Re: James A. Murison, 2025 CanLII 92522

Ontario Review Board

Re: James A. Murison

ORB File No: 8587

Hearing held on: Wednesday, August 6, 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. J. Mills Members: Dr. S. Swaminath Dr. J. Kis Mr. E. Siebenmorgen Mr. A. Mete

Parties Appearing: Accused: James A. Murison Counsel: Mr. C. Cornale

The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. L. Barney

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. K. Malkovich

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated September 12, 2025)

Introduction

1On June 12, 2024, James Murison was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on charges of failure to comply with release order, failure to comply with undertaking, mischief - not exceeding five thousand dollars and criminal harassment contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (the “Criminal Code”). Mr. Murison is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”) dated August 16, 2024, detaining him on the Forensic Psychiatry Program at St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton (the “Hospital”), with privileges up to and including the ability to live in the community in supervised accommodation.

2On August 6, 2025, a panel of the Board convened to review Mr. Murison’s disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Murison was present for his hearing and was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings. The victim of the index offences also attended the hearing.

3The issues to be determined are whether Mr. Murison poses a significant threat to the safety of the public and, if so, the necessary and appropriate disposition to manage that risk pursuant to s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

4At the commencement of the hearing, counsel for the Hospital submitted that Mr. Murison remains a significant threat to the safety of the public and there should be no change to his current disposition except that clause 2(h) and clause 2(i) should be amended to read “within the catchment area of St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton”. Counsel for the Hospital also submitted that clause 4(e) should be amended to allow Mr. Murison to attend at his residence escorted by staff with an itinerary approved by the person in charge. Counsel for the Attorney General agreed with the Hospital’s submission and submitted that notice should be provided to the victim in advance of any intended visit to Mr. Murison’s home. Counsel for Mr. Murison agreed with the submissions of both parties. All parties maintained their respective positions in closing submissions.

5For the reasons set out below, the Board finds that Mr. Murison continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and there should be no change to his current disposition, except as recommended above.

Evidence at the Hearing

6The Board received documentary evidence in the form of a Hospital Report dated July 17, 2025, and a Victim Impact Statement dated July 15, 2025, and marked as Exhibits 1 and 2 respectively. The Board also heard viva voce testimony from Dr. Wu, Mr. Murison’s treating psychiatrist.

Index Offences

7The circumstances of the index offence are excerpted from last year’s Reasons for Disposition as follows:

"HISTORY

On Saturday November 4, 2023, investigators were made aware of an ongoing neighbour dispute involving resident, Tracy the complainant, of 4 Edgewater Drive and resident, James MURISON, of 6 Edgewater Drive in Stoney Creek, Ontario. Investigators learned the complainant has reported nine (9) separate neighbour dispute incidents, involving MURISON, to the Hamilton Police Service beginning July 4, 2023, to October 1, 2023. MURISON is currently bound by an Undertaking dated August 21, 2023, in relation to an Operation while Impaired charge with no applicable conditions.

SYNOPSIS

On Saturday November 4, 2023, at approximately 5:00 p.m. the complainant attended Division 20 in order to conduct a video interview. At this time, the complainant had provided investigators with supporting documentation, specifically a journal whereby she has been documenting each incident involving MURISON. At 5:10 p.m. D/C PIRRONE assisted with conducting a video interview with the complainant. At this time, investigators learned the following:

• the complainant has resided next-door to MURISON for approximately 7.5 years;

• the complainant advised the first incident involving MURISON was a few years ago when the pair had a confrontation regarding their shared roof;

• the complainant advised MURISON was ‘not making sense’ and MURISON self- admitted to having a drinking problem;

• MURISON alleged the complainant had sexually assaulted him in his vehicle and the complainant therefore stated a ‘red flag’ went up for her at this point;

• the complainant advised she did not feel safe as MURISON had this fantasy, however; later apologized to the complainant and the pair have since been amicable;

• Investigators learned the pair reside in freehold townhomes with their front-doors being approximately eight (8) feet apart, ultimately sharing a front porch;

• the complainant advised the pair managed to work together to repair their front porch, add furniture, decorate and have a nice garden;

• Investigators learned the relationship was amicable between the complainant and MURISON up until May of this year;

• Investigators learned that MURISON’s behaviour began to change whereby he was sitting on the front porch daily, consuming alcohol, yelling at people, barking at dogs, walking up to residences and coming over to the complainant side of the porch;

• the complainant confronted MURISON regarding his behaviour as she became concerned when he stated he had stopped taking medication as he felt his doctor was providing bad advice.

The complainant proceeded to state that she believed MURISON’s behaviour has been escalating and on multiple occasions has been attending her front-door and speaking towards her Ring doorbell camera. the complainant advised she purchased the Ring doorbell camera due to ongoing incidents involving MURISON. The complainant described MURISON as ‘aggressive’ by swearing at her and therefore causing her to feel intimidated. The complainant advised she is fearful for safety as MURISON has continued harassing her regardless of Police warning. On Sunday October 1, 2023, the complainant reported MURISON was speaking into her Ring doorbell camera stating that he loves her and cannot be without her.”

FAIL TO COMPLY WITH UNDERTAKINGAND FAIL TO COMPLY WITH RELEASE ORDER

On November 13th, and November 19th, 2023, Mr. Murison was charged with breaching his undertaking and subsequent release conditions by again continuing to communicate with the complainant. At the time of the index offences, Mr. Murison was also subject to a charge of impaired driving that the panel was advised was stayed by the Crown.

8The Hospital report outlines Mr. Murison’s history and background and need not be repeated here in detail. In brief, Mr. Murison is 65 years old. He was raised in the Stoney Creek area and had a positive relationship with his family and siblings. In 1981, shortly after beginning his third year of university, Mr. Murison was involved in a head-on-collision with another vehicle and underwent rehabilitation for several years after the accident. Subsequently, he enrolled in teachers’ college and worked as a high school teacher until 1997, when he was placed on medical leave secondary to a bipolar illness. Mr. Murison is financially supported by long-term disability benefits, pension, and investment income. Mr. Murison was married briefly. He has no dependents.

9Mr. Murison has a long-standing history of alcohol use beginning in his adolescence. Collateral information indicates that Mr. Murison previously engaged in treatment at the Moreland Addiction Treatment Centre and at Alcohol, Drug and Gambling Services. Prior to the index offences, Mr. Murison had a criminal record for impaired driving in 1994, and criminal harassment in 2004.

10Mr. Murison was residing in his own home in Stoney Creek, Ontario, at the time of the index offences. Mr. Murison was not followed by any outpatient mental health or addictions program, and Mr. Murison reported that he discontinued his prescribed mood stabilizer medication in May 2023, because of chronic pain and other physical health concerns, which he attributed to the psychotropic medication.

11According to health records in 2023, Mr. Murison had five presentations to the psychiatric emergency service at St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton, on inpatient admission and multiple interactions with the Crisis Outreach and support Team (COAST). These presentations are reported to have occurred in the context of acute alcohol intoxication, symptoms of bipolar disorder and reported bizarre behaviour, and concern regarding his overall well-being.

12Prior to the index offences, Mr. Murison appears to have enjoyed a prolonged period of mental stability as his last known hospitalization was in 2004. Mr. Murison is diagnosed as suffering from bipolar disorder, type 1, frontotemporal dementia (behavioural variant) and alcohol use disorder (severe). Mr. Murison is capable with regard to psychiatric treatment.

Evidence of Dr. Wu

13Dr. Wu testified that he has been Mr. Murison’s treating psychiatrist since his admission to the Hospital (March 14, 2024). Over the year in review, Mr. Murison has not displayed any aggression, he has complied with his medication and there have been no positive urine drug screens. Mr. Murison spends most of his time in his room. He had hip surgery in 2025, and this has presented a barrier to him engaging with unit activities and programming. For most of the time, Mr. Murison continues to walk with the assistance of a rollator walker.

14Mr. Murison’s insight into his bipolar disorder is fair. He acknowledges that he suffers from the disease. He also acknowledges that this disrupts his sleep and causes mania; however, he has been reluctant to increase his medication. His insight into his alcohol use is limited, particularly as it relates to his mental health and his overall risk. Mr. Murison continues to experience difficulty making the connection between the index offences, his symptoms and the harm that he has caused.

15More recently he has been displaying low mood and depressive symptoms. To address this, his medication was changed from aripiprazole to quetiapine and is not yet fully optimized. Mr. Murison’s low mood is a manifestation of his illness but has also been impacted by his post-surgery pain and de-conditioning which has also decreased his engagement. In the coming year, the goal is to optimize his medications so that he can be more involved with programming directed toward substance use and improving his insight into his risk factors. The diagnosis of frontal lobe dementia continues to be a work in progress.

16The request to increase the geographical location (to the catchment area of Hamilton) and to remove the need for supervised accommodation in his disposition, is driven by the need to expand the Hospital’s ability to find suitable community accommodation for Mr. Murison. Mr. Murison is largely independent in his activities of daily living and may not need 24-hour supervised accommodation.

17Furthermore, the reason for the request to include escorted passes to Mr. Murison’s home in his disposition is to facilitate Mr. Murison attending at his home to collect belongings. Escorted passes means that there will be at least one staff member dedicated to escort Mr. Murison. Mr. Murison’s mental state will be evaluated on the day that a pass is likely to be utilized.

18Mr. Murison rarely goes out of his room but has exercised level 2 indirectly supervised passes and level 3 indirectly supervised passes on hospital grounds without difficulty. Mr. Murison has experienced lengthy periods of stability in the community in the past; however, his medication noncompliance and alcohol use precipitated the last decompensation. Substance use programming will be targeted over the coming year. As his insight increases, further assessments will be undertaken to determine what would be the most appropriate programming for him going forward.

Analysis

19The Board accepts the evidence of Dr. Wu, supported by the Hospital Report, and finds that Mr. Murison continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board notes that all parties agree on this issue.

20Mr. Murison continues to exhibit residual symptoms of grandiosity and depressive symptoms. His insight into the index offences remains poor and he continues to blame the victim for causing trouble and for his being a patient in the forensic system. Mr. Murison has limited insight into his alcohol use and the connection between it, his medication nonadherence and the risk that he poses to members of the public. For these reasons, the Board finds that Mr. Murison continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public.

21Mr. Murison continues to require the support and structure of the inpatient unit to manage his risk, and a detention order remains the necessary and appropriate disposition. Mr. Murison has a history of medication non-adherence and significant alcohol use, including at the time of the index offences which led to a deterioration in his mental state. Once Mr. Murison is ready for community living, it will be necessary for the Hospital to approve his accommodation so that he will continue to have the support and structure necessary to ensure that he does not return to alcohol use and fall away from treatment when in the community.

22The Board has considered the request to widen the geographical location of his current disposition to allow for access to the catchment area of the Hospital. The Board is aware of the difficulties associated with finding appropriate housing for forensic patients and agrees that widening the geographical location will provide more opportunity for Mr. Murison to find a suitable residence and will aid in his ability to move forward. For the same reasons, the Board agrees that the requirement for Mr. Murison to be housed in supervised accommodation should be removed from his disposition. Ultimately, Mr. Murison maybe assessed as not having the ability to live independently. However, he may not need 24/7 supervision. Removing the requirement of supervised accommodation will expand the number of residences available to him and represents the least onerous and least restrictive disposition consistent with public safety.

23The Board also agrees that it may be necessary for Mr. Murison to attend at his residence. It is entirely appropriate that he be permitted to do so. However, given the index offences and Mr. Murison’s lack of insight into his risk, it is appropriate that Mr. Murison be escorted by staff when he is given permission by the person in charge to attend at his home for a defined purpose. The Board further finds that it is reasonable for the victim (who continues to live next door to Mr. Murison) to be given notice of a pending visit in advance.

24Lastly, despite his physical health challenges, Mr. Murison has had a successful year. He has adjusted well to his unit and has been medication compliant and has had no positive urine drug screens. Mr. Murison has supportive siblings, with whom he has regular contact and a brother who assists him with matters pertaining to his home. We wish Mr. Murison continued success in the year ahead.

Conclusion

25In making a disposition, the Board must take into consideration s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, including the safety of the public which is the paramount consideration and the mental condition of the accused, the reintegration of the accused into society and the other needs of the accused.

26For the above reasons, the Board finds that Mr. Murison continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and there should be no change to his current disposition, except as outlined in the formal disposition.