Re Barry Dip, 2025 CanLII 89884

Re: Barry Dip

ORB File No: 7170

Hearing held on: July 21, 2025

Place of hearing: St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton West 5th Campus, 100 West 5th Street

Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Ms. T. Mann

Members: Dr. A. Park Dr. G. Kerry Mr. D. D’Intino Ms. C. Plyley

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Barry Dip Counsel: Mr. R. Browne

The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Mr. S. O’Brien

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. B. Adsett

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated September 2, 2025)

Introduction

1On July 6, 2017, Barry Dip was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on six counts of utter threat to cause death or bodily harm and two counts of breach of probation, all contrary the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”).

2He is currently subject to a Detention Order from the Disposition of July 30, 2024, which provides various terms and conditions, up to and including permission to live in the community in 24 hour a day supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge.

3On July 21, 2025, a panel of the Ontario Review Board (ORB) convened in person and a hearing was held at St. Joseph Healthcare Hamilton. The purpose of the hearing was to determine if Mr. Dip 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.

4For the reasons set out below, the Board unanimously finds that Mr. Dip continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition to manage that risk is a continuation of the existing Detention Order Disposition, with no changes to its terms and conditions.

Current Psychiatric Diagnoses:

5Schizophrenia;

Cannabis Use Disorder (in sustained remission, in a controlled environment);

Methamphetamine Disorder (in sustained remission, in a controlled environment).

Index Offences:

6The facts giving rise to the index offences are described in last year’s Reasons for Disposition as follows:

“On March 21, 2017, at approximately 10:00 a.m. the accused arrived at Homewood voluntarily to receive his biweekly anti-psychotic injection which is administered by the ACT Team. He arrived agitated, angry and intimidating. He appeared to be experiencing auditory hallucinations, his pupils were dilated, and he appeared to be high.

The complainant, Heidi Letham, who is the patient care coordinator, advised the accused showed up 4 hours early for his scheduled bi- weekly injection and was very agitated. Staff advised the accused was angry, posturing and flexing his arms towards security and staff. He arrived agitated, angry and intimidating. He appeared to be experiencing auditory hallucinations.

She advised until there was a sufficient number of staff on scene, they kept the accused contained near the rear door until they were able to safely escort him into a seclusion room. The accused was held down by Homewood security and his injection was administered by the ACT Team without incident. The accused was also given a calming agent to assist with his irritable state. The accused then proceeded to state to all the staff in the room, “I’ll give you all three fucking minutes to get out of the room before I start swinging”. At this time all the staff involved felt a threat to their own safety and were able to leave the seclusion room safely without incident. Over 40 minutes, he threatened to kill and assault staff and made misogynist and racist comments.”

Without Prejudice Position of the Parties:

7At the commencement of the hearing, the parties were canvassed for their initial positions.

8Counsel 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.

9Counsel for the Attorney General supported the Hospital’s position.

10Counsel 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:

11The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence from Dr. K. Shariati, who has been Mr. Dip’s attending psychiatrist since September of 2022.

12Dr. Shariati testified that Mr. Dip had a successful reporting year and has successfully transitioned to community living. Mr. Dip has been medication adherent and has abstained from the use of illicit substances, while engaging in Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Psychosis (CBTp). Until May of this year, Mr. Dip was employed and he is willing to engage in further employment going forward.

13While Mr. Dip has remained symptomatic with respect to auditory hallucinations and occasional delusions, these residual symptoms have not resulted in any aggressive behaviour or any management concerns.

14Dr. Shariati opined that with the current level of supports in place and the oversight of the Ontario Review Board, Mr. Dip poses a low risk of violent reoffence. However, absent these controls, Mr. Dip would likely fall away from treatment and become medication nonadherent. Because his front-line treatment is clozapine – an oral medication – it would leave his system within days of nonadherence and prompt a quick decompensation in Mr. Dip’s mental status which would likely result in a return to psychosis.

15Dr. Shariati further testified that the provisions of the Mental Health Act would be insufficient to quickly return him to St. Joseph’s because the criteria for readmission would not be met.

16In order to continue to progress through the forensic system, over the next 12 months Dr. Shariati would like to see Mr. Dip continue to be adherent to treatment and continue to abstain from using substances, while better structuring his time by perhaps engaging in further structured activities, which would be explored with vocational services.

17In response to questions from counsel for the Attorney General, Dr. Shariati confirmed that Mr. Dip continues to experience some auditory hallucinations and that these voices are quite distressing for him. While they can occasionally overwhelm his capacity to cope with them and make him slightly irritable, he has not experienced any command hallucinations and his distress has not translated into any behavioural concerns. It is hoped that continued optimization of his medication will further reduce the remaining symptoms.

18Dr. Shariati described Mr. Dip’s insight into his illness and need for medication as “partial” and explained that it fluctuates sometimes. When he and Mr. Dip discuss the subject, Mr. Dip is able to discuss some of the symptoms of his illness, but when they occur in real-time, he can have some difficulty recognizing the need for medication. In spite of his partial insight, Dr. Shariati confirmed that Mr. Dip is very agreeable with taking his medications and he is participating in CBTp to further his insight.

19In response to questions from the Panel, Dr. Shariati confirmed Mr. Dip is currently being seen twice weekly by the forensic outpatient program, which is necessary to monitor his residual psychotic symptoms. No referral has been made to an ACT team because Mr. Dip is not close to being recommended for an Absolute Discharge, but when he reaches that stage a referral will be made.

Analysis and Conclusions

20Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence as well as the submissions from the parties, the Board finds that Mr. Dip 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.

21A 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.

22In determining whether Barry Dip 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.

23Mr. Dip suffers from a psychotic disorder which while well treated by his current medication regime, still causes him to experience auditory hallucinations and occasional delusional thinking, both of which are very distressing to him and can occasionally overwhelm his coping mechanisms.

24Mr. Dip’s insight into his mental illness and need for treatment was described as being “limited”. This is being worked on through ongoing CBTp sessions, however, Mr. Dip remains medication adherent.

25Mr. Dip has successfully transitioned from the inpatient unit to the community, but this has occurred only recently and has been successful to date in large part due to the twice weekly visits from his forensic outpatient team and his supportive housing environment. It remains to be seen whether Mr. Dip is able to maintain his current degree of stability in the coming year when he resumes more structured activities such as employment pursuits, and whether he can do so while also maintaining his abstinence from illicit substances.

26The last risk assessment that was conducted for Mr. Dip was done in 2023 and the Hospital Report states that its conclusions remain valid. On pages 54-57 of that report, Mr. Dip’s risk of violent reoffending was categorized as moderate with his current supports in place and high if he were in the community without them.

27Lastly, the Panel considered whether a Conditional Discharge was the necessary and appropriate, least onerous and least restrictive Disposition for Mr. Dip. Given the evidence of Dr. Shariati that absent a Detention Order Disposition, Mr. Dip would cease his engagement with Hospital programming, become medication non-adherent and would likely become violent toward others, before the civil commitment provisions of the Mental Health Act could be activated. The provisions of the Mental Health Act would be insufficient to attenuate Mr. Dip’s risk to the public at this time. Thus, the Panel unanimously concluded that a Conditional Discharge was premature.

28In 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. Dip, 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.

29The Panel wishes Mr. Dip well in the coming year.