Ontario Review Board
Re: Dallas George Barkley
ORB File No: 6988
Hearing held on: Monday July 7, 2025
Place of hearing: Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care 401 Sunset Drive, St. Thomas, Ontario
Pursuant to: Section 672.48(1) and 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. R. Bigelow
Members: Dr. A.D. Jones Dr. J. Cheston Mr. D. Sandor Mr. K. Brisson
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Dallas Barkley Counsel: Mr. C. Dobson
The Person in charge of Hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Zamprogna
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. D. Rose
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated August 25, 2025)
Introduction:
On July 20, 2016, Dallas George Barkley was found unfit to stand trial on account of mental disorder on the charges of mischief (x4) and failure to comply (x5), contrary to the provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada. Following a prima facie hearing on October 30, 2019, some of those charges were withdrawn or dismissed such that he now only faces three charges – namely mischief (x2) and failure to comply with a recognizance (x1). Mr. Barkley is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated June 28, 2024, detaining him at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care, St. Joseph’s Health Care London with privileges up to and including that of living in the community in 24/7 supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge. That disposition also requires that the Hospital notify the local police at such times as Mr. Barkley is permitted to enter the community and requires Mr. Barkley to abstain absolutely from the non-medical use of alcohol or drugs or any other intoxicant and to submit samples for the purpose of monitoring his compliance with the abstention condition.
On July 7, 2025, a panel of the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing to revisit the issue of Mr. Barkley’s fitness and to review that disposition pursuant to section 672.48(1) and 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Barkley was present for the hearing, represented by his lawyer Mr. Dobson.
The record for the hearing included the Revised Notice of Hearing, the most recent Disposition (as mentioned, dated June 28, 2024) and the Reasons for Decision and Disposition that supported the most recent Disposition. On the consent of all parties, a Hospital Report, dated June 10, 2025, was entered into evidence as an exhibit.
The parties were canvassed for initial positions. Counsel for the Hospital, Ms. Zamprogna expressed the position that Mr. Barkley continued to be unfit and was permanently unfit to stand trial but that he no longer represented a significant risk to the safety of the public as that term is defined in section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and as it has been explained by the Supreme Court of Canada in Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625, and as such should be referred back to the court for a recommended stay of proceedings.
Both the representative of the Attorney General and counsel for Mr. Barkley agreed with the Hospital’s position, subject to questions. That joint submission was maintained through to the end of the hearing.
For the following reasons, the Board accepts the joint submission. We agree, applying the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Bharwani, 2025 SCC 26, released subsequent to Mr. Barkley’s hearing.
Evidence at the hearing
The evidence for the hearing came from the Hospital Report mentioned and the live testimony offered by Dr. Ardani.
Turning first to the Hospital Report, it is cumulative in nature and includes several details regarding Mr. Barkley, his criminal record and history of struggle with mental illness, as well as his historic struggles with alcohol. It details his course while under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board, with its update for the purposes of this hearing beginning at page 117 of 137.
Mr. Barkley is 65 years old. He has been under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board since 2016. He was raised in a family with a history of alcoholism and is supported by family that includes his brother Darcy who has served as his substitute decision maker since October 2016. He has little confirmed education and lived a transient lifestyle from 1981 to 2011. Over that period of time, he committed several criminal offences many of which were influenced by his consumption of alcohol (as in the case of 7 alcohol related driving offences). He has been convicted of several thefts and of several offences against the administration of justice.
Mr. Barkley’s struggles with alcohol abuse led to numerous admissions to hospitals between 2011 and 2016. He is the victim of traumatic brain injury and struggles with Korsakoff’s dementia. At the time of the alleged index offences, he reportedly consumed Listerine. In approximately April 2012, Mr. Barkley absconded from a nursing care facility in Calgary, Alberta. At that time, he was diagnosed with dementia. He made his way to Ontario in the hope of joining a previous female partner and of seeking employment. It was in Ontario in 2016 that Mr. Barkley is alleged to have committed the index offences. Their summary is set out in the Hospital Report in language identical to that found in previous Reasons for Disposition:
On March 16th, 2016, Mr. Barkley was found sleeping in the lobby of an apartment building in London, ON. The building manager asked him to leave, but he refused. He became aggressive and threw items at a glass window. He was drinking Listerine at the same time. Later, he was charged with mischief/damage property not exceeding $5000, S 430 (4) of the Criminal Code of Canada (CCC), drinking alcohol in a form that is not liquor S 33(a) of the Ontario Liquor License Act, fail to leave when directed contrary to S 2(1) (b) of the Trespass to Property Act, and engage in prohibited activity on premise contrary to S 2(1) (a) (ii) of the Trespass to Property Act.
On March 21st 2016, Mr. Barkley was found lying on the ground at the corner of Veterans Parkway at Bradley Avenue in the city of London. He attempted to hit various citizens who had stopped to help him. He was yelling, swearing, and walking into the intersection. The ambulance arrived to help him. He grabbed the driver’s mirror of the ambulance and threw it to the driver’s side window. He had a smell of Listerine. He was charged with property damage, contrary to s. 430 (4) of the CCC; being intoxicated in a public place contrary to s. 31 (4) of the Ontario Liquor License Act, drinking alcohol in a form that is not liquor contrary to s. 33(a), contrary to the Ontario Liquor License Act.
On April 4th and May 2nd 2016, he was charged with failing to attend court, contrary to s. 145 (2) (a) of CCC.
On April 15th and May 13th 2016, he was charged with failing to comply condition of judicial release, contrary to s. 145 (3) of CCC because he did not report to London Police on those days.
On May 17th 2016, at 12:55 pm, Mr. Barkley damaged two barbecues and one Wind mobile sign in a plaza on Wellington Road in London ON. He was charged with mischief under $5000, contrary to s. 430 (4) of CCC.
On May 24th 2016, a staff member from the Salvation Army in London ON reported to London Police that Mr. Barkley was not residing at that facility where he should stay. He was charged with failing to comply conditions of judicial release, contrary to s. 145 (3) of CCC.
Since being found unfit to stand trial, Mr. Barkley has generally been an inpatient at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care. He resided in long-term care at the Valleyview Home from 2021 to February 2022. He has been found unfit to stand trial at every annual hearing and has been incapable of making treatment decisions and of managing his finances since 2016. At the time of last year’s hearing, Mr. Barkley continued to reside at the Hospital’s rehabilitation unit under Dr. Ardani’s care. He required constant supervision and extensive supports such that available options for approved community accommodations were limited. He had progressed, positively, in grounds privileges and had moved to indirectly supervised outings to a nearby Tim Horton’ as well as to having the Hospital’s permission to take hospital transportation to various locations in St. Thomas.
Last year’s Reasons indicate that Mr. Barkley generally used his passes appropriately and demonstrated the ability to problem-solve when transportation arrangements did not pick him up. There were no reported concerns involving his behaviour up until an abscondment and relapse into alcohol use on March 30, 2024. Mr. Barkley is routine-oriented and rigid around the structuring of his day such that changes to his routines have increased his impulsivity, anger, anxiety and irritability leading to feelings of hopelessness and thoughts of self-harm. While Mr. Barkley has maintained a desire to return to Calgary, Alberta, this has not proven an option for him either leading up to last year’s review hearing or over the course of this review period.
The Hospital Report explains that Mr. Barkley’s current diagnoses are Major Neurocognitive Disorder (dementia) Query Alcohol-Induced vs. Due to Traumatic Brain Injury vs. Combined and Alcohol Use Disorder (in remission in a controlled environment). He has continued to reside in the Hospital’s Forensic Rehabilitation Unit under the care of Dr. Ardani and the Forensic Rehabilitation Team. He has appeared more isolative over the course of this reporting period. He remains medication compliant and attends programs that he enjoys, such as Billiards and community peer outings. His cognitive deficits have generally impacted his level of socialization.
Mr. Barkley is only partially oriented to time and place. He demonstrates significant impairment with his semantic memory – an issue impacting directly on his ability to exercise a reality-based understanding of the nature or object of the outstanding criminal proceedings and their possible consequences, let alone to be able to determine meaningfully whether to testify, call or cross-examine witnesses or properly and effectively communicate with counsel. He cannot remember people’s names or places he has visited or lived. He can identify that he is living in a hospital, but not what type of hospital. He cannot identify the name of the city or province in which he is living. He cannot understand the circumstances that led to his admission to the Hospital. He is reliant upon his watch and routine that he follows strictly for the purpose of receiving medications. He experiences aphasia (difficulty in expressing thoughts verbally).
Over the course of this past period of review, Mr. Barkley has presented with less agitation and more appropriate emotional regulation. He has been increasingly cooperative with medication and meals. He has not shown a tendency to blame others for his problems. He does continue to experience frustration associated with his memory problems and inability to carry on meaningful communications. As he has an inability to appreciate his cognitive decline, he continues to believe that he is able to live independently. This adds to his frustration.
Mr. Barkley continues to demonstrate difficulties with problem-solving and abstract thinking. He requires extensive supports to help him understand his need for Hospital supports. Even so, over this reporting period, he has remained calm, cooperative and engaged in activities that he enjoys. Regrettably, again, hospitals in Alberta and Saskatchewan have not responded favourably to continued advocacy on the part of the Hospital to facilitate Mr. Barkley’s transfer to one of those provinces so he could be closer to his family and notably his brother Darcy who, though able to function as Mr. Barkley’s substitute decision-maker, is not able to provide direct housing and care given the extent of Mr. Barkley’s needs. Accordingly, the Hospital is pursuing long-term care options for Mr. Barkley in the County of Middlesex, Ontario.
On the issue of insight, the Hospital Report’s update indicates that Mr. Barkley has no insight into the alleged index offence and is unable to remember the incident. He is also unable to conceptualize the incident and has developed a false memory that he was placed in hospital by his ex-partner to receive treatment for some physical health issues. He cannot comprehend why he continues to remain in the Hospital under an unfitness finding. He has limited insight into his mental illness and can neither recall the head trauma he has experienced or his struggles with alcohol use disorder. He has no insight into his need for treatment and cannot identify his medications or their intended purposes though he seeks them proactively and states that they help him and make him feel good. While there have been times when he has refused to take them as a form of protest against his continuation in the Hospital, with encouragement and validation of his concerns he has become compliant. Absent oversight however, he would be unable to recall if he had already administered his medications and would be at risk of double-dosing or missing doses. Mr. Barkley has no insight into his risk of violence. He does not recall even his most recent use of alcohol which took place over his March 2024 abscondment dealt with in last year’s Reasons for Decision and Disposition.
Over this reporting year, Mr. Barkley participated in community outings and showed periods of prosocial behaviour, particularly in association with special outings and functions facilitated by Allied Health. He was involved in Occupational Therapy care and services that included Occupational Therapy Meal Preparation groups, Peer Outings and the Occupational Therapy Mindfulness Meditation group. In these environments, he presented as motivated, attentive and safe with equipment and knives. He was observed to be polite, kind and thankful when engaged with his Therapeutic Recreation Specialist and began to be able to express himself when feeling overwhelmed.
The Hospital Report includes a Risk Assessment that relied upon the HCR-20 V3, the methodology and appropriateness of which was not brought into question over the course of this hearing. This module was employed in conjunction with the Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for violence risk module. This module, when used with other assessment tools like the HCR-20, aims to contribute to an increasingly accurate and well-rounded assessment of risk for future violent behaviour. The conclusion drawn from these assessments is that Mr. Barkley’s risk of violence while living in a supervised facility is considered low. If released from the forensic system, his risk for violence would not rise as it can effectively be mitigated by the provisions of the Mental Health Act. Mr. Barkley is incapable of consenting to treatment and would be certifiable for involuntary hospitalization in the case of deterioration under Form 1, Form 3 and Form 4.
The Hospital Report included a Rehabilitation and Risk Management Plan that was particularly helpful in the determination of this matter. It indicated that, should the Board confirm that Mr. Barkley is permanently unfit and no longer presents a significant threat to the safety of the public while detained in a supervised setting, he would be certified under the provision of the Mental Health Act of Ontario and would remain in the Hospital pending bed availability in the geriatric unit of the Parkwood Hospital, or other psychiatric hospitals in Saskatchewan or Alberta. It further stated that the treatment team would continue to provide Mr. Barkley with the necessary levels of supervision and support required for his physical and mental well-being.
The Hospital Report squarely addresses the issue of Mr. Barkley’s permanent unfitness to stand trial. It indicates that he was assessed by Dr. Ardani on April 15, 2025. Over the course of that assessment, Mr. Barkley maintained a fixed fictitious narrative that he came to St. Thomas to reunite with his ex-girlfriend. He was unable to recall any of the allegations made against him, even when the circumstances of the allegations and his admission to the Hospital were reviewed with him. He was unable to meaningfully respond to the questions he was asked. His statements were vague surrounding the roles of different court officials and he presented difficulties with finding words to describe what he was thinking. He was unable to respond or even pick between options associated with potential pleas. He has continued in every respect to show that he continues to suffer from features of progressive cognitive impairment. He continues to struggle with the processing and regulation of information and with the semantic aspects of memory functions. He is unable to remember incidents associated with the index offences and is unable to retain information associated with the offences. He cannot conceptualize his involvement with the legal system even after multiple attempts at education and prompting. This places him in a position where he is unable to even form a reality-based understanding of his legal involvement. He is certainly unable to process anything associated with his legal situation and communicate his thoughts and instructions in any meaningful way to counsel. He suffers from a major neuro-cognitive disorder that is progressive. There is no medication that can treat his condition. He is permanently unfit.
Dr. Ardani’s live evidence given to the panel aligned entirely with that contained in the Hospital Report. He confirmed that Mr. Barkley continues to experience less agitation and has not displayed aggressive behaviours. He tolerates frustration better and is increasingly self-isolated.
Dr. Ardani explained that Mr. Barkley does continue to express feelings of hopelessness and some paranoia associated with his inability to appreciate the legal circumstances or reasons for his continued hospitalization. He struggles to express feelings or thoughts. This dementia is expected to progress over time even in the context of treatment optimization. He indicated that Mr. Barkley was assessed for fitness two weeks prior to, and on the day of this hearing. The results of both assessments mirrored those mentioned in the Hospital Report. He explained that Mr. Barkley remains abstinent and that, apart from the March 2024 abscondment had abstained for years in the Hospital’s controlled environment.
Dr. Ardani placed his conclusion that Mr. Barkley no longer represents a significant threat to the safety of the public in the context of both his progressive cognitive impairments and Mr. Barkley’s criminal record that raises primarily concerns associated with driving while under the influence of alcohol as opposed to patterns of crimes of violence. Mr. Barkley does not have a valid driver’s license or access to a vehicle. His risk now, according to Dr. Ardani, is no different from the risk posed by other similar patients struggling with dementia. Mr. Barkley’s chances for transfer to Alberta or Saskatchewan – a priority given his mother’s age and health – will increase if he is no longer involved with the forensic system but rather is the beneficiary of patient advocacy for the transfer that will be provided by geriatric services such as those that he will receive at Parkwood.
Submissions
- At the end of the hearing, all parties renewed their submissions as set out at the beginning of the hearing. All agreed that Mr. Barkley was permanently unfit and that he no longer represented a significant threat to the safety of the public.
Analysis and conclusion
The Board agrees. Turning first to the issue of permanent unfitness to stand trial and having regard to the instruction provided by the Supreme Court of Canada in Barwhani, it is clear that Mr. Barkley neither has a reality-based understanding of the criminal process he is involved with, nor a capacity to communicate meaningfully with counsel. He has no recollection of the alleged index offences and is unable to even conceptualize them after promptings and instruction. He has begun constructing a fictitious narrative associated with the circumstances that brought him to the Hospital. He struggles with formulating and expressing thoughts. His major neuro-cognitive degeneration is significant and progressive. There is no treatment or medication that will correct or reverse the degeneration. He is permanently unfit.
Turning next to the issue of significant threat to the safety of the public, the Hospital Report includes a written submission on page 132 of the several considerations that lead to the conclusion that Mr. Barkley no longer represents a significant threat as defined in section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and as illustrated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Winko. This finding, referred to in some contexts as the “threshold finding” has been described as “onerous”, “high”, and “burdensome”. The threat envisioned must go beyond the speculative for such a finding to be made. It must be supported by evidence that ties an individual’s major mental illness to a real likelihood that, absent a disposition, that individual will engage in serious criminal conduct that poses a significant risk of physical or psychological harm to the public. As stated at page 132 of the Hospital Report, this cannot be said of Mr. Barkley for the following reasons:
Although Mr. Barkley’s cognitive functioning has remained significantly impaired, and he requires ongoing 24/7 professional care, the level of care could be offered under the provisions of the Mental Health Act.
Although Mr. Barkley lacks insight into his mental illness and the need for support, while in the hospital he was generally adherent with the medications and the unit rules and expectations.
Mr. Barkley eloped while he was exercising a staff-escorted pass in the community this reporting period; however, he reached out to the police and sought help to be released from the hospital. Unlike the previous abscondment in 2024, he did not engage in drinking alcohol and did not present with disinhibition (behavioural instability), or agitation (affective instability).
Over the reviewing year, Mr. Barkley did not engage in any violent acts. He did not exhibit behaviours that could impose psychological harm on members of the public.
Mr. Barkley’s clinical presentation showed a significant change compared to previous years. He presented as more cooperative, calmer, and seclusive, and did not exhibit aggressive outbursts. Although it is not clear why his presentation has changed, it could be attributable to the optimization of his medications, the length of his stay in the system (be able to overlearn the consequences of outbursts), the progress in his mental illness (dementia), or it could be age-related; and
Mr. Barkley has an extensive legal history, but most of his charges were not violent in nature. The allegations for which he was found unfit to stand trial were also not violent. The last time Mr. Barkley posed a risk of psychological harm to a member of the public was in 2021 when his behaviour made a staff in a Long-Term Care facility feel fearful for her safety due to Mr. Barkley’s intimidating behaviour. When he absconded the previous year, he drank alcohol to the level of intoxication and became disinhibited, which required seclusion placement. However, over the reviewing year, he did not present with any physical aggression, even when frustrated or when he eloped and reached out to police for help.
Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that Mr. Barkley poses any greater risk to the safety of the public than does any other individual that suffers from the progressive cognitive decline associated with dementia. It is well-accepted law that mental illness alone is insufficient to satisfy the standard set out in Winko. Accordingly, we have accepted the joint submission that Mr. Barkley no longer represents a significant threat to the safety of the public. Though not relevant to this issue, we note that the Hospital has a plan in place to ensure that Mr. Barkley’s mental health and other needs are met. In such circumstances there is no hesitation in concluding that the provisions of the Mental Health Act will be sufficient to protect the public in the absence of a Board disposition. Mr. Barkley will be referred back to the Court for a recommended stay accordingly.
The Board thanks all those who have assisted with this hearing and expresses its gratitude to all who are assisting and supporting Mr. Barkley.
DATED this 25th day of August 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
D. Sandor
Legal Member
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board