Ontario Review Board
Re: Michelle Tait
ORB File No: 8567
Hearing held on: Wednesday, August 20, 2025
Place of Hearing: North Bay Regional Health Centre-North Bay Site
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. C. Flanagan
Members: Dr. W. Komer Dr. M. Green Ms. C. Murray Ms. B. Naegele
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Michelle Tait Counsel: Ms. J. Hansell
Person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Mr. T. Trenker
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. M. Mazurski
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated September 9, 2025)
Introduction
[1]. On May 28, 2024, Michelle Tait was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on charges of assault with a weapon, mischief under $5000, and failing to comply with a release order, all contrary to the Criminal Code.
[2]. Ms. Tait is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“Board”) dated August 28, 2024, which detains her at the Secure Forensic Unit, Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre on conditions including to enter the community of Thunder Bay, within 100 kilometres of the hospital, accompanied by staff or a person approved by the person in charge.
[3]. On August 20, 2025, the Board convened at the North Bay Regional Health Centre – North Bay Site (“NBRHC” or the “Hospital”) to conduct Ms. Tait’s annual review and make a disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code.
[4]. Ms. Tait attended the hearing with her counsel. Ms. Hansell. A Hospital Report dated July 25, 2025, and a CPIC of Ms. Tait’s criminal record were filed as Exhibits 1 and 2 respectively at the hearing.
[5]. The issue for the hearing is whether Ms. Tait continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public and, if so, to determine the necessary and appropriate disposition in all the circumstances.
[6]. For the reasons set out below and based on the evidence before us, the Board concludes that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a continuation of the existing Detention Order with the same terms and conditions.
Initial Position of the Parties
[7]. At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as to their initial recommendations to the Board.
[8]. Mr. Trenker, on behalf of the Hospital, submitted that Ms. Tait was a significant threat to the safety of the public, and recommended continuation of the current disposition.
[9]. Ms. Mazurski, on behalf of the Attorney General of Ontario, supported the Hospital’s recommendation.
[10]. Ms. Hansell, on behalf of Ms. Tait, conceded significant threat and supported the existing disposition but with an additional privilege to read “to enter the catchment area of North Bay Regional Health Centre up to six hours indirectly supervised.”
Index Offences
[11]. The facts surrounding the index offences are extracted from the Hospital Report and summarized as follows:
On January 25, 2024, at 4:10 p.m., Michelle TAIT departed her residence of 45 Matheson Street South Kenora, under the influence of methamphetamine carrying a hatchet. Upon leaving the residence, TAIT told staff the hatchet was for protection. At 4:17 p.m., Police located TAIT at 100 Chipman Street in Kenora. TAIT was carrying a reusable grocery bag with a hatchet concealed inside. While speaking with TAIT she stated she had the hatchet for her protection as people were after her. At 4:19 p.m., TAIT was arrested for possession of weapon for dangerous purpose and fail to comply with a probation order x2. TAIT was held for a bail hearing on January 26, 2024, at 11:30 a.m.
(a) Assault with a Weapon-Domestic
And [sic] Tom Holm are in a sexual relationship as described by Holm. Holm and Tait were hanging out, Tait started talking about how she wanted to kill someone and stab Holm. Tait grabbed a kitchen knife and tried to stab Holm but missed, Tait then stabbed Holm in the upper left arm with the knife before fleeing on foot.
(b) Mischief –Domestic
Sometime in the last few days [Ms. Tait] broke the living room window in Holm’s apartment.
(c) Failure to Comply with Release Order
[Ms. Tait] is currently bound by a Justice of the Peace Undertaking with one of many conditions being not to possess any weapon as defined by the criminal code. In this incident Tait reportedly used a knife to stab Tom Holm.
Criminal Record
[12]. Ms. Tait has multiple convictions for assault, and breach of court/release orders and a conviction for uttering threats.
Personal Background/Psychiatric History
[13]. Ms. Tait’s personal history and psychiatric background are detailed in the Hospital Report filed as an exhibit at the hearing and need not be repeated here.
[14]. Ms. Tait is currently residing at Heron Lodge in hospital on a detention disposition. She is capable of consenting to treatment. She is awaiting a transfer to Thunder Bay to be closer to her family in Kenora once a bed becomes available.
Current Diagnosis
[15]. Ms. Tait’s current diagnoses are Schizophrenia, Unspecified Trauma- and Stressor-Related Disorder, Intellectual Disability, Amphetamine-type Substance Use Disorder, in a controlled environment, Opioid Use Disorder, in a controlled environment, Alcohol Use Disorder, in a controlled environment, Mixture of Cluster A and Cluster B Personality Traits.
Evidence at the Hearing
[16]. The Hospital’s evidence was presented through the oral testimony of Dr. S. Le to supplement the evidence contained in the Hospital Report, filed as an exhibit at the hearing. Dr. Le has been Ms. Tait’s treating psychiatrist since January 2025.
[17]. Ms. Tait’s progress during the reporting year has been slow. Although Ms. Taits’ symptoms of psychosis are controlled with medication, she still has some delusional beliefs, impulsive behaviour, poor decision making and anger which has resulted in some verbal confrontations with both staff and other patients during the reporting year. There has been no actual violence towards other patients and Ms. Tait is quick to apologize following verbal altercation with co-patients. She has also been compliant with her medication regimen which has been adjusted on several occasions to address certain side effects.
[18]. When engaged in independent activity Ms. Tait requires a lot of support. She continues to lack motivation and struggles with the loosening of boundaries. When given more freedom, it can lead to a spiral effect where she forgets what she needs to do to move forward. This requires proceeding slowly with very clear expectations. She has been engaged with a behavioural therapist over the past three months, and a plan has been developed to which she has shown some improvement.
[19]. Ms. Tait’s insight is limited with respect to her illness and need for medication. She has poor insight with respect to substance use. Dr. Le advised of a recent telephone video call Ms. Tait had with her sister where she appeared triggered by the presence of drugs at the residence. The doctor noted however that there has been no observed drug seeking behaviour in hospital and all drug screens have been negative during the reporting year.
[20]. Although Ms. Tait currently has the privilege of exercising indirect hospital and grounds privileges, she has yet to do so. She has not been able to graduate from 1:1 supervision with staff. Dr. Le advised that due to her slow progress, Ms. Tait would likely not be able to exercise hospital and grounds indirectly supervised privileges during the upcoming year.
[21]. Attempts to have Ms. Tait go into the community with a group of patients have been largely unsuccessful. Due to her ongoing commanding of so much attention from staff, the overall risk of the group is raised. The doctor advised that given Ms. Tait’s DSO funding, an assigned worker for community outings is in the works.
[22]. Dr. Le did not support Ms. Tait’s proposed additional privilege of indirectly supervised into the community for six hours. In her opinion, Ms. Tait would certainly not attain such a level in the upcoming year. She needs a lot of support while in the community and is not at a level to manage on her own. Ms. Tait struggles with impulsiveness and is easily swayed and triggered. She gets overwhelmed and over stimulated easily, which can lead to anxiety and stress. When agitated or she feels someone is criticizing her, her response is anger which could be acting violently or have people think they were going to be attacked, increasing her level of risk. Dr. Le added that if someone triggered her, there was a high likelihood of her lashing out at that person. In response to a Board question, the doctor stated that such a proposed privilege would not be motivational and would give Ms. Tait unrealistic expectations.
[23]. Dr. Le adopted the risk summary at page 31 of the Hospital Report which states in part:
“Given her longstanding issues with substance use, violence, antisocial behaviour, and significant mental illness, there is a very high risk that, if left to her own devices, Ms. Tait would discontinue her medication and relapse into substance use. A relapse into substance use could lead to a significant deterioration of her mental state and a substantial increase in her risk of violent behaviour”.
[24]. Ms. Tait’s mother did visit her during the reporting year as Ms. Tait awaits a transfer to Thunder Bay to be closer to family in Kenora, once a bed becomes available.
[25]. No further evidence was called at the hearing.
Final Submissions of the Parties
[26]. All parties maintained their initial recommendation in closing submissions.
[27]. Mr. Trenker, on behalf of the hospital, submitted Ms. Tait remains a significant risk and supported the continuation of the existing detention disposition. He submitted that Ms. Tait could not be safely managed on indirectly supervised privileges in the community and further that the evidence supported that this privilege would certainly not be attainable within the next twelve months. Mr. Trenker added that such a proposed term would not be motivating and would have a negative effect on Ms. Tait overall progress.
[28]. Ms. Mazursky, on behalf of the Attorney General of Ontario, supported the hospital submission.
[29]. Ms. Hansell, on behalf of Ms. Tait maintained her initial recommendation. She submitted there have been no violent incidents with staff or other patients during the reporting year and Ms. Tait is compliant with her medication regimen. Further, she has tested negative with respect to substances notwithstanding drugs have been available and has communicated with her treatment team that she does not want to use substances.
- Ms. Hansell submitted that there was no positive evidence that Ms. Tait’s struggle with impulsiveness would lead to violence as evidenced by the transfer down to Deer Lodge and back to Heron Lodge where there was no violence notwithstanding any overstimulation. She further submitted that when out in the community, Ms. Tait did not demonstrate violence, and the doctor had stated that she was not afraid that Ms. Tait was going to harm someone in the community. Ms. Hansell acknowledged Ms. Tait’s lack of motivation and reluctance to exercise privileges but stated she could move quickly in her progress and achieve community indirectly supervised within the coming year.
Conclusion and Disposition
[31]. Having considered all the evidence presented at the hearing, this Board agrees with the joint submission of the parties and finds that Ms. Tait continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public as set out in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code.
[32]. Ms. Tait has multiple diagnoses including schizophrenia, intellectual disability, and various substance use disorders. Her history includes non-compliance with treatment and supervision and one of her index offences includes stabbing a person with a knife.
[33]. Although she has made some progress over the reporting year, it has been very slow and she continues to require considerable support and attention, both in hospital and while in the community. Ms. Tait is easily swayed and triggered. She struggles to regulate her emotions, and when anxious and over stimulated, her impulsiveness gets much worse, and she could be quick to lash out at someone. Given her ongoing mental health struggles, particularly with impulsive behaviour and anger, Ms. Tait remains a significant risk to the safety of the public.
[34]. Ms. Tait is seeking an additional term in her detention disposition to allow for indirectly supervised privileges up to six hours in the community. Dr. Le does not support this proposal. This Board agrees. Ms. Tait has yet to exercise her existing indirectly supervised hospital and grounds privileges which the doctor believes may not be reached in the coming year. As well, staff accompanied community outings with other patients have proven to be unsuccessful and she remains on 1:1 supervision.
[35]. Although Dr. Le did state, when asked by counsel, that she did not think Ms. Tait would become violent, this was in the context of staff accompanied community outings. The doctor was clear in her evidence, which we accept, that Ms. Tait would not be able to manage on her own in the community and there was a strong likelihood that when triggered she would resort to violence. When specifically asked by a Board member, the doctor advised that such a proposed condition would not be motivational but rather give Ms. Tait unrealistic expectations.
[36]. It is clear on the evidence that Ms. Tait continues to struggle with impulsive behaviour, loosening of boundaries and anger. This requires proceeding slowly with a very gradual increase in privileges to ensure proper support and risk management. In short, Ms. Tait still requires a lot of support while in the community and it is too early to add a term to her disposition allowing indirect community supervision.
[37]. To her credit, Ms. Tait has recently engaged with a behavioural therapist to address her ongoing struggles. The implementation of her behavioural care plan is still in its early stages. She is engaged in vocational training at the hospital Snack Shack and often speaks to two of her sisters on the telephone and through video chat. As well, her mother was able to visit Ms. Tait during the reporting year.
[38]. Accordingly, the Board finds the necessary and appropriate Disposition is the continuation of the existing Detention Order on the same terms and conditions. We wish Ms. Tait well in the upcoming year.
[39]. In reaching our decision, the Board has considered the safety of the public, Ms. Tait’s mental condition, her reintegration into society, and her other needs.
DATED this 9th day of September 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. C. Flanagan Alternate Chairperson
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board