Re: Bradley A. Payette, 2025 CanLII 92523

Ontario Review Board

Re: Bradley A. Payette ORB File No: 6132

Hearing held on: Thursday, July 24, 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: Bradley A. Payette Counsel: Mr. L. Dimitry

The Person in Charge of Hospital: Counsel: Ms. L. Barney Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. J. McKenzie

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated September 8, 2025)

Introduction

1On June 1, 2012, Bradley Payette was found not criminally responsible (NCR) on account of mental disorder, on charges of assault, forcible confinement and uttering a threat, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”).

2Since the finding of NCR, Mr. Payette has remained subject to successive dispositions of the Ontario Review Board (“the ORB” or “ the Board”). Mr. Payette is currently subject to a Disposition of the Board dated June 19, 2024, which discharges him on certain terms and conditions including the requirement to live at a specified address, being 203-35 Aikman Avenue in Hamilton (Emmaus Place). Additionally, on his consent, he is required to take such treatment/medication as prescribed by the person in charge of the hospital or their designate.

3On July 24, 2025, the Board convened a hearing at St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton (SJHH or “the Hospital”) to conduct the annual review of the current Disposition.

4Mr. Payette was present at the hearing and was represented by his counsel, Mr. L. Dimitry.

5A hospital report (“Hospital Report”), dated July 10, 2025, was entered as Exhibit 1. A letter dated April 18, 2025 from the Good Shepherd Homes Program (Emmaus Place), authored by Samantha Campbell, Mr. Payette’s Community Mental Health Worker, was entered as Exhibit 2.

6The issue at this hearing is whether Mr. Payette is a significant threat to public safety, as defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code. If so, the necessary and appropriate disposition in the circumstances must be determined, bearing in mind the factors enunciated in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

7For the reasons set out below and based on the expert evidence and opinions before us, this panel of the Board concludes that Mr. Payette continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board orders that the necessary and appropriate disposition in the circumstances is a continuation of and conditions of the June 19, 2024 Conditional Discharge, without change.

Current Psychiatric Diagnoses/Capacity to Consent to Treatment

8Mr. Payette is diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and alcohol use disorder – in Sustained Remission. Mr. Payette is capable of consenting to treatment with psychiatric and other medication.

Index Offences

9The circumstances giving rise to the Index Offences are extracted from last year’s Board Reasons, as follows:

“On November 16, 2011, the victim, EZ, a social worker for the ACT team that was working with Mr. Payette, visited Mr. Payette at his residence. EZ told Mr. Payette that he was no longer welcome at the pharmacy where he had been attending and that they had to discuss alternate options for obtaining Mr. Payette's medications. On hearing the news, Mr. Payette became argumentative and angry. He suddenly lunged at EZ and choked him. Mr. Payette then stood over EZ in a physically threatening manner and verbally threatened to kill him, which prevented EZ from leaving the residence.”

Background History

10Mr. Payette is 44 years old. Mr. Payette’s early history as set out in the Hospital Report indicates that he was raised in an emotionally and physically abusive home environment characterized by significant marital discord to which he and his siblings were exposed. They endured a strict daily routine of chores and were often made to stand in a corner “for weeks on end.” They were not allowed to have any friends. They suffered physical discipline (“lashes and beatings”) regularly at the hands of their father. When Mr. Payette was approximately 11 years old, his mother negligently left Mr. Payette and his brother unattended for one week in a house without heat or hydro.

11Mr. Payette completed grade 8, following which he attended Sherwood Secondary School in Hamilton but did not attend past grade 9. Thereafter he attended two alternative schools but unfortunately was not successful and dropped out of both programs. He eventually quit school at the age of 16.

12Mr. Payette began using a variety of substances around the age of 13, including Dilaudid.

13He has an extensive psychiatric history starting in December 1996. Diagnoses ranged from depression, conduct disorder, substance abuse and schizophrenia, to his current diagnoses of schizoaffective disorder and alcohol use disorder (the latter in sustained remission). For further particulars of Mr. Payette’s psychiatric history, reference may be had to the narrative set out at pages 6 through 7 of the Hospital Report. Of note, he has a history of serious mental illness that included multiple prior hospitalizations and periods of medication non-adherence while living in the community.

14Mr. Payette has a history of violence predating the index offences as well as difficulty with anger, intimidation and threatening behaviour towards others from an early age. Mr. Payette does not have an adult criminal record.

15Mr. Payette has been financially supported by ODSP for many years, and his finances are currently managed by the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee (OPGT). Mr. Payette has never been married and does not have any children. He maintains a supportive relationship with one of his brothers.

Course Under the Jurisdiction of the Board

16Following the NCR finding in June 2012, Mr. Payette remained an inpatient at St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton until April 2015, when he was discharged to live in community housing operated by the Good Shepherd organization (McGinty House). Mr. Payette’s initial transition back to community living was uneventful. However, in August 2016, he was verbally aggressive towards staff and co-tenants at his residence. When he would not accept redirection, the police were called, and Mr. Payette was readmitted to hospital for approximately two weeks.

17In late November 2017, Mr. Payette was again readmitted to SJHH after he had a verbal conflict with a co-tenant which escalated to a physical confrontation. Mr. Payette remained in hospital until February 2018 when a room at another Good Shepherd residence, Emmaus Place, became available.

18On May 21, 2021, the Ontario Review Board granted Mr. Payette a conditional discharge and continued the conditional discharge in each subsequent year to the current date.

19Mr. Payette was readmitted to SJHH for approximately three months beginning in January 2022.

20When Mr. Payette is less mentally well, he can be thought disordered, agitated and unpredictable. He is extremely sensitive to changes in his environment or routine. He is also stress-vulnerable.

Course Since Last Disposition

21From the Hospital Report, Mr. Payette has continued to reside at Emmaus Place, located at 35 Aikman Avenue, where he is supported by the Good Shepherd HOMES team. He receives medication supervision as well as support for his housing, mental health, activities of daily living, community integration, and overall wellness needs. He did not require any admissions to hospital during the reporting year and he did not demonstrate problematic behaviours to the degree that his continued tenancy at Emmaus Place was at risk of being terminated.

22Mr. Payette was seen by forensic outpatient staff twice weekly throughout the year due to ongoing concerns related to verbal aggression and impaired frustration tolerance. He consistently received his by-weekly intramuscular injection of antipsychotic medication from the Good Shepherd program nurse without issue.

23The Hospital Report further notes that Mr. Payette has been cooperative in terms of providing urine samples, which have all been negative for prohibited substances. Further, there have been no reported concerns related to suspected substance use from outpatient or Emmaus Place staff.

24In terms of problematic behaviours, Mr. Payette missed a group outing to the Ripley’s Aquarium in Toronto as well as Emmaus Place’s annual camping trip due to verbal aggression and difficulty following staff direction. More generally, over the review period there were several incidents of rude and verbally aggressive interactions with staff and co-tenants; however, on each occasion, Mr. Payette’s behaviour was observed to improve for a period of time with intervention and health teaching by his treatment teams and when stress was more manageable.

25A behaviour support plan that was developed following a May 2024 referral to the forensic behavioural technologist is credited with causing an overall decrease in Mr. Payette’s verbal aggression and resistiveness to Emmaus Place staff. The behavioural technologist will continue to liaise with Mr. Payette’s outpatient team and Emmaus staff over the coming year when necessary.

Position of the Parties

26At the outset of the hearing, counsel for the parties were invited to set out their initial, without prejudice, recommendations to the Board. Hospital counsel recommended that Mr. Payette be found to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition was a conditional discharge upon the same terms and conditions as are currently in place.

27Counsel for the Attorney General and Mr. Payette both indicated agreement with the Hospital’s position. Thus, the Board was presented with a joint submission. Mr. Payette’s counsel added that Mr. Payette is truly fearful of achieving an absolute discharge and wishes to remain under the jurisdiction of the Board.

Evidence at Hearing

28The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits as well as oral evidence from Mr. Payette’s treating psychiatrist, Dr. S. Prat. Dr. Prat confirmed he had read the Hospital Report and the letter from the Good Shepherd organization and adopted their contents, including the analysis of significant threat contained at pages 49 – 50 of the Hospital Report.

29Dr. Prat provided the Board with an outline as to Mr. Payette’s clinical course over the past year. Overall, Mr. Payette’s progress was similar to that of the last number of years.

30Dr. Prat confirmed the information in the Hospital Report to the effect that Mr. Payette’s mental status has been mostly at baseline throughout the year although there were periods of increased disorganization, tangential thinking and paranoia.

31Mr. Payette’s baseline presentation includes fragmented speech, misperceptions during conversation and difficulty regulating emotions, particularly when under stress. Stressors affecting Mr. Payette’s emotional stability include health concerns, medication regimen, finances, physical pain, environment as well as staff changes.

32During the reporting year, increased stress from staff changes at Emmaus House has resulted in verbal aggression and posturing with Emmaus Place staff and co-tenants, which is consistent with his presentation during past years. When Mr. Payette’s stress levels were more manageable, his interactions with others improved significantly.

33Dr. Prat went into detail regarding changes to Mr. Payette’s psychiatric medication regimen. In this regard, Dr. Prat decided to undertake a thorough review of Mr. Payette’s past medication history to see whether a reduction in the type, number or dose of Mr. Payette’s psychotropic medications could occur. Dr. Prat confirmed that prior to the initiation of valproic acid in 2010, Mr. Payette’s psychosis and agitation were exceedingly difficult to control, even with the use of seclusion and within the structured and supervised setting of a forensic hospital.

34Dr. Prat indicated that notwithstanding the stability conferred by Mr. Payette’s treatment regimen, he felt it important to address the potential for serious long-term side effects arising in connection with these medications, including weight gain, dyslipidemia, cardiovascular difficulties, liver dysfunction and fatigue.

35Dr. Prat emphasized that it was important to proceed very gradually with tapering Mr. Payette’s medication as Mr. Payette has become very accustomed to his medication regimen over the many years he has been on it and greatly fears he will deteriorate physically and mentally if he is not on the treatment that has kept him relatively stable for many years.

36Despite his fears, Mr. Payette agreed with Dr. Prat’s proposed trial of changes to his antipsychotic and mood stabilizing medications. During the tapering process, Dr. Prat monitored Mr. Payette’s mental status very closely for deterioration in his mental status or an increase in aggressive behaviours so that adjustments to the pace of tapering could be made.

37Mr. Payette’s haloperidol dose was decreased gradually and discontinued as of January 2024, with no observed concerns. In response to the reduction of valproic acid, Mr. Payette was observed to have mood fluctuations, including more incidents of irritability with staff, incidents with co-tenants and decreased engagement with Good Shepherd staff.

38Dr. Prat will continue to monitor Mr. Payette closely so that the rate of change in his valproic acid dosing schedule can be correlated with any untoward changes to Mr. Payette’s mental status and behaviour. Care must be taken in tapering Mr. Payette’s medication to avoid escalating his risk of harm to others and jeopardizing his continued residency at Emmaus Place. Dr. Prat was of the view that it will take another 10 to 15 months to completely wean Mr. Payette off valproic acid.

39Since January 2025, Mr. Payette has been cooperative with attending the hospital monthly to see Dr. Prat. In the past, it was very anxiety provoking for Mr. Payette to attend hospital but he has been less anxious about this lately, reflecting the acquisition of better coping skills. Dr. Prat noted that Mr. Payette has been quite conversational and making more jokes than previously although his thought process is still a bit disjointed at times.

40As for the issue of significant threat, Mr. Payette’s most recent psychological risk assessment was conducted in 2020. That assessment determined that his risk for violent reoffending was considered moderate with the monitoring and supports provided by the Forensic Outpatient Program and Good Shepherd HOMES Program while under a Disposition order. His risk for violent reoffending was considered high absent the oversight of the Board or other comparable legal framework. The probability of his actions resulting in physical harm is high. The Hospital Report notes that the results of the 2020 psychological risk assessment remain valid.

41Dr. Prat added that Mr. Payette is very afraid of being abandoned by the treatment team and at some level recognizes that he continues to be in need of a high level of support to maintain his independence. He becomes significantly more irritable, agitated, aggressive and paranoid when contemplating what the future might hold for him in the absence of forensic oversight.

42Dr. Prat confirmed that Mr. Payette has always been compliant with coming to his outpatient appointments and in the doctor’s view, the civil commitment provisions of the Mental Health Act are effective to ensure Mr. Payette’s attendance at and re-admission to hospital if necessary.

43Mr. Payette continues as he has in past years to lovingly care for his cat, Peach, and keeps his apartment clean and tidy.

Analysis and Conclusions

44Having heard and considered all the evidence and submissions from the parties, the Board agrees with the joint submission that Mr. Payette remains a significant threat to the safety of the public. However, quite apart from the joint submission, the Board had no difficulty coming to an independent conclusion that Mr. Payette’s current constellation of symptoms and behaviours supports a finding that he continues to pose a significant threat as defined by s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code.

45Mr. Payette’s risk flows from his major mental illness of schizoaffective disorder and his alcohol use disorder – in sustained remission which, acting together and separately, leads him to demonstrate significant lability of mood manifested as irritability, and verbal aggression as was the case at the time of the index offences which were criminal, and serious.

46The Board adopts in its entirety the uncontroverted evidence of Dr. Prat as well as the information contained in the Hospital Report and the letter from Mr. Payette’s case manager at Good Shepherd HOMES. The Board finds that without the involvement of the Forensic Outpatient team there is no certainty that Good Shepherd staff would be able to manage Mr. Payette’s behaviours.

47Notably, Mr. Payette continues to present with some significant management issues and as recently as May 2025, the treatment team considered readmitting him to hospital due to his irritability and anger towards Good Shepherd staff.

48Mr. Payette continues to rely on the support of his forensic outpatient case manager, who helps him improve his frustration tolerance and communication with Good Shepherd staff when he becomes emotionally labile. At the same time, Good Shepherd staff collaborate with the Forensic Outpatient Clinic staff to proactively manage Mr. Payette’s irritable behaviours.

49The Board finds that Mr. Payette’s risk to the safety of the public is linked to the nature of his psychotic disorder, low frustration tolerance and vulnerability to stress. As is clear from the Hospital Report, one of the main risk-mitigating factors is Mr. Payette’s housing stability which could be compromised by his resistiveness and verbal aggression.

50Without Mr. Payette’s agreement to transfer his care to a non-forensic team, there is no certainty that he will remain adherent to his treatment plan and directions from unfamiliar staff. In addition, it is important to ensure stringent monitoring while attempts to taper his psychotropic medication. In the event an admission becomes necessary, it is critically important to public safety that it take place with a team that is familiar with Mr. Payette’s past psychiatric history.

51In addition, the Board relies on the psychological risk assessment by Dr. Peter Sheridan, dated May 25, 2020, which describes Mr. Payette’s re-offence scenario as follows:

“The most likely scenario for violent reoffending is one in which Mr. Payette discontinues his psychotropic medication, resulting in recurrence of his psychotic symptoms, including paranoid and persecutory beliefs. It should be noted, however, that a reasonable risk for violence is present even when he is medication adherent and his symptoms are relatively well managed. Mr. Payette has a tendency to become distressed and dysregulated when he misunderstands or misinterprets communication, when he is faced with routine psychosocial stressors, and when even small changes to his expectations or routine occur.

Based on his history, Mr. Payette is likely to demonstrate intimidating, threatening, and aggressive behaviours, including physical assault. The most likely victims are those closest to him when he becomes dysregulated – staff members, other residents, or members of the community.”

52Because Mr. Payette is very vulnerable to stress and his fear of abandonment by the forensic outpatient staff is a significant stressor, there is no doubt that Mr. Payette continues to meet the threshold for significant threat to the safety of the public.

53To his very great credit, it is evident that Mr. Payette enjoys a strong therapeutic rapport with Dr. Prat and the members of his Forensic Outreach Clinic team. He is also adjusting to unfamiliar staff at Good Shepherd and appears to be trying his best to develop better ways of managing stress. He has remained abstinent from substances, takes his psychiatric medication without fail and has been amenable to attending the hospital when required. He values his ability to reside in the community and appreciates the support of the forensic outpatient team.

54As such, the Board is satisfied that the terms and conditions of the current conditional discharge are necessary and appropriate to manage Mr. Payette’s risk to the safety of the public. The current Disposition provides Mr. Payette with the requisite legal framework and extrinsic motivation he needs to successfully mitigate his risk to the safety of the public.

55In coming to this determination, the Board has considered 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. Payette, his reintegration into society and his other needs.

56The Board wishes Mr. Payette all the best in the coming year.