Re: Thomas Harpula
ORB File No: 7531
Hearing held on: July 23, 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: Thomas Harpula Counsel: Mr. A. Rai
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Mr. S. O’Brien
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. J. McKenzie
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated September 2, 2025)
Introduction
On April 17, 2019, Thomas Harpula was found not criminally responsible (“NCR”) on a charge of second-degree murder contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”).
He is currently subject to a Detention Order from the Disposition of July 30, 2024, which provides various terms and conditions, as well as privileges up to permission to reside in the community within the catchment area of St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton (STJHH).
On July 23, 2025, a panel of the Ontario Review Board (ORB) convened in person and a hearing was held at St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton. The purpose of the hearing was to determine if Mr. Harpula 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.
For the reasons set out below, the Board unanimously finds that Mr. Harpula continues to meet the threshold for significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a continuation of the existing Detention Order with no changes to its terms and conditions.
Current Psychiatric Diagnoses:
- Schizophrenia;
Cannabis Use Disorder (in sustained remission, in a controlled environment).
Gambling Disorder
Index Offences:
- The facts giving rise to the index offences are described in last year’s Reasons for Disposition as follows:
On December 20, 2017, while living with his parents in Hamilton, Mr. Harpula phoned Hamilton Police and stated he thought he had killed his father. He told dispatch he had returned home and "snapped" and stabbed and choked his father. When police arrived at the residence they observed Mr. Harpula covered in blood. His father was found deceased, lying on the entrance floor, also covered in blood. He Mr. Janusz Harpula sustained multiple stab wounds all over his body and had a dog leash around his neck and body. No previous reports of any violence within the home had been made to police.
Without Prejudice Position of the Parties:
At the commencement of the hearing, the parties were canvassed for their initial positions.
Counsel for the Hospital took the position that Mr. Walker continues to meet the threshold for significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition was a continuation of the existing Detention Order with no changes to the terms and conditions.
Counsel for the Attorney General supported the Hospital’s position.
Counsel for the accused submitted that Mr. Harpula would be seeking an Absolute Discharge.
Evidence at the Hearing:
The 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. Harpula’s attending psychiatrist since January of 2022.
Dr. Shariati testified that Mr. Harpula has had a stable year. He transitioned to the Orchard 3 unit at the beginning of June and has integrated well. He has remained compliant with his medications and has had no breakthrough psychotic symptoms in the current reporting year.
Dr. Shariati further stated that Mr. Harpula has had no positive urine drug screens (UDS) and has remained cooperative and engaged with the treatment team. He was able to progress up the privilege ladder and completed transition into the community. He was discharged to an independent residence at First Place in Hamilton as of July 14.
Dr. Shariati highlighted some concerns surrounding Mr. Harpula’s engagement with programming. He explained that Mr. Harpula was previously engaged in a volunteering program through Goodwill and was doing well in that program. However, the treatment team found out recently that Mr. Harpula had not been attending that placement during the last two weeks of June and into the first week of July.
This information was obtained not from Mr. Harpula but from staff member who works in the Hospital and helps facilitate patients volunteering. When confronted with this information by Dr. Shariati, Mr. Harpula insisted that he was attending and provided an explanation for the discrepancy that the team did not find credible.
Other concerns raised by the doctor include those around hygiene and the cleanliness of Mr. Harpula’s room while in the Hospital, and the fact that Mr. Harpula was removed from a substance abuse program that he was attending because he missed three sessions in a row. These concerns have led to a higher level of supervision and follow-up for Mr. Harpula than what would be required by a typical outpatient.
Mr. Harpula came very close to requiring a readmission to the Hospital because recently he was discovered to have been smoking in his apartment and concealing it which could have led to an eviction.
Dr. Shariati testified that in his opinion, Mr. Harpula’s clinical stability and his discharge were made possible by the structure and higher-than-usual follow up visits provided by the Forensic Outpatient Services. Mr. Harpula has poor insight into his mental illness and his need to remain abstinent for intoxicating substances and this remains a significant risk factor for him according to Dr. Shariati.
Dr. Shariati also testified that it was only two years ago when Mr. Harpula eloped from his community living placement with another patient. He took steps to try and disguise the vehicle he was travelling in from the police. He was eventually arrested, charged and convicted of offences flowing from that elopement and then later that year, was discovered to have been in possession of a contraband device that he was using to communicate with his co-conspirator.
Mr. Harpula has not been violent in the past year, which gives the treatment team confidence in the stability of his mental illness and his abstention from substances in the context of extensive forensic involvement while he is an outpatient.
In response to questions from Counsel for the Attorney General, Dr. Shariati confirmed that Mr. Harpula is generally receptive to the treatment team’s suggestions, for example, when the doctor advised Mr. Harpula about pursuing employment with Uber Eats or going to a university campus to interview women for a dating application he has been working on.
Dr. Shariati also confirmed that Mr. Harpula has conducted an intake with a new proposed substance abuse program that he is interested in pursuing.
Dr. Shariati further testified that he does not believe Mr. Harpula can maintain his current degree of stability absent the intensive supports he currently enjoys as a forensic patient. Absent a Detention Order, Dr. Shariati believes that Mr. Harpula would resume substance use and discontinue his medications leading to a reemergence of psychosis similar to that which he experienced when he committed the index offence. He also opined that the provisions of the Mental Health Act would be insufficient to manage Mr. Harpula’s risk in the community.
In response to questions from Mr. Harpula’s counsel, Dr. Shariati testified that Mr. Harpula has not exhibited any psychotic symptoms in the past reporting year but has experienced some “low grade grandiosity”. Dr. Shariati also explained that Mr. Harpula’s insight tends to fluctuate, and while he does not want a repeat of the index offence he has a tendency toward impulsivity that affects his adherence to rules.
Dr. Shariati confirmed that Mr. Harpula could maintain his current housing if he were absolutely discharged, so long as he maintained psychiatric stability and followed the rules at First Place.
In response to questions from the Panel, Dr. Shariati explained that Mr. Harpula spends his time in the smoking area, working on his various projects, spending time with friends and visiting his mother at least one weekend per month. Dr. Shariati reiterated that the team would like him to resume his volunteering and to re-engage in substance abuse counselling to better structure his time.
If Mr. Harpula received an Absolute Discharge, Dr. Shariati testified that a “scramble” would ensue to find Mr. Harpula an outpatient program that could prescribe and administer his medications. He would no longer be entitled to the intensive support provided by the forensic mental health system and Dr. Shariati does not believe the ACT team could take him as a client with such short notice. Dr. Shariati also does not believe that Mr. Harpula has a psychiatrist in the community but he testified that he does have a family doctor.
Dr. Shariati explained that Mr. Harpula’s risk in the community cannot be adequately managed at this juncture by civil, non-forensic resources such as an ACT team or the Schizophrenia Outpatient Program because they cannot provide the degree of structure and boundaries that Mr. Harpula requires, nor do they have the resources to provide the requisite degree of supervision and follow-up that he currently enjoys.
Mr. Harpula chose to give evidence in support of his request for an absolute discharge. He testified that he has a family doctor that he sees twice monthly and that his doctor will continue to see him as a regular patient in the event of an Absolute Discharge.
Mr. Harpula testified that he would continue to take his medication and remain abstinent from drugs if absolutely discharged and he would pursue employment outside of Hamilton, which he stated the treatment team would not allow him to pursue. If he felt unwell, Mr. Harpula told us that he would call 911 or seek help from his doctor or the PSWs in his building.
In response to questions from the Panel, Mr. Harpula testified that he did not speak with Dr. Shariati prior to the hearing and did not mention to him that his psychologist was offering to continue working with him even if received an Absolute Discharge.
Lastly, when asked what signs of mental status decompensation he would look for to determine if he needed to seek help, Mr. Harpula stated that he only experiences command hallucinations when he is psychiatrically unwell and did not experience other symptoms.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties maintained their initial positions as to the necessary and appropriate Disposition.
Analysis and Conclusions
Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence as well as the submissions from the parties, the Board finds that Mr. Harpula continues to meet the threshold for significant threat to the safety of the public.
A 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.
In determining whether Thomas Harpula 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.
Mr. Harpula suffers from a psychotic disorder which is well treated by his current medication regime and the structure and supports of the forensic mental health system. However, as set out in the Hospital Report, Mr. Harpula has a well-documented history of substance abuse and struggles with gambling. Cannabis use occurred prior to the index offence, which was incredibly violent and tragic for the family.
Mr. Harpula has continued to struggle with substance use during his time in the forensic system. This includes past struggles with excessive caffeine and nicotine intake, to the point of sleep deprivation and manic symptomology, as well as more recent struggles with cannabis and alcohol.
Mr. Harpula has had several failed discharge attempts previously, with the most recent attempt occurring in 2023 and resulting in arrest, conviction and readmission to the Hospital. During that elopement, Mr. Harpula admitted to consuming alcohol and cannabis with a co-patient. He went to great lengths to avoid arrest, for example by painting his car red and altering his vehicle’s license plate. Upon readmission to the Hospital, Mr. Harpula stated that his elopement was born out of frustration with the treatment team for not allowing him to keep his dog at his apartment and because he did not want to participate in groups that the team had recommended.
The Panel considered firstly whether an Absolute Discharge was appropriate for Mr. Harpula. However, given the preponderance of evidence that was provided to the Panel, it was determined that Mr. Harpula still meets the threshold for significant threat to the safety of the public and therefore, an Absolute Discharge was premature at this juncture.
The Panel next turned its mind to the possibility of a Conditional Discharge Disposition. We considered the evidence of Dr. Shariati who was clear that the provisions of the Mental Health Act would be insufficient to manage Mr. Harpula’s risk in the community.
The Panel also considered the lengths Mr. Harpula went to avoid capture in May 2023 when he eloped from his community placement and determined that Mr. Harpula would not voluntarily return to Hospital if conditionally discharged. This conclusion stems in part from the lack of insight that Mr. Harpula currently has into the psychotic symptoms he has suffered from, as evidenced by his oral testimony that command hallucinations were the only sign he would look for if he was becoming unwell.
Mr. Harpula has only just last month been discharged to the community. He has had several failed discharges in recent years, with a relapse into substance abuse being a contributing factor. Time will tell if he is able to maintain his current stability and demonstrate an ability to remain abstinent from substances, and more importantly, fully engage in substance abuse and other rehabilitative programming as directed by the treatment team.
In 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. Harpula, his reintegration into society and his other needs, the Panel finds that a continuation of the existing Detention Order Disposition is the necessary and appropriate Disposition.
DATED this 2nd day of September 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. D. D’Intino Legal Member
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board