with one or more of the positive results, Ms. Norris’ response was “(expletive deleted) oh well, I might as well just continue to use the cocaine”.
Dr. Pallandi acknowledged that Ms. Norris is living in CMHA housing and that people on the CMHA team visit Ms. Norris with some frequency. We note that in fact two CMHA workers were present at this hearing. Dr. Pallandi noted that CMHA is a wonderful organization. The doctor noted, however, that the housing workers simply cannot in any way, shape or form perform the services that a full forensic or non-forensic team can provide.
In response to questions from panel members, Dr. Pallandi stated his opinion that Ms. Norris could continue to live at her current residence for as long as she wished to do so.
In response to a question from another member, Dr. Pallandi stated that the recommendation for continuation of a Conditional Discharge is a unanimous one. All members of the clinical team support that recommendation. The hospital supports that recommendation. The doctor noted that members of the psychology team that produced the risk assessment also support the finding that Ms. Norris presently remains a significant threat to public safety.
No other evidence was called by the hospital. The Crown did not call evidence.
Ms. Norris testified. She provided the name of the doctor she saw. She saw him this past week and the doctor told her that he would be willing to take her on as a patient. Ms. Norris described her support from her family as “amazing”. Ms. Norris described her long-term goals as getting married and having children.
In response to a question from Ms. Marshall, Ms. Norris acknowledged that she declined to participate in concurrent disorders therapy.
Final Submissions:
Ms. Marshall asked the panel to accept the doctor’s evidence. It is abundantly clear that the services and follow up provided by the current outpatient team cannot be replaced by a physician with presumably a significant number of patients. Ms. Marshall noted that Abilify is a well-known psychiatric medication and expressed concern that her recently acquired family physician was not familiar with this medication, and it is more than troubling to believe that one physician can provide all of the services that have been provided to Ms. Norris by the Forensic Outpatient Team.
Ms. MacDonald agreed entirely with the submissions of hospital counsel.
Ms. Boissonneault filed with the panel three authorities that she asked the panel to consider. The authorities included Re Gibson 2022 ONCA 527, Sokol (Re) 2018 ONCA 113, and Marmolejo (Re) 2021 ONCA 130.
Ms. Boissonneault submitted that the evidence fell far short of demonstrating that her client remains a significant threat to public safety and that the evidence simply does not meet the requirements set out in the authorities she had provided to the panel.
Ms. Boissonneault reminded the panel that should we conclude her client remains a significant threat to public safety, all parties are in agreement with the continuation of a Conditional Discharge but with the two clauses removed.
Findings of the Board:
We start by noting that we accept without reservation the evidence of Dr. Pallandi and the evidence contained in the Hospital Report. In particular, we accept the doctor’s evidence that at the present time, public safety would be compromised and that there would be a real risk of significant harm should Ms. Norris receive an Absolute Discharge today.
The panel notes and relies on the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Winko vs. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), 135 CCC (3d) 129, and in particular paragraph 61 of that decision:
"It follows that the inquiries conducted by the court or Review Board are necessarily broad. They will closely examine a range of evidence, including but not limited to the circumstances of the original offence, the past and expected course of the NCR accused’s treatment if any, the present state of the NCR accused’s medical condition, the NCR accused’s own plans for the future, the support services existing for the NCR accused in the community and, perhaps most importantly, the recommendations provided by experts who have examined the NCR accused."
We start by looking at the original offence. This remains one of the most grave offences under our Criminal Code. We accept that Ms. Norris was suffering from a major mental illness at that time and was not on medication. We also note, however, that Ms. Norris was able to purchase the hammer used in the index offence one or two days before the index offence and that Ms. Norris was able to put the hammer and some blood-stained clothing into a backpack and throw the backpack into the harbour. We are also aware of the prior convictions set out in these Reasons. We then turn to “the NCR accused’s own plans for the future, the support services existing for the NCR accused in the community”. This panel accepts that the progress Ms. Norris has made in the almost three years while she has been living in the community have been achieved by the services provided by the clinical team. Respectfully, there is no merit in the suggestion that the clinical team can be replaced by one physician. We also accept that services provided by the Forensic Outpatient Team cannot be replaced with the one physician and any involvement of CMHA housing staff.
We then turn to “perhaps most importantly, the recommendations provided by experts who have examined the NCR accused”. We have heard and accept that the clinical team is unanimous in their view that Ms. Norris remains a significant threat to public safety. We accept that the statutory party to this hearing, Ontario Shores, supports the finding for continuation of a Conditional Discharge. Dr. Pallandi noted that while the psychology team have not directly “examined the NCR accused”, nevertheless they have reviewed all of the documentation concerning this patient and are unanimous in their view that Ms. Norris remains a significant threat to public safety.
It is interesting to note that in the Gibson decision amongst the reasons relied on by the Court of Appeal in granting an Absolute Discharge, was that “the appellant has formed a durable relationship with a non-forensic treatment team and complies with their advice”. We also note that in the Sokal decision, the patient was “now engaged with the Hamilton Program for Schizophrenia”. The panel agrees that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a continuation of the Conditional Discharge. The panel accepts the parties’ joint recommendation in support of deleting the two clauses referred to above.
In reaching our Disposition, the Board has taken into consideration public safety, Ms. Norris’ mental condition and her other needs, and Ms. Norris’ reintegration into society.
DATED this 25^th^ day of August, 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. J. Goldenberg Alternate Chairperson Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board