Ontario Review Board
Re: Wade C. Reeves
ORB File No: 8166
Hearing held on: Tuesday, August 5, 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: Wade C. Reeves Counsel: Ms. S. Feldman
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Mr. S. O’Brien
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. B. Adsett
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated September 10, 2025)
Introduction
On October 5, 2022, Wade Reeves was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on a charge of aggravated assault, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (the “Criminal Code”). Mr. Reeves is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”) dated August 15, 2024, as amended on October 4, 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 reside in the community of Southern Ontario in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
On August 5, 2025, a panel of the Board convened to review Mr. Reeves’s disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Reeves was present at the hearing and was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings.
The issues to be determined are whether Mr. Reeves poses a significant threat to the safety of the public and, if so, the necessary and appropriate disposition to manage that risk having regard to the criteria set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
At the commencement of the hearing, counsel for the Hospital submitted that Mr. Reeves no longer represents a significant threat to the safety of the public and should be discharged absolutely. Counsel for Mr. Reeves joined the Hospital’s submission. Counsel for the Attorney General submitted that Mr. Reeves continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and should be discharged with conditions. All parties maintained their respective positions in closing submissions.
For the reasons set out below, the Board concludes that it cannot affirmatively find that Mr. Reeves represents a significant threat to the safety of the public. Absent such a positive finding, he must be discharged absolutely.
Evidence at the Hearing
- The Board received documentary evidence in the form of a Hospital Report dated July 29, 2025, and marked as Exhibit 1. The Board also heard viva voce testimony from Dr. Naidoo, Mr. Reeves’ treating psychiatrist.
Index Offence
- The circumstances of the index offence are excerpted from last year’s Reasons for Disposition are as follows:
" On 11 February 2020 Special Victims Unit Investigator Detective Constable Deb McLEAN #1542 and Criminal Investigations Bureau persons crimes investigator Detective Chris MATTHEWS #1527 attended York Regional Police Headquarters to conduct a video interview with 6-year-old KC regarding an incident that occurred on 15 January 2020. The following is a synopsis of his statement:
KC is 6 years old and attends elementary school. On the day in question, he ate his lunch and then went outside for recess. During recess a man came running from the parking lot near the school yard and jumped over the fence. KC was playing in the corner of the yard near the junior and senior kindergarten classes. He saw the man in the school yard. The man was wearing a helmet with a hat underneath and he was holding a hockey stick. The man ran in the school yard. He approached KC, whacked him really hard in the back of the head with the stick and then ran away. KC felt blood coming out of his head and it hurt. He went inside the school and there was blood pouring out of his head. He got to go on his first ambulance ride and then he got staples in his head at the hospital. When he got home, he couldn't lay on one side of his head because it hurt. He finally got the staples out and is happy now. He was happy to return to school but wasn't happy about going back into the school yard. His dad told him the man has a brain injury and has the mind of a 4-year-old. KC feels the man is a bad guy and should be killed by the police.”
The Hospital Report outlines Mr. Reeves’ history and background and need not be repeated here in detail. In brief, Mr. Reeves is 35 years old. He was born in Toronto and grew up in the Greater Toronto Area. Mr. Reeves graduated from high school, then attended the York Construction Academy where he was trained in construction work. He also attended George Brown College in 2013. While in secondary school, Mr. Reeves used cannabis but stopped when he was 18 years old.
Mr. Reeves has held several jobs, starting when he was 17 years old. His longest employment was with a courier company for two years. He also started his own company manufacturing and selling T-shirts and custom prints. His last employment was at a meat company, where he worked until his traumatic brain injury (TBI) in 2019. Thereafter, he relied upon the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) for financial support but was able to return to work in September 2023. Unfortunately, that employment ended in November 2023 due to a lack of business. Mr. Reeves is single with no dependants
Prior to the index offence, Mr. Reeves had no criminal record.
On July 14, 2019, Mr. Reeves suffered a significant traumatic brain injury (TBI) and had emergency neurosurgery, remaining in a coma for a week following the surgery. Thereafter, Mr. Reeves spent several months in hospital recovering from the surgery. He suffered side effects including aphasia and the inability to recall names of people, including members of his family. He stated that he had to learn to read all over again. In 2022, an occupational therapy assessment concluded that while motivated to participate in a rehabilitation program, he required assistance completing his activities of daily living and required another person at home to assist him. His ability to be independent outside of the home and his ability to work were significantly compromised.
Prior to his TBI, Mr. Reeves had no history of engagement with psychiatric services. Following the index offence, Mr. Reeves was admitted to the psychiatric intensive care unit (PICA) at Mackenzie Health, at which time he was considered acutely psychotic and diagnosed with an unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder, and a traumatic brain injury.
Mr. Reeves is currently diagnosed as suffering from unspecified schizophrenia spectrum disorder (and related disorder) and unspecified neurocognitive disorder due to traumatic brain injury. Mr. Reeves is capable of consenting to psychiatric treatment.
Testimony of Dr. Naidoo
Dr. Naidoo testified that he has been Mr. Reeves’ treating psychiatrist for over a year. In 2019, because of a TBI he underwent significant rehabilitation in the community and hospital. His family were involved in that process. Subsequently, he exhibited substantial behavioural disturbances, the etiology of which is likely because of the TBI. Mr. Reeves has no previous psychiatric history and none of the risk factors that one would normally expect to see, such as non-adherence with medication or homelessness. Mr. Reeves has always been a prosocial individual with good relationships with his family and is generally rule abiding.
As a result of the TBI, he experienced cognitive impairments related to memory, speech, attention deficit and subsequently mood instability which likely precipitated the psychotic episode (the index offence). Mr. Reeves has no recollection of the index offence, although he does recall some events (taking a curtain rod from home). He has no recollection of experiencing hallucinations nor have any been observed although, on balance, he likely experienced some paranoia. His insight into the index offence remains his primary risk factor. Shortly after the index offence, he was prescribed olanzapine on an as needed basis. More recently (likely in the past two years) he has been taking olanzapine as scheduled. There has been no period since his psychotic episode where he has not been taking olanzapine in some form.
Mr. Reeves lives with his mother and has no plans to move from her residence. He is connected with the March of Dimes Aphasia Program and more recently with Niagara Brain Injury Community Re-entry (BICR)). His follow-up with programming has been very good and he has had a largely positive year. Mr. Reeves has also travelled to Jamaica and out of Southern Ontario with his mother and there has been no instability in his mental state.
Mr. Reeves has insight into the need to take medication as he feels that it helps with his mood and sleep and he is aware that if his mood suffers this could cause him to become violent. His family doctor prescribes the medication for him, and his family doctor is aware of the Hospital’s recommendation of an absolute discharge and will continue to prescribe for Mr. Reeves.
Analysis
- The relevant legal principles to be applied to the evidence with respect to the issue of significant threat are summarized in the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Marmolejo (Re), 2021 ONCA 130 at paras 34-37:
…the role of the Board is first to determine whether an NCR accused represents a significant threat to public safety. If the answer to that question is "no" or uncertain then the NCR accused must be discharged absolutely: Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625, [1999] S.C.J. No 31, at pp. 659-61, 669 S.C.R. If the NCR accused does present a significant threat, the Board must either conditionally discharge or detain the individual: Winko, pp. 662, 669 S.C.R.
It is important to bear in mind that the Board's responsibility to grant an absolute discharge is non-discretionary in the event that it harbours any doubt about whether the NCR accused represents a significant threat: Carrick (Re), [2018] O.J. No. 4878, 2018 ONCA 752, at para. 16. As the majority of the Supreme Court emphasized in Winko, at pp. 652-53 S.C.R.: "Once an NCR accused is no longer a significant threat to public safety, the criminal justice system has no further application."
Individuals with mental disorders are not inherently dangerous: Winko, at p. 653 S.C.R. There is no presumption of dangerousness and no burden on the NCR accused to prove a lack of dangerousness: Winko, at pp. 660-61, 662 S.C.R. Rather, the legal and evidentiary burden of establishing significant threat rests on the Board or the court: Winko, at p. 663 S.C.R.
The threshold for significant risk is "onerous": Carrick (Re) (2015), 128 O.R. (3d) 209, [2015] O.J. No. 6524, 2015 ONCA 866, at para. 17. A significant threat to the safety of the public means a foreseeable and substantial risk of physical or psychological harm to members of the public: R. v. Ferguson, [2010] O.J. No. 5138, 2010 ONCA 810, at para. 8. The conduct must be of a serious criminal nature: Ferguson, at para. 8. A very small risk of grave harm will not suffice, nor will a high risk of trivial harm: Ferguson, at para. 8. The threat must be more than speculative in nature; it must be supported by evidence: Winko, at p. 665 S.C.R.; Pellett (Re) (2017), 139 O.R. (3d) 651, [2017] O.J. No. 5025, 2017 ONCA 753, at para. 21.
The Board accepts the evidence of Dr. Naidoo as supported by the Hospital Report and finds that Mr. Reeves no longer represents a significant threat to the safety of the public.
Prior to the index offence, Mr. Reeves had no history of mental health issues and had never been diagnosed with a psychiatric illness. Mr. Reeve has no history of violence, no criminal record and no history of substance abuse (Mr. Reeves has a remote history of cannabis use when he was in his teens).
In July 2019, his life changed when he was assaulted at a music festival and sustained a severe TBI which led to intensive surgical interventions and a significant period of neurorehabilitation. Subsequently, Mr. Reeves suffered a psychotic episode very likely because of his brain injury. Since that time, and despite bouts of irritation and some paranoia, Mr. Reeves has been stable with no indicia of psychosis. Mr. Reeves is medication adherent. Mr. Reeves is described as a prosocial person who is remorseful for the index offence. Except for a brief period of admission to hospital at the time of the index offence, Mr. Reeve has been living in the community without difficulty.
Mr. Reeves’ primary risk factor is his lack of insight into the index offence, which is complicated by his lack of recollection of the event. Lack of insight alone cannot be the determining factor when considering significant threat [Sim (Re), 2019 ONCA 7199 at paras 24-25]. Medication is the mainstay of Mr. Reeves’ treatment. While Mr. Reeve has little insight into why the index offence occurred and the benefits of his medication in preventing such a reoccurrence, he is committed to taking his medication for other reasons (sleep and mood). It is Mr. Reeves’ commitment to take his medication and the supports in place to assist him in doing so that will continue to act as a protective factor going forward and that addresses his risk to the safety of the public.
Mr. Reeves has the support of his family and continues to live with his mother in a stable environment and has voiced his intention to remain living with her. Mr. Reeves’ mother provides support for him, including reminding him to take his medication and attending appointments with him. Moreover, Mr. Reeves is connected to professional services in the community including his family doctor who is fully aware of the circumstance of his TBI and the nature of the index offence. Notably, Mr. Reeves’ family doctor is also aware of the possibility that Mr. Reeves may no longer be subject to the Board’s jurisdiction and is content to continue to prescribe his antipsychotic medication. The Hospital Report also indicates that Mr. Reeves will have access to a psychiatrist through his family doctor should the need arise.
Mr. Reeves has the support of the March of Dimes Aphasia program and Niagara BICR (a non-profit organization that provides support and rehabilitation to those living with the effects of brain injuries), where he attends meetings weekly in person. Prior to his TBI, Mr. Reeves had a history of employment and through BICR he can be connected with vocational support services should he so wish.
On considering the evidence in its entirety and the submissions of counsel, the Board finds that the evidentiary burden to establish that Mr. Reeves is a significant threat has not been met, and Mr. Reeve must be discharged absolutely. We wish him well in his future endeavours.
Conclusion
In 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.
For the above reasons, the Board finds that Mr. Reeves can no longer be said, positively, to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and must be discharged absolutely.
DATED this 10th day of September 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Ms. J. Mills Alternate Chairperson
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board