Re: Eryk G. Simard, 2025 CanLII 92532

Re: Eryk G. Simard

ORB File No: 7537 Hearing held on: Monday, July 14, 2025 Place of hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) and 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code

Before: Alternate Chairperson: Ms. M. Labrosse Members: Dr. S. Lessard Dr. R. Cormier Mr. D. Sandor Mr. K. Brisson

Parties Appearing: Accused: Eryk G. Simard Counsel: Ms. M. Lord The Person in charge of Hospital: Representative: Dr. M. Strike Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. M. Dufort

AMENDED REASONS FOR DECISION AND DISPOSITION (Dated September 8, 2025)

Please see underlined change to original reasons made September 10, 2025 at paragraph 2

Introduction

[1]. On May 3, 2019, Eryk G. Simard was found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder on the following charges:

• Assault with a weapon (x2)
• Assault (x5)
• Mischief – destruction or damage of property
• Interference with the lawful use of property
• Resist arrest
• Cause disturbance (x2) all contrary to the provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada. He is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated August 18, 2023, detaining him at the Secure Forensic Unit of the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, Ottawa (hereinafter referred to as “the Hospital”).

[2]. On June 19, 2025, the Hospital sent a s. 672.56(2)(b) notice to the Ontario Review Board advising that Mr. Simard had been transferred to their facility from the Queensway Carleton Hospital under a Form 10 of the Mental Health Act and that on June 5, 2025, the Hospital issued a Form 49 keeping Mr. Simard as an inpatient there. The Hospital took the position accordingly that Mr. Simard’s liberty had been restricted.

[3]. On July 14, 2024, a panel of the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing at the Hospital to review the restriction of Mr. Simard’s liberty pursuant to section 672.81(2.1) and to conduct his annual review of his reigning Board disposition pursuant to section 672.81 of the Criminal Code. Mr. Simard was present and was represented by his lawyer Ms. Lord. On the consent of all parties, one Board member, Dr. S. Lessard appeared via Zoom Audio-visual technology. Dr. Strike, Mr. Simard’s treating psychiatrist also attended the hearing virtually. The hearing proceeded en français.

[4]. The record for the hearing included:

• The Notice of Hearing
• Decision of the Ontario Review Board dated December 2, 2024 regarding a previous restriction of Mr. Simard’s liberty
• The Reasons for that Decision, , dated December 12, 2024
• The most recent Decision and Disposition dated August 26, 2024
• The Reasons for that Decision and Disposition
• The Hospital’s Restriction of Liberty Notice sent to the Ontario Review Board, as mentioned above
• The Board’s response to the Hospital’s Restriction of Liberty Notice.

On the consent of all parties, a Hospital Report, dated June 17, 2025, was entered into evidence as Exhibit 1.

[5]. The parties were canvassed for initial positions. Dr. Strike spoke for the Hospital. She expressed the position that Mr. Simard continued to represent a significant risk to the safety of the public as that term is defined in section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and as it has been explained by the Supreme Court of Canada in Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625. She also expressed the position that it was necessary and appropriate, having regard to the objectives set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code, for Mr. Simard to continue to be the subject of a detention disposition. On issues pertaining to the most recent restriction of Mr. Simard’s liberty, she took the position that the restriction was justified, necessary and that it represented the least restrictive option available to the Hospital at the time it was initiated and that it continued to be so.

[6]. Both the representative of the Attorney General and counsel for Mr. Simard agreed with the Hospital’s position pertaining to both the restriction of Mr. Simard’s liberty and to the threshold issue of significant threat on the review. The representative of the Attorney General took the position that a detention disposition remained necessary and appropriate. Counsel for Mr. Simard however indicated that she would have questions that would put disposition in possible issue. She argued that, subject to questioning, a conditional discharge may actually be the necessary and appropriate disposition suited to Mr. Simard’s progress and circumstances.

[7]. Following questioning and completion of evidence from both Dr. Strike and Mr. Simard, she joined the Hospital and the representative of the Attorney General in a joint submission on all issues, concluding that a detention disposition, in light of the roadmap the evidence set out for Mr. Simard’s progress over the course of this next year, was necessary and appropriate, assured the safety of the public and ensured that Mr. Simard’s mental health and other needs, including the ultimate objective of reintegration into the community, were met.

[8]. For the following reasons, the Board accepts the joint submission and finds that Mr. Simard continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. It has further concluded that a detention disposition is necessary and appropriate having regard to the objectives set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code and having regard to the principle of minimal intrusion. It has concluded that Mr. Simard experienced and continues to experience a restriction of his liberty and that the restriction undertaken by the Hospital represented and continues to represent the least onerous and least restrictive option available to the Hospital.

Evidence at the Hearing

[9]. The evidence for this hearing came from the Hospital Report filed as Exhibit 1 and from the live evidence offered by both Dr. Strike and Mr. Simard.

[10]. Turning first to the Hospital Report, it is cumulative in nature and provides significant details associated with Mr. Simard’s history of struggle with major mental illness, the circumstances that brought him under the Board’s jurisdiction and his course in working with the Hospital since that time.

[11]. Mr. Simard was 42 years old at the time of the hearing. He has never been in a spousal relationship and has no children. He has a longstanding history of struggle with major mental health issues and substance use that has led to outbursts of aggressivity and periods of irritability even when treatment compliant with prescribed anti-psychotic medications. His aggressivity has led to multiple convictions related to his damaging property and uttering threats. His medication over the years has been the subject of several adjustments as symptoms persisted even when receiving injectable antipsychotic medication. Historically, positive symptoms of his major mental illness have included persecutory, grandiose, referential, and religious delusions, disorganized thought content and behavior and auditory hallucinations. He has experienced periods of psychosis both when using drugs, including cannabis, stimulants, and psilocybin. The Hospital Report advises of the following diagnoses:

• Schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type. Multiple episodes, recent episode manic with psychotic features, currently in full remission
• Amphetamine, cocaine, alcohol, and cannabis use disorders
• Social Anxiety Disorder
• Generalized Anxiety Disorder
• Other specified feeding or eating disorder – irregular binge eating with compensatory fasting.

[12]. The Hospital Report also includes a summary of the index offences as set out in previous Reasons for Decision and Disposition:

Mischief count 1 On the 2nd of November 2018, at approximately 6:45 AM, the accused Eryk Simard did attend De La Salle High School located at 501 Old St. Patrick Street in the city of Ottawa. The accused entered the school property form the main driveway on the south side of the school, having no reason to be on the property whatsoever. The accused proceeded to attempt to gain entry to the school by trying all of the main doors. He continued to pace back and forth in front of the doors with his pants around his ankles, periodically pulling them up. While ringing the access pad/camera the accused would drink from what appeared to be a Polar Ice Vodka bottle, periodically flashing it at the camera (Cause disturbance) (Breach 1). At approximately 6:50 AM students began to arrive for basketball practise. The accused approached the students, initially asking them for water. When the students were unable to provide it, he became angry and proceeded to rip apart the communal piano located near the main entrance. At 7:10 AM students contacted police by calling 911.

Assault with a weapon x 2 As the accused ripped pieces off the piano, he began throwing them directly at Xavier TREPANIER and Hamza MOHAMED. There were no injuries sustained by the students, as they were not struck. The accused continued tearing apart the piano and attempting to gain access to the building, causing students to fear for their safety; so much so that they were unable to enter the school, or go near the accused due to his aggressive behaviour and gestures, describing his behaviour as “angry” and “crazy.”

Mischief count 2 The accused continued to pace along the doors periodically spitting on the windows and on the access pad. This visibly left snot and spit that would need to be cleaned. Students entered the building one by one by quickly locking and unlocking a door, having each student sprint away from the accused. The accused was able to discern that one door remained unlocked, and he proceeded to enter the building. Students immediately ran from the accused out of fear for their safety. The accused proceeded to pick up a pair of shoes that a student had dropped while running from him and sat down on a bench in the foyer.

Resist At 7:17 AM police arrived on scene and located the accused still seated on the bench. Police ordered the accused to place his hands behind his back, to which he refused. Police then utilized a CEW again ordering the male to place his hands behind his back. The male continued to speak gibberish and shuffle around on the bench. At approximately 7:19 AM Cst IRVINE then proceeded to gain control of one arm, again ordering him to place his hands behind his back. The accused proceeded to tense his entire body, preventing Cst IRVINE from moving his arm. Cst IRVINE then forced the male’s hands behind his back effecting the arrest.

[13]. Before turning to the Hospital Report’s update beginning at page 70 of the Hospital Report, it is advantageous to summarize both the progress and challenges Mr. Simard has experienced over the past two years as described in the record for this hearing. Since 2023, Mr. Simard has oscillated between periods of hopeful progress and times of significant struggle and deterioration in dealing with both his major mental health issues and his serious addiction to decompensating substances. Over periods of progress, he has been goal-oriented, has shown increased insight, and has functioned well with the treatment team and supports with approved transitional housing. In November 2023, Mr. Simard was discharged to transitional housing at the Grove. He had, to that point continued to show improvement as to his symptoms. He was treatment compliant and engaged well with programming. Unfortunately, on March 1, 2024, he suffered a manic episode without any clear destabilizer. He experienced sleep difficulties and was admitted involuntarily to Montfort Hospital after calling 911 himself and reporting both thoughts of harming others and urges to act on sexual impulses. Upon admission he required chemical restraints. Mr. Simard had been abstaining from all substances – a fact confirmed by subsequent drug testing.

[14]. On April 17, 2024, Mr. Simard was found walking Highway 417 while impaired by alcohol throwing objects at a bus. He was in a clear psychotic state that continued following hospitalization through to the following day when he was admitted to the Hospital’s forensic assessment unit. In contrast to the last occasion of hospitalization, on this occasion Mr. Simard admitted to use of cannabis, alcohol, and speed. He remained in the Hospital through to an annual review and restriction of liberty hearing held at the Hospital on July 10, 2024, by which time he made sufficient progress to warrant being discharged to transitional housing at LeBreton. Because of his progress he was granted the privilege of traveling to Quebec with family for up to two weeks at a time on an itinerary approved in advance by the Hospital. Mr. Simard had engaged with his treatment team, had begun taking a long-acting injectable anti-psychotic medication and was expressing greater insight as to the impact of substances and alcohol on his major mental illness.

[15]. Mr. Simard underwent a gradual decompensation again in early fall, 2024. By October he was admitted involuntarily to the Ottawa Hospital on a Form 1 and was transferred to the Hospital’s forensic assessment unit shortly after. On admission he indicated that he had been manic for three to four weeks and had not reported it to the treatment team. He admitted to using cannabis and methamphetamine. He showed little insight into his psychotic symptoms. He was discharged back to LeBreton on November 1, 2024.

[16]. The Hospital Report takes up Mr. Simard’s progress from this point at page 70. It indicates that Mr. Simard abstained from substances and displayed a stable mental state from the November 2024 discharge through to April, 2025, in spite of difficulties sleeping. Unfortunately, he used cannabis in May, followed by amphetamine days later. He began endorsing paranoia and by May 20th he was displaying aggressive, threatening, and intimidating behaviours directed at roommates. By May 18th, 2025 he was preoccupied with witchcraft and satanic pornography, spending excessive periods of time searching these topics online. He experienced paranoia with somatic delusional themes, believing someone was going to amputate him. For a second time, to his credit, he called 911 and asked for an ambulance to take him to the hospital but was sent home without being seen by the psychiatric team. That he was not promptly formed, either on a Form 1 or on a Form 49 at this stage, given his breach of the reigning disposition and the extent of his psychotic symptoms is worrisome. Medical records from the Ottawa Hospital’s emergency department indicate that Mr. Simard was very psychotic and was masturbating excessively to demonic pornography to the point of excoriations on his penis. He endorsed a belief that he would need to amputate his genitals.

[17]. Fortunately, Dr. Strike arranged to meet with Mr. Simard promptly. His behaviour in meeting with her on May 20, 2025 was aggressive and intimidating. He refused to be admitted to the Hospital voluntarily and was formed. Police apprehended him at LeBreton and took him to the Queensway Carleton Hospital where he was admitted until June 2 before being transferred to the Crisis Inpatient Unit at the Hospital. His drug screens were positive for amphetamines. He endorsed persecutory delusions.

[18]. Mr. Simard continued to struggle in June in the Hospital. When on a pass on June 1, 2025, he went AWOL, consumed alcohol, and later tested positive for amphetamines. While he approached his baseline and was cooperative with the treatment team, he showed little insight into the impact of substances on his major mental illness. He subsequently admitted that over the course of his June 1 abscondment, he drank 4 tall cans of beer and snorted 1 gram of meth. He admitted to using speed prior to that, taking 60 pills and attributed his actions to Satan’s influence. Meanwhile he denied command hallucinations and said that he was “the boss.” He said that he no longer wanted to work with the treatment team and believed that they were “f***ing up” his life. He was confrontational with Dr. Strike and required physical redirection away from her.

[19]. By June 5, 2025, Mr. Simard had ceased manifesting acute safety concerns such that he no longer met criteria for involuntary admission under the Mental Health Act. He was detained at the Hospital on a Form 49 from that date and remained on intermittent therapeutic engagement, being checked on by nursing staff every 15 minutes, until June 9, 2025 when he was stepped down to routine observations.

[20]. On June 13, 2025 he left the unit in the early morning after experiencing sleeplessness. When he returned, he admitted to ingesting cocaine. He experienced increased anxiety but displayed increased openness with the treatment team regarding his substance use. On June 17, 2025 he underwent a Violence Risk Assessment that formed part of the Hospital Report. The Assessment concludes that Mr. Simard presents a high risk of future violence and arrives at this conclusion based on the fact that he has recently presented with all 5 of the Assessment’s evaluative criteria pertaining to clinical (or current) risk factors as well as all 5 of the Assessments evaluative criteria regarding risk management (or future) factors. The methodology, content and conclusions of the Assessment were not challenged over the course of this hearing.

[21]. To all of this, Dr. Strike added her valuable update to the Board. She testified that Mr. Simard remained on the crisis unit and was on the transfer list for either the Hospital’s assessment unit or the rehabilitation unit. She explained that, in light of an ongoing bed crisis at the Hospital, the treatment team was also looking for approved accommodation for Mr. Simard in the community, but this was difficult given the extent of his ongoing struggles with substance use. She addressed Mr. Simard’s mental state when his liberty was restricted in June, 2025. She said that he was agitated and threatening towards the treatment team. She confirmed that he tested positive for amphetamine, cocaine and alcohol and said that all three of these substances had contributed to his agitative state historically. She framed the seriousness of Mr. Simard’s May 20th possession of speed within the rubric of potential charges he could have faced. She explained that he had sufficient speed on him to have been charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking and clarified that when he was taken to a hospital that day, it was not for psychotic symptoms but more acutely for his substance use. She confirmed that because of his relapse with substance use and as a result of his related symptoms, Mr. Simard was not eligible to return to LeBreton when brought to the Hospital on June 5, 2025.

[22]. Dr. Strike indicated that though Mr. Simard has not consumed since June 13, 2025, the severity of his relapse indicates a strong need for treatment on the substance use issue. His substance use has impacted his housing. He cannot go back to LeBreton and other appropriate housing options are limited.

[23]. Dr. Strike spoke to periods when Mr. Simard showed a prolonged ability to abstain from substances. She explained that there were periods when he abstained and worked well with the treatment team. She indicated that generally when Mr. Simard is ill, he looks for help, citing the instances noted above when he contacted 911 himself or sought medical care when experiencing severe symptoms associated with his major mental illness. She said that Mr. Simard, at the time of the hearing, had progressed in his passes such that he now has access to Hospital grounds and can be in the community subject to indirect supervision. She explained that the Hospital continues to advocate for a bed for him at the Sobriety House, which offers a 28-day program for substance use, or in the Hospital’s 6-week program for concurrent disorders. They are also exploring the possibility of transition bed through Whymering or Kimberlane. She explained that while it is difficult to say when the restriction of Mr. Simard’s liberty will cease, all are seeking to avoid an admission to the Hospital’s forensic assessment unit.

[24]. Dr. Strike testified that, had the Civic not kept Mr. Simard on a Form 1, the Hospital would have sought a Form 49. He was experiencing severe psychotic symptoms, had relapsed, was in a state similar to those that preceded the index offences and the most recent series of restrictions of his liberty and had no place to live. Both staff and patients were afraid of him at LeBreton.

[25]. Dr. Strike addressed concerns associated with any lesser form of disposition than that of a detention order. She explained that Mr. Simard’s eligibility for residential treatment programs decreases in the absence of a detention disposition. He can walk out of a residential treatment home at any time. The Hospital would need to be able to return him promptly in such circumstances. They need to be able to approve his accommodations. Neither of these can be done under the auspices of a conditional discharge.

[26]. Dr. Strike explained that Mr. Simard tested positive for substances on June 13, 2025 and then again on the 20th and the 23rd. She indicated though that Mr. Simard has been insistent that he did not use on the latter two dates, was transparent as to his use on June 13, and had tested consistently negative for substances since the 23rd. She explained that he expresses a commitment to residential treatment programming to “face his demons” as he puts it. He has a clear goal of abstaining from substance use, but struggles. She explained that some of his aggressivity may be attributable in part at least to pains, swelling and discomfort associated with Mr. Simard’s cardiovascular problems. He smokes, has problems sleeping, does not use his CPAP device and has a peripheral edema that could limit his control of schizo-affective symptoms. She testified that Mr. Simard has expressed remorse and regret for the aggressivity he demonstrated towards staff and expresses a desire to work with the treatment team. She confirmed that his aggressivity has not led to a failure in the development of a therapeutic alliance with her or staff at the Hospital.

[27]. Mr. Simard also testified at the hearing. He expressed his gratitude to Dr. Strike for continuing to work with and listen to him. He expressed his hope to attend a residential treatment program and discussed his fear of losing his crisis bed and being moved to the Forensic Assessment Unit, which would result, as a result of Hospital policy, in a loss of the privileges he has worked to attain since his admission. He confirmed that he and the Hospital were hopeful to receive an answer about the Concurrent Disorders Unit’s program in the next few weeks. He expressed a preference for in-person programming to help him with the substance use issues he continues to struggle with.

[28]. Mr. Simard does not recall violence or aggressivity over the course of his time at Queensway and confirmed that when he was consuming substances, he consumed them “like a pig.” He explained that it took time for the substances to clear from his system in June and that he had not taken substances since June 13. He outlined good goals for sobriety and steps following treatment and described the different effects different substances have on him. His testimony made it clear that he is aware of the impact of substances on him but sadly struggles with abstaining. His evidence was clear, concise, and respectful to service providers and people trying to help him with his ongoing struggles.

Submissions

[29]. At the end of the hearing, the panel was met with a joint submission from the parties. All agreed that Mr. Simard continued to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that a detention order was necessary and appropriate to manage that risk. All agreed that the restriction of his liberty on June 5, 2025 and through to the date of the hearing was justified and necessary and represented the least onerous and least restrictive option available to the Hospital throughout that period.

[30]. For its part, the Hospital highlighted Mr. Simard’s problems with substance use and the impact it had on both his major mental illness and on his housing options. It pointed to positives in drug-testing since coming into the Hospital and the need the Hospital has had to withdraw privileges to manage the associated and well-documented threat to public safety. It emphasized the trajectory moving forward and all attempts being made to ensure that bed and housing options considered for him accord with the progress he has been making on the Crisis Unit. It outlined the Hospital’s plan to move towards a restoration of liberties and community reintegration that is consistent with the Hospital’s obligation to ensure the safety of the public. This plan aligned entirely with what both Dr. Strike and Mr. Simard had testified to over the course of the hearing. Both the representative of the Attorney General and counsel for Mr. Simard agreed with the Hospital entirely.

Deliberations

[31]. That joint submission, together with the way in which the parties presented evidence at the hearing greatly assisted the panel. Even so, the panel did carefully deliberate on all issues presented before coming to its conclusion.

[32]. The panel first considered the threshold question of whether Mr. Simard represented a significant threat to the safety of the public. This threshold has been described as “high” and “weighty.” It is not attained by evidence that is speculative and the simple fact alone that an individual suffers from a major mental illness is insufficient to establish a “significant threat” to the safety of the public. It is likewise insufficient for evidence to establish a high likelihood that an individual will commit criminal offences resulting in physical or psychological harm that is not serious absent a disposition. Nor is it sufficient to establish a low likelihood that an individual will commit serious criminal offences that are likely to cause serious physical or psychological harm. The evidence must establish a real likelihood that, absent a disposition, an individual will commit serious criminal offences that will result in serious physical or psychological harm to the public.

[33]. In the case of Mr. Simard, the index offences are serious and occurred in a context of major mental illness aggravated by severe levels of substance use. He has, since being under the Board’s jurisdiction, required hospitalization associated with concerning levels of psychotic symptoms and aggressivity even when abstaining from substances and being compliant with recommended treatment. While his switch to a long-acting injectable anti-psychotic medication seems to have addressed this volatility in part, he has still gone through multiple periods over the last 18 months when his substance use and aggressivity led to loss of housing, privileges and to restrictions of his liberty. Mr. Simard struggles immensely with substance use, in spite of his desires to abstain from what he knows will cause deterioration of his mental state. He requires a disposition to avoid a recurrence of the type of conduct that was seen in the commission of the index offences. The evidence is clear and undisputed that he continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public.

[34]. It is also clear that a detention disposition is necessary and appropriate, having regard to the objectives set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code, the primary of which is the assurance of the safety of the public. With regard to this objective, Mr. Simard’s deterioration occurs quickly following his consumption of substances even when he is treatment compliant. When he consumes substances, he becomes aggressive and irritable. He struggles to abstain from consumption in spite of his best desires when sober and at baseline. In this setting the Hospital needs to be able to return him promptly under a Form 49 to assure public safety. As has been stated in previous Reasons for Decision and Disposition, any delay because of bed pressures or other factors would be inconsistent with the Hospital’s mandate in the forensic system. The Hospital, and Dr. Strike in particular, has shown acute concern associated with the need to promptly respond to Mr. Simard’s periods of decompensation over this past period of review. In so doing, the Hospital has also been responsive to Mr. Simard’s mental health and other needs, including the ultimate objective of reintegration into the community. A detention disposition in this case facilitates, therefore, all of the objectives set out in section 672.54. It empowers the Hospital to bring Mr. Simard in where there is evidence of substance use. It enables the Hospital to consider residential treatment and other bed options for Mr. Simard that suit his progress and ambitions without concern that the Hospital will be unable to return him should he go AWOL from a unit, residence, or treatment program. It facilitates the flexibility required in this case to maintain gains in therapeutic alliance between Mr. Simard and the treatment team.

[35]. Turning to the restriction of Mr. Simard’s liberty there is no doubt that Mr. Simard’s liberty norm was compromised when he was brought into the Hospital and that the compromise continued in excess of 7 days. He went from living at LeBreton in the community to the restrictions of being in the Hospital’s Crisis Unit with limited pass privileges in and out of the Hospital.

[36]. The evidence also clearly establishes that the restriction was necessary when undertaken by the Hospital. Mr. Simard had relapsed, he was manifesting the symptoms of his major mental illness, roommates, and staff at LeBreton had grown afraid of him and he had lost his transitional bed at that residence. Facing homelessness, conflict with members of the public because of his substance-driven aggressivity and irritability and noting the ease with which Mr. Simard obtains highly addictive and compromising drugs, it behooved the Hospital to move quickly to bring him to the Crisis Unit. The Hospital was meanwhile cognizant of every opportunity to exercise restraint and the principle of minimal intrusion and provided Mr. Simard with pass progression consistent with his progress. It continues to explore and prioritize placement options outside of the Forensic Assessment Unit at least in part because of the impact that unit’s policies would have on Mr. Simard’s liberty. The Hospital undertakes this course having regard to both Mr. Simard’s difficulties with seeking substances since being brought to the Crisis Unit and his efforts to abstain – efforts which, in context of the severity of his addictions and mental health issues, are admirable. In our view, these factors establish that the restriction of liberty was and is justified and necessary and represents the least onerous and least intrusive measure available to the Hospital, both when initiated and through to the date of the hearing.

[37]. Accordingly, it is our conclusion that Mr. Simard continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public as set out in section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and as described by the Supreme Court of Canada in Winko. It is further our conclusion that a detention disposition is necessary and appropriate having regard to all of the objectives set out in section 672.54, the primary of which is the assurance of the safety of the public. Finally, we have concluded that the restriction of Mr. Simard’s liberty was justified and necessary and represented the least onerous and least restrictive option available to the Hospital at the time initiated and that it continued to be so through to the date of this hearing.

[38]. The panel thanks all who assisted in this hearing and encourages Mr. Simard in his continued efforts with sobriety over the course of the next review period.

DATED this 8th day of September 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

D. Sandor Legal Member

Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board