Ontario Review Board
Re: Honor O. Charley
ORB File No: 8752
Hearing held on: Tuesday, August 26, 2025
Place of Hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Pursuant to: Section 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. M. Labrosse
Members: Dr. S. Lessard
Dr. R. Cormier
Ms. C. Murray
Ms. K. Brisson
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Honor O. Charley Counsel: Mr. M. Smith
Person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. P. Miltenburg
Representative : Dr. A, Alabi
Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. M. Dufort and
Ms. E. Davies
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated September 11, 2025)
Introduction
On March 19, 2025, Mr. Honor O. Charley, was found not criminally responsible on a charge of attempted murder and aggravated assault, both contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. At the time of the finding of not criminally responsible, the Honourable Court did not issue a disposition and referred the matter to the Ontario Review Board for an initial hearing.
On August 26, 2025, the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, hereinafter referred to the hospital, to conduct Mr. Charley’s initial hearing pursuant to s. 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada. Mr. Charley was present for his hearing and was represented by counsel, Mr. Michael Smith.
The matter had also been set for a dual status placement hearing to proceed after the initial hearing. On February 20, 2025, Mr. Charley was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder for an offence that occurred within hours of the offences for which he was found not criminally responsible. A representative of Correctional Services Canada, Mr. Jeff Tousignant, attended specifically for the placement hearing. Several of Mr. Charley’s personal supports were also present, including his mother, Karlene Watt, three of his sisters and a close friend.
It is noted that the placement hearing was ultimately adjourned to another date and that these Reasons for Disposition deal only with Mr. Charley’s initial hearing before the Board.
The following documents were entered as Exhibits for the hearing:
Victim Impact Statement (x4) in relation to the second-degree murder conviction
Warrant of Committal dated March 19th, 2025
Charge Sheet
Assessment Order dated November 17th, 2025
Endorsed Indictment
Ottawa Police Service disclosure
Psychiatric Report dated April 18th, 2025
Psychological Note
NCR Report dated April 12th, 2024
Hospital Report dated July 6th, 2025
Support Letters for Mr. Charley (x16)
Submission for Sentencing
Document filed by the Attorney General in relation to charges brought against Mr. Charley while he was housed at the Toronto East Detention Centre
Counsel for the Attorney General, Ms. Dufort, raised an issue regarding the admissibility of support letters that were filed for this hearing in so far as they potentially opined on the issue of the appropriate placement for Mr. Charley. Given that this panel did not deal with the issue of the placement hearing, this Panel made no determination regarding the admissibility of these support letters. Also filed for the placement hearing was a Will-Say statement prepared by Rickie Sewell, a psychologist with Correctional Services Canada and would also have attended the placement hearing. That document was entered into evidence as had already been directed by the Pre-hearing conference Alternate Chair but is not relevant to the initial hearing before the Board.
For the reasons set out below, the Board finds that Mr. Charley represents as significant threat to the safety of the public, and that a detention order, with privileges up to and including to attend medical, dental, and legal appointments, and for compassionate purposes is the necessary and appropriate disposition at this time. This decision was given orally at the hearing to trigger the dual status provisions of the Criminal Code, to enable the placement hearing to proceed, though it was ultimately adjourned.
Index Offence
- The circumstances surrounding the index offences are summarized in the hospital report as follows:
Synopsis
On Friday April 23rd, 2021, at about 0940hrs the victim Carl REINBOTH was walking west on Somerset Street, Ottawa. He was alone. The Accused Honor CHARLEY approached the victim from behind and delivered a single stab wound to the back of the victim. The victim sustained a fatal injury and was pronounced dead at the Ottawa Civic Hospital despite emergency intervention.
At about 1148hrs the victim Goucai SUN attended the Petro Canada gas station at 676 Somerset Street, Ottawa. He made a purchase and turned to exit the gas station. The Accused Honor CHARLEY approached the victim and delivered a single stab wound to the neck of the victim causing serious injury.
The Accused left the gas station on foot while the victim remained inside bleeding profusely. The victim was then taken to the Ottawa Civic Hospital where he was treated for his injuries.
As of 0001hrs on Saturday April 24th, 2021, the victim is in serious but stable condition. The Accused was arrested close to the scene of the 2nd stabbing by responding police officers.
The Accused was charged and held for a show cause hearing set for the morning of Saturday April 24th, 2021.”
Background History
The Hospital Report contains detailed information regarding Mr. Charley’s background, substance use history, legal history, and psychiatric history, the entirety of which need not be repeated here in detail. In brief, Mr. Charley is a 24-year-old male with no dependents. He is currently detained at Ottawa-Carlton Detention Centre.
Mr. Charley experienced some disruption in his childhood after the age of two when his father returned to Jamaica when he faced possible deportation. Mr. Charley’s father is reported to have had mental health issues, including paranoia and talking to himself.
Mr. Charley’s mother reports that the Children’s Aid Society was involved in Mr. Charley’s care for four months.
Mr. Charley was enrolled at Holland College in Prince Edward Island, having secured a football scholarship. He was unable to attend due to the index offences.
Mr. Charley reported that he did not have any psychiatric hospitalizations prior to the index offences.
Mr. Charley has a significant substance use history. He started using cannabis in grade seven or eight. By grade nine, Mr. Charley was using cannabis daily. He first started to consume alcohol at the age of fifteen. He started drinking daily when he moved into his own apartment six months prior to the index offences and reported be intoxicated frequently. He endorsed vomiting and black outs when drinking. Mr. Charley also reported that his cannabis use increased when he moved into his own apartment.
Mr. Charley reported using two grams of cannabis and consuming two litres of alcohol the night before the index offences.
Mr. Charley was incarcerated following the index offences. Following a trial in Superior Court, on February 20, 2025, Mr. Charley was found NCR on the index offences of attempted murder and aggravated assault. However, he was convicted on the second-degree murder charge, and on March 19, 2025, and sentenced to life imprisonment without eligibility for parole for ten years.
Mr. Charley does not have a history of involvement with the law prior to the index offences. After the commission of the index offences, Mr. Charley was arrested and taken to cells. He was combative, snapped his handcuffs, and ultimately needed to be subdued with a taser and 500 mg IM of ketamine. A urine drug screen was not completed at the time. Mr. Charley has responded to treatment with olanzapine for psychosis.
Current Diagnoses
- Mr. Charley’s current diagnoses include Substance Induced Psychotic Disorder versus a primary psychotic disorder, such as an unspecified Schizophrenia Spectrum or other psychotic disorder. Also, Alcohol Use Disorder and Cannabis Use Disorder, both in remission in a controlled environment.
Evidence at the Hearing
The hospital’s evidence was presented through its report and through the oral testimony of Dr. A. Alabi who is the forensic psychiatrist assigned to Mr. Charley and who prepared the risk assessment for this hearing.
Mr. Charley remains at the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre (“OCDC”) where he has been detained for some time after spending a brief period at Joyceville Penitentiary. While at Joyceville, Mr. Charley started the assessment process to determine where he will be serving his sentence, but this assessment was paused while Mr. Charley awaited his initial ORB hearing. In anticipation of a placement hearing, Mr. Charley was transferred back to OCDC where he will remain until such time as the Board determines the appropriate placement. Following the completion of this hearing, the placement hearing was adjourned to September 17, 2025.
Dr. Alabi met with Mr. Charley in person at OCDC on June 18, 2025. This was his only meeting with Mr. Charley so far.
Dr. Alabi conducted his risk assessment for the initial hearing. He testified that he had reviewed the sources listed in the hospital report, including the NCR assessment of Dr. Amina Ali. After his June 18, 2025, meeting with Mr. Charley, Dr. Alabi completed the hospital report which is dated July 6, 2025.
In Dr. Alabi’s opinion, Mr. Charley presents a moderate to high risk for future violence. Dr. Alabi noted that the index offences occurred in the context of substance use, including alcohol and cannabis, and that Mr. Charley has no prior history of violence.
Mr. Charley has a diagnosis of a psychotic disorder which has responded to treatment with olanzapine. Though Mr. Charley has been compliant with treatment and has responded to antipsychotic medication, his insight into his mental disorder is still limited. His psychotic disorder is currently in remission. His substance use disorder is also in remission due to the protective institutional environment. Mr. Charley’s insight into how his psychotic disorder and use of substance influenced his risk of harm to others remains sub-optimal at this time.
Dr. Alabi acknowledged that there remains diagnostic unclarity given that Mr. Charley no longer has any active psychotic symptoms. Following his brief admission to hospital and commencement of treatment, Mr. Charley’s psychotic symptoms were resolved promptly. He has continued taking a dose of olanzapine of 20 mg daily. According to the medical staff at the OCDC, he remains stable and has demonstrated no evidence of psychosis, nor has he required any additional mental health care. It remains unclear whether Mr. Charley’s psychotic disorder was substance induced or a primary major mental illness that would have emerged at some point.
In the opinion of Dr. Alabi, Mr. Charley meets the threshold for significant threat to the safety of the public and recommends a detention order with no community privileges except for attending for medical, dental, and legal appointments and for compassionate purposes.
In response to questions posed to him by counsel for the Attorney General, Ms. Dufort, Dr. Alabi responded as follows:
(a) Mr. Charley’s substance use disorder is currently in remission in the custodial facility. He is not aware of any reports of substance-seeking behaviour on the part of Mr. Charley.
(b) Dr. Alabi was not aware that Mr. Charley had spent time at the Toronto East Detention Centre. He was presented with Exhibit 13, a Toronto Police Services document detailing charges that were brought against Mr. Charley while he was housed at the Toronto East Detention Centre, though the charges were ultimately stayed.
(c) Dr. Alabi confirmed that Mr. Charley is currently housed within the general population at the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre.
(d) Dr. Alabi acknowledged that within the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre there are substances that circulate, despite the hospital’s efforts to prevent it. Dr. Alabi confirmed that if Mr. Charley was admitted to the hospital, he would be provided with addictions treatment services. Dr. Alabi acknowledged that there is a risk for potential use by patients in the Forensic Program and he also acknowledged that in the case of Mr. Charley, substances can significantly worsen his presentation as recorded previously, both at the time of the index offences and prior to the index offences.
(e) Dr. Alabi confirmed that the hospital can test for substances with random urine drug screens and that those can be done as often as felt necessary for patients in the forensic units.
(f) Dr. Alabi confirmed that in the NCR assessment, Dr. Wright, the psychologist, had scored Mr. Charley on the psychological testing for potential malingering, but in conclusion, found that Mr. Charley had overall, not made any attempts to deny or exaggerate his information. Dr. Alabi acknowledged that it could be worthwhile to retest Mr. Charley but that in his dealings with Mr. Charley, Dr. Alabi did not feel that Mr. Charley was exaggerating or attempting to mislead with information.
(g) Dr. Alabi acknowledged that at page 27 of the report prepared by Dr. Ali, she references Mr. Charley’s propensity towards aggression, impulsivity and potentially antisociality, however, Dr. Alabi believes that because of the alcohol and cannabis use at the time of the index offences, it could be useful to reassess this as historically Mr. Charley has not demonstrated any evidence of an enduring personality disorder.
(h) Dr. Alabi acknowledged that it could be worthwhile reviewing the issue of the charges that were brought against Mr. Charley at the Toronto East Detention Centre to ensure that the hospital can safely manage him in a forensic unit.
(i) There was a brief reduction in Mr. Charley’s Olanzapine dose from 20 milligrams to 10 milligrams but that it is now back up to 20 milligrams and he is not aware of any complaints of side effects by Mr. Charley.
(j) Dr. Alabi has not noted that Mr. Charley is experiencing any negative symptoms of schizophrenia, nor is there any evidence of ongoing psychotic symptoms.
(k) With respect to his level of insight, Mr. Charley acknowledges that he was not thinking right at the time of the index offences. He understands that the medication is helping him with those symptoms though he has previously stated that he does not know what schizophrenia is, that he does not understand the symptoms of schizophrenia, nor does he understand why he is taking medication. According to Dr. Alabi, Mr. Charley was able to associate the taking of medication with attempts to address what he was experiencing at the time of the index offence.
- Further to questions posed to him by Counsel for Mr. Charley, Mr. Smith, Dr. Alabi responded as follows:
(a) Dr. Alabi acknowledged that his first and last appointment with Mr. Charley was on June 18, 2025, at the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre. Dr. Alabi believes that he met with Mr. Charley for a minimum of an hour, having booked the meeting to take place between 2 p.m. and 4 p.m.
(b) Dr. Alabi conducted a mental state examination which is correlated by what is found in the report.
(c) Dr. Alabi states that he did not make actual notes of the meeting. His practice is to jot down brief notes on paper and then discard them when he is preparing the report. Dr. Alabi stated that no one has ever asked him for his discarded notes, and he does not believe they would be of any use to anyone.
(d) Dr. Alabi acknowledged that the mental status examination on page 27 of the hospital report was taken from Dr. Amina Ali’s report. Dr. Alabi stated he only used Dr. Ali’s report and was not aware that there was a further psychiatric report prepared by Dr. A. Wang, who testified at Mr. Charley’s trial.
(e) Dr. Alabi acknowledged that prior to June 18, 2025, he did not have the requisite security clearance to attend at the OCDC.
(f) Dr. Alabi acknowledged that Dr. Ali’s report does reference Dr. Wang’s report, but that Dr. Alabi made no attempts to review Dr. Wang’s report, as Dr. Ali’s report was more recent. Dr. Alabi acknowledged that he did not know when Dr. Wang’s report was authored.
(g) Dr. Alabi did not access any notes from the OCDC but rather spoke to a nurse who reported that Mr. Charley was not under the care of a psychiatric team due to his ongoing stability and there not being any identifiable need for him to meet with the psychiatric team. Dr. Alabi also spoke to staff at OCDC on June 18th and would have jotted down information, though he believes that the conversation would have been only a couple of minutes long. Dr. Alabi believes that he obtained the information that he needed from the OCDC staff and that he did not believe it was necessary for him to request any further information or records.
(h) Dr. Alabi acknowledged that he did not attempt to access any of the records from the Joyceville Penitentiary or any other penal institutions where Mr. Charley had been housed.
(i) With respect to the issue of substance use, Dr. Alabi acknowledged that the only information that he has is regarding what was going on in 2021 at the time of the index offences. Dr. Alabi stated that he does not have any information to suggest that Mr. Charley has since attempted to obtain any contraband while in jail.
(j) Dr. Alabi acknowledged that he had not spoken to any members of Mr. Charley’s family in the preparation of a risk assessment.
(k) At page 32 of the hospital report, Dr. Alabi states that Mr. Charley mentions that he enjoys working out at the gym, watching T.V., and enjoying fresh air in the yard. Dr. Alabi stated that he was not aware of how regularly Mr. Charley might be going to the gym, nor was he aware that there were many lockdowns that occurred at the OCDC which presumably make it impossible for inmates to access these activities at those times.
(l) When it was suggested to him that he did not do a lot of fact-checking in the preparation of his risk assessment, Dr. Alabi stated that he had no reason to question what Mr. Charley was telling him as he gave no reason to doubt his information.
- Further to questions posed to him by members of the panel, Dr. Alabi responded as follows:
(a) Dr. Alabi is not certain what type of olanzapine tablet has been prescribed to Mr. Charley, though it has been reported that Mr. Charley is compliant with medication and is observed by the OCDC staff when he takes it. Dr. Alabi stated that there has been no testing to measure whether Mr. Charley is taking medication. He acknowledged that in view of the differential diagnosis, it could be important to measure the efficacy of the medication if it was confirmed to be in his blood. Dr. Alabi acknowledged that he could do that if it was felt necessary.
(b) Dr. Alabi’s working diagnosis at this time is that of substance induced psychosis. If Mr. Charley was in hospital, there is risk that he might use again, and it would be important to be very cautious about his potential exposure to drugs which could render it difficult to manage him on the unit.
(c) Dr. Alabi believes that whoever is looking after Mr. Charley in the longer term should probably do a medication review to gauge whether olanzapine is the best treatment moving forward. Mr. Charley has indicated his willingness to continue taking olanzapine though he does not necessarily have insight into his illness. Dr. Alabi believes that he is taking it out of the fear of being unwell again.
(d) Mr. Charley has expressed being extremely remorseful about the index offences and the death of the victim of the second-degree murder conviction.
(e) Dr. Alabi believes that if Mr. Charley wanted psychiatric services at OCDC, he could receive them. In addition, OCDC staff could approach him with an offer of services, if it was deemed necessary.
(f) Dr. Alabi confirmed that Mr. Charley is capable of consenting to treatment.
(g) Dr. Alabi stated that he does not know the status of Mr. Charley’s father’s mental illness and treatment and whether this has a contributory effect on Mr. Charley.
With respect to the questions posed by the members of the panel, Ms. Dufort asked Dr. Alabi whether the therapeutic levels of olanzapine could be tested to which Dr. Alabi stated that testing can be conducted to detect the presence of the medication, however, not from a quantitative analysis perspective. Dr. Alabi was unsure of the utility of this, given that Mr. Charley does not report any symptoms, though he acknowledged it could be useful at some point.
Dr. Alabi was asked by Mr. Smith whether he was aware that Mr. Charley has an older brother who also suffers from mental health issues to which Dr. Alabi indicated that he believes that he was just aware of the father having mental health issues. Dr. Alabi agreed that information about a family history of mental illness is important. While he did not feel it would directly impact the risk assessment, he acknowledged it could be useful for formulating the diagnosis.
No other evidence was presented.
Submissions of the Parties
The hospital submits that Mr. Charley meets the threshold for significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition to manage the risk is a detention order with no community privileges, save and except for attending for medical, dental, and legal appointments, and for compassionate purposes.
Counsel for the Attorney General, Ms. Dufort, submits that significant threat is made out by the evidence, namely the seriousness of the index offences, the background which also includes the second-degree murder conviction, which is very close in time to the index offence. The index offences were also very serious. Mr. Charley is diagnosed with substance use disorder which is in remission due to being in a very controlled environment. It is clear on the evidence that it was a very significant contributory factor to the symptoms that he was exhibiting at the time of the index offences. The evidence also points to suboptimal insight regarding the symptoms of a mental illness and how to treat them, nor does Mr. Charley exhibit any meaningful insight on the impact of substances. For now, Mr. Charley remains in a custodial facility, but should he ever be in the hospital, Ms. Dufort submits that there should be no community access, save and except for 2:1 escorted access to medical appointments or for compassionate purposes.
The recommended disposition is appropriate as if he was in hospital, Mr. Charley would need to adapt to a treatment team, would need to be tested on his ability to abstain from substances and would need significant psychoeducational treatment to help him gain insight into those areas, before being ready to access greater privileges.
Ms. Dufort also submits that a weapons prohibition is necessary and appropriate, that Mr. Charley be prohibited from consuming substances, including alcohol and cannabis, even though they are legal, and should be required to submit to random urine drug screens. Finally, Ms. Dufort submits that Mr. Charley should be prohibited from having any contact with the victim of the index offence as well as the family of the victim on the homicide.
Counsel for Mr. Charley, Mr. Smith, though not formally contesting the issue of significant threat to the safety of the public, expressed his concern about the insufficiency of the information before the Board to make that finding. Mr. Smith submits that the report from the hospital is lacking, that there has been no fact checking, nothing to substantiate, no access to records where Mr. Charley was held, that Dr. Alabi did not talk to the family, did not inquire about the history of mental health issues in the family, and that all of this information would have provided a more contextual background.
With respect to the synopsis of the charges against Mr. Charley at the Toronto East Detention Centre, which charges were ultimately stayed, Mr. Smith urges the Board to give no weight to this information. In addition, there is no information that Mr. Charley is not compliant with treatment, no evidence that he is creating any havoc at the penal institution, and that overall, the hospital’s submission lacks foundation.
In summary, Mr. Smith, despite taking issue with the presumed insufficiency of information before the Board, does not contest the issue of significant threat, nor the recommendation that is being made.
Analysis and Conclusion
Having considered all of the evidence tendered at the hearing, and the submissions of the parties, the Board finds that Mr. Charley poses a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code of Canada, and as further defined in Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625.
According to R. v. Winko, a ‘significant threat to the safety of the public’ means a real risk of physical or psychological harm to members of the public that is serious in the sense of going beyond the merely trivial or annoying. The conduct giving rise to the harm must be criminal in nature. Further, it is noted that evidence to determine whether an individual is a significant threat to the safety of the public can include 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, as well as other items.
Though we agree that relevant information has been omitted from the hospital report and risk assessment, including reference to the NCR report of Dr. A. Wang, relevant historical and familial information, and much of the information of Mr. Charley’s journey through the penal system since being charged with the offences which took place on April 23, 2021, more than four years ago, the Panel is satisfied that on the totality of the record before us, there is a sufficient evidentiary foundation for us to make the finding that Mr. Charley meets the threshold of significant threat to the safety of the public.
This finding is made on the gravity of index offence and the homicide which led to a second-degree murder conviction. The degree of violence displayed by Mr. Charley at the time that he was experiencing a severe psychotic episode in which the use of substances was clearly in play, was of the most serious nature.
Mr. Charley has no previous psychiatric or criminal history. He was engaged in very serious substance abuse at the time of the offences, and this may have ultimately triggered the psychotic episode. He has limited insight into his mental health, but in fairness, the lack of diagnostic clarity and the fact that he has been in penal institutions since the commission of the offences have not provided him with much opportunity, if at all, to engage in psychoeducational treatment. Mr. Charley’s psychosis resolved with treatment and forced abstinence from substances soon after the offences, but he has been in a holding pattern for the past 4+ years.
If Mr. Charley was not in a penal institution, it remains unclear whether the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre would be an appropriate facility to manage the risk. The hospital may be considering a request for a transfer to the maximum-security psychiatric facility at Waypoint. This may become clearer after Mr. Charley’s placement hearing. In any event, it is hoped that the hospital will provide a more fulsome record of information for the next hearing.
Based on what is before the Board at this time, the disposition being recommended by the hospital and the Attorney General, and not being contested by Mr. Charley, is necessary and appropriate, and represents the least onerous and least restrictive disposition at this time.
In reaching our conclusion that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a detention order, the panel considered the factors enunciated at s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, namely the safety of the public, which is the paramount consideration, as well as Mr. Charley’s needs, mental condition, and rehabilitation into society. The detention order shall include the following conditions:
Privileges up to and including attending for medical, dental and legal appointments, and for compassionate purposes, escorted by staff on a 2:1 basis
Abstention from substances and submitting to random urine drug screens
A weapons prohibition;
Not to contact the victim of the index offences or his family.
- The Board declined to include a condition that there be no contact with the family of the homicide victim. There is no evidence that Mr. Charley had expressed any intention of contacting anyone connected with the victim of the homicide. In addition, the fact that the many Victim Impact Statements were filed in relation to the homicide, did not persuade us that this was a necessary and appropriate condition to include in the disposition.
DATED this 11th day of September 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. M. Labrosse Alternate Chairperson
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board