Ontario Review Board
Re: Benjamin Gillis
ORB File No: 8298
Hearing held on: Tuesday, July 15, 2025
Place of Hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Pursuant to: Sections 672.81(1) and 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. M. Labrosse
Members: Dr. W. Komer
Dr. R. Cormier
Mr. D. Sandor
Ms. K. Brisson
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Benjamin Gillis
Counsel: Ms. K. Hislop
Person in charge of the hospital: Representative Dr. J. Gojer
Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. E. Davies
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION AND DECISION
(Dated September 8, 2025)
Introduction
On May 6, 2023, the accused, Benjamin Gillis, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of assault, forcible confinement, kidnapping, dangerous driving, robbery, and failure to comply with probation order, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada.
Mr. Gillis is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated July 31, 2024, and an Order amending that Disposition dated September 24, 2024, which detains him at the secure forensic unit of the hospital with privileges up to and including to live in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
By way of a letter dated June 19, 2025, the hospital notified the Ontario Review Board that Mr. Gillis had been readmitted to hospital on May 27, 2025, thereby constituting a significant increase in the restriction of his liberty.
On July 15, 2025, the Ontario Review Board convened at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, hereinafter referred to as the hospital, to conduct Mr. Gillis’ annual review hearing pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code and a restriction of liberty hearing pursuant to s. 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Gillis attended his hearing and was represented by his counsel, Ms. Kimberly Hyslop. Also in attendance were Mr. Gillis’ mother Vivian Gillis, as well Psychotherapist, Levia Chan, and Case Manager, Meaghan Hartley. A hospital report dated June 18, 2025, was entered as Exhibit No. 1.
The issues for this hearing are whether Mr. Gillis continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and, if so, to determine the disposition that is necessary and appropriate in the circumstances. In addition, the Board is tasked with reviewing the circumstances of Mr. Gillis’ readmission to hospital and determining whether it was necessary and appropriate in the circumstances.
For the reasons set out below, the Board finds that Mr. Gillis continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that a detention order continues to be the necessary and appropriate, and least onerous and least restrictive disposition at this time, subject to changes that will be outlined in the Analysis and Conclusion section of these Reasons. The hospital’s decision to significantly increase the restriction of Mr. Gillis’ liberty by admitting to hospital between May 27, 2025, and July 14, 2025, was reasonable and warranted and represented the least onerous and least restrictive course of action available to the hospital to deal with the increased risk caused by Mr. Gillis’ most recent hypomanic episode.
Index Offences
- The circumstances of the index offences are set in the hospital report as follows:
“On Sunday, August 7th, 2022, in the late evening, the accused, Mr. Benjamin Gillis, attended his mother’s, Vivian Gillis [information redacted] residence located at 1232 Kingston Avenue. During this time, Mr. Gillis was under the influence of an unknown substance or a combination thereof.
On Monday, August 8th, 2022, at approximately 7:00am, Mr. Gillis began acting erratically telling his mother that he was going to take her on a trip. He then began stating that he was going to take her to see his father, Steward Daniel Gillis [information redacted]. At this point in time, Mr. Gillis began pulling and shoving Vivian Gillis to the exterior of the house while attempting to drag her to his vehicle in the laneway, a blue 2012 Nissan Rogue bearing Ontario marker CHSH811.
Vivian Gillis was then able to flee to her neighbor’s, Melanie Zahab [information redacted], residence located next door at [information redacted] Kingston Avenue. At this point, Mr. Gillis, still at the exterior of the house, was able to persuade Vivian Gillis to open the door. At this point, he again dragged her to his vehicle where he placed her in the backseat of his Nissan Rogue. At this point, Mr. Gillis began quickly reversing the vehicle heading West bound on Kingston Avenue, while Vivian Gillis tried to exit the vehicle from the rear passenger door. In doing so, Mr. Gillis collided the rear bumper of his vehicle into Vivian Gillis, pinning her in between a metal drop off box on the front lawn of [information redacted] Kingston Avenue, owned by resident Francesca Verhoueve [information redacted]. Simultaneous to this, Ms. Zahab began calling the Ottawa Police Service.
Mr. Gillis began shouting for things along the lines of “Help”, “She needs an ambulance” and “Hospital” while Vivian Gillis was laying on the surface of the ground after having sustained injuries to her back. At this point, Mr. Gillis proceeded to again drag his mother to his vehicle, confined her in the rear of his vehicle and fled the scene heading East bound on Kingston Avenue, heading North bound on Vale Street. From this point on, Mr. Gillis continued driving recklessly North bound in the city of Ottawa while coming into collision with numerous unknown objects in his route.
At approximately 7:30am, Mr. Gillis’ vehicle came to a stop on the grass shoulder of East bound Sir John A Macdonald Parkway just East of Parkdale Avenue. At this point in time, his vehicle sustained critical damage from hitting cones, fencing and barriers at a nearby construction site, rendering his vehicle undriveable. At this point in time, Madanmohan Ghosh [information redacted] observed this and proceeded to stop his vehicle, a gray 2015 Honda Odyssey, on the shoulder of the roadway to assist. At this point in time, Mr. Gillis proceeded to remove his mother, Vivian Gillis, from the vehicle and place her in the rear passenger seat of the Honda Odyssey. Mr. Gillis then entered the front passenger seat of the Honda Odyssey and ordered Mr. Ghosh to drive, which he refused. As a result, Mr. Gillis forcibly tried to push on the acceleration pedal and caused Mr. Ghosh to steer off the roadway and onto the grass shoulder of the Sir John A Macdonald Parkway. At this point in time, Mr. Gillis physically pushed Mr. Ghosh out of the driver side of the vehicle, causing him to fall onto the surface of the ground and proceeded to steal his Honda Odyssey. Mr. Gillis then fled in the Honda Odyssey heading East bound on the Sir John A Macdonald Parkway.
At approximately 8:00am, Mr. Gillis attended the front driveway of his father’s, Stewart Gillis’, house located at [information redacted], in Sainte-Cecile-de-Masham, in the Province of Quebec. At this point in time, Mr. Gillis began driving in circles and shouting for Steward Gillis to enter the vehicle, which he refused. Vivian Gillis was still confined in the backseat of the vehicle during this time. Mr. Gillis then fled this location, heading back toward the Province of Ontario.
In the later hours on Monday, August 8th 2022, Mr. Gillis was pursued by the Ontario Provincial Police on the Highway 401, while Vivian Gillis was still confined in the vehicle. Mr. Gillis was later arrested by the Ontario Provincial Police when he ran out of gas on the highway in the Gananoque region, in the province of Ontario.
Cst. Blake of the Ottawa Police Service subsequently took custody of Mr. Gillis at 3:43pm on this date from the OPP at the OPP Kemptville detachment and transported him to the Ottawa Police Service central detention center. Mr. Gillis was held for a show cause bail hearing for the following:
One count of CCC 733.1 (1) Failing to comply with a probation order
Two counts of CCC 320.16 (1) Fail to stop at an accident
One count of CCC 320.13 (1) Dangerous operation of a conveyance
One count of CCC 333.1 Theft of a motor vehicle
Two counts of CCC 266 Assault
One count of CCC 343 (c) Robbery/Assault with intent to steal
One count of CCC 279 (1) (a) Kidnapping
One count of CCC 279 (2) Forcible confinement.”
Background History
Mr. Gillis’ personal, legal and psychiatric history is set out in detail in the hospital report (Exhibit 1). Briefly summarized, Mr. Gillis is currently 33 years of age. His parents separated when he was 5 years old. Mr. Gillis has two brothers and two sisters.
Mr. Gillis said that he was “partially diagnosed with ADHD” when he was 14 years old. He said that he was not formally diagnosed with ADHD because his mother did not let him finish the psychological assessment. When asked what symptoms were used to determine that he likely suffered from ADHD, he said that he could not remember.
Mr. Gillis reportedly obtained his high school diploma in 2010. In 2010, he enrolled in a Computer Science program at University of Ottawa. He obtained a Bachelor of Science degree in 2014.
Mr. Gillis said that he started working when he was 16 years old. He explained that at that time, he enrolled in the Canadian Armed Forces as a Sailor 3rd Class in the Navy. He was employed for 14 years before being medically released on account of his bipolar disorder.
Criminal History
- Mr. Gillis has a previous conviction for assault against his ex-wife. He pled guilty and received a conditional discharge.
Psychiatric History
Mr. Gillis said that he first started experiencing manic symptoms during the weeks leading to the offense including a decrease in sleep, a decrease in appetite, an increase in energy, being more talkative than usual, an increase in libido, and an increase in monetary spending. He denied ever experiencing depressive symptoms or manic symptoms prior to this. He said that the day prior to the offense, he had not slept all night because his brain could not seem to shut down. On the day of the offense, he experienced manic symptoms including, euphoria, felt overly energetic, and flight of ideas. He added that he felt “like he was in a movie”. When asked to elaborate, he said that “the world was a set”, and that people around him were “actors”. He also believed that there was a “producer” that “controlled the actors”. Mr. Gillis said that he felt “dissociated” from his own body and that he felt as if he did not have control over his actions. He said that he has not experienced a manic episode since he started taking his medication.
Mr. Gillis said that two days after the offense, he started experiencing mild depressive episodes including sadness, a decrease in energy, a lack of motivation, rumination regarding his divorce, and difficulties getting out of bed. He said that after he started taking his medication, his symptoms improved. He said that he currently does not experience any of the depressive symptoms listed above.
Mr. Gillis stated that he started experiencing social anxiety after he was charged in September 2021. He said that he often gets anxious about social adequacy and being able to express himself clearly when engaging in conversations with other people. He stated that as a result of this, he has been isolating himself and has been cutting ties with his social circles. He added that he is afraid of talking to anyone because he thinks that people would judge him for not being able to contribute to any conversation.
Mr. Gillis denied any history of experiencing any hallucination or paranoia.
Mr. Gillis’ current diagnosis is Bipolar Mood Disorder Manic Type.
Evidence at the Hearing
The hospital’s evidence was presented through its report as well as through the oral testimony of Dr. Julian Gojer. This evidence is summarized below.
Dr. Gojer confirmed that Mr. Gillis was formally discharged from the hospital July 14, 2025 (the day before this hearing) though he was allowed to leave the hospital and return home on June 30, 2025.
As a result of his last admission to hospital, Mr. Gillis is now taking Lithium and states that he is finding it helpful for his stability and that he is not experiencing any side effects. Mr. Gillis has indicated that he is committed to continue taking Lithium at this time. Dr. Gojer added that as a result of testing the Lithium levels, it was agreed that the dose be increased from 900 mg to 1000 mg and that most recent testing suggests that the Lithium levels are now in the therapeutic range.
Mr. Gillis has been meeting with the psychotherapist Ms. Chan and has indicated his wish to continue with those appointments as an outpatient at the hospital.
With respect to the most recent admission, Dr. Gojer was contacted by Mr. Gillis’ father to report that Mr. Gillis was experiencing slight mood elevation which Mr. Gillis himself acknowledged to Dr. Gojer. There was an incident where Mr. Gillis was in a bar in Chelsea and experiencing some behavioural issues which caused him to disrobe in the bar and be forcibly removed by the police who brought him to hospital in Gatineau though he was not admitted there. When contacted by Mr. Gillis’ father, Dr. Gojer asked him to bring in Mr. Gillis for assessment which Mr. Gillis’ father did resulting in Mr. Gillis being admitted to the Crisis Unit of the hospital as there were no beds on the Forensic Unit.
Dr. Gojer was hoping that Mr. Gillis would stabilize while on the Crisis Unit, but his behaviours persisted, including over-involvement in other patients’ business, resulting in the Crisis Unit stating that they could not handle him.
Mr. Gillis was transferred to the FAU under the Form 49 and was initially elevated in mood, intrusive and refusing medications but he improved quickly after agreeing to start treatment with Lithium. He remained on the FAU until June 30, 2025, when he was released back to his home in Chelsea, Quebec. Mr. Gillis was reportedly discharged to free up a bed in the FAU, though Dr. Gojer was content that his mood was near baseline, and this was also supported by his father who attended a case conference on June 18, 2025.
According to Dr. Gojer, Mr. Gillis has demonstrated a better engagement and commitment to continuing with treatment. Dr. Gojer believes that these improvements are still very recent and that due to the relatively short period of stability, as well as the fact that the hospital cannot use the Mental Health Act in Quebec to affect an admission to hospital, Dr. Gojer takes the position that a detention order continues to be necessary and appropriate to manage the risk.
In response to questions posed to him by counsel for the Attorney General, Ms. Davies, Dr. Gojer responded as follows:
(a) Mr. Gillis has a history of pushing back when required to comply with certain aspects of his disposition, and specifically, this has recently taken the form of not keeping appointments and pushing back about random urine drug testing. Mr. Gillis typically likes to do things on his own terms and is known to interpret the terms of his disposition in a manner that benefits him.
(b) Dr. Gojer confirmed that the hospital in Gatineau did not reach out the ROMHC to advise that Mr. Gillis had been brought there by police.
(c) Dr. Gojer does not believe that the Mental Health Act is sufficient in any province to admit Mr. Gillis involuntarily as his hypomanic presentation does not necessarily reveal his mental condition and would lead many to think that he is fine. When Dr. Gojer requested that Mr. Gillis be brought into hospital he was not floridly manic. Dr. Gojer is aware that when Mr. Gillis is hypomanic, he has a propensity to use drugs and to engage in risky behaviour. Dr. Gojer believes that Mr. Gillis’ untreated hypomania can lead to mania.
(d) Dr. Gojer acknowledged that Mr. Gillis reported using alcohol on his birthday in May and that he also had a positive test for cocaine over the course of the last year. Dr. Gojer also stated that Mr. Gillis was in possession of MDMA which he admitted to Dr. Gojer though he stated that he had not used it. In the hospital report Mr. Gillis also reported to his mother that he had used MDMA but later told her that he had not used it. This was following a urine drug screen which was positive for MDMA but upon sending it for further testing to Sick Kids Hospital, it was confirmed negative.
(e) Mr. Gillis has been taking Lithium for the past three weeks and is now taking it of his own accord without any supervision. Mr. Gillis is aware that his urine drug testing will track whether he is taking the Lithium, but Dr. Gojer believes that he has demonstrated commitment to taking it for the time being.
(f) Dr. Gojer did write to the Ministry of Transport to suspend Mr. Gillis’ driver’s licence. Currently, Mr. Gillis is required to rely on others to drive him to and from his appointments. Though his licence is medically suspended, Dr. Gojer is prepared to reinstate it but would like to request a condition in the disposition that states Mr. Gillis cannot drive without the written consent of the hospital. This would allow the hospital to react more quickly if there is any decompensation that merits suspending the driver’s licence, and this way, it is also easier to reinstate Mr. Gillis’ privileges. Dr. Gojer confirmed that Mr. Gillis has not yet applied for a Quebec Driver’s licence, and he will likely have to do that at some point.
(g) Dr. Gojer confirmed that Mr. Gillis continues to reside at his residence in Chelsea, Quebec and that he has other people living with him who are expected to stay there for the next year.
(h) With respect to the counselling with Ms. Chan, Dr. Gojer stated that the focus is on better illness management and developing trust with the hospital system. Mr. Gillis is a bright individual and Dr. Gojer thinks he would make a very good peer support person if he can continue maintaining his stability.
(i) Dr. Gojer believes that it is premature for a conditional discharge to be ordered given that Mr. Gillis has been on medication for less than a month and has just recently been discharged from the hospital. Dr. Gojer would like to keep him on a detention order at this time due to his past history of elopement and deceit about taking medication as well as the fact that the Mental Health Act will not apply in Quebec.
- In response to questions posed to him by counsel for Mr. Gillis, Ms. Hyslop, Dr. Gojer responded as follows:
(a) Dr. Gojer acknowledged that the impact of the false/positive MDMA test on May 14th did play a role in bringing Mr. Gillis back into hospital although Mr. Gillis was exhibiting hypomania, and his family had reached out to the hospital to express their concerns. Dr. Gojer thought that the hypomanic incident could be managed on the Crisis Unit, but this proved to be impossible due to Mr. Gillis’ behavioural dysregulation and including an incident where he participated in throwing peanuts at a sleeping patient, though he was not the only person doing this.
(b) Dr. Gojer confirmed that there have been no positive drug screens recently and that when Mr. Gillis is requested to come in for a UDT (urine drug test), he sometimes does not do so for a day or two. He also referenced the incident where Mr. Gillis did have MDMA in his possession.
(c) With respect to alcohol use, Dr. Gojer believes that it can disrupt neurochemicals in the brain and that it is not indicated for Mr. Gillis to use alcohol except on a very infrequent basis. Dr. Gojer would like to see him maintain stability for a significant period before there is any conversation about permitting moderate occasional alcohol use. Dr. Gojer would be willing to have that conversation after a year or so.
(d) Dr. Gojer acknowledged that Mr. Gillis typically comes into hospital when he is asked to do so but that he does not believe that the provisions of the Mental Health Act would have applied when he was brought in by his father on May 21, 2025.
(e) Though there has been no evidence of dangerous driving, his mother did report an incident of some erratic driving when he was hypomanic. Dr. Gojer reiterated that he would be prepared to reinstate the licence today based on Mr. Gillis’ compliance and cooperation.
(f) When asked about potential conditions of a conditional discharge, Dr. Gojer responded that he believes that a conditional discharge with many conditions can be more restrictive than a detention order, particularly with respect to the requirement that Mr. Gillis report on a weekly basis. Dr. Gojer indicated that he is prepared to have an early hearing should Mr. Gillis demonstrate sustained stability and further progress over the course of the next year.
In response to questions posed to him by members of the panel, Dr. Gojer acknowledged that Mr. Gillis’ use of alcohol and drugs has an effect on his mental condition and that can also be a sign that he is hypomanic when he uses. Mr. Gillis does have insight into his increased energy but will not necessarily agree to come to hospital because of that. Dr. Gojer does not necessarily believe that a hypomanic incident requires an admission to hospital, but it is important for Mr. Gillis to be assessed when this happens to ensure that the situation does not further deteriorate.
With respect to travel passes, Dr. Gojer would like to see how Mr. Gillis handles traveling on an indirectly supervised basis while he is still on a detention order.
Finally, Dr. Gojer confirmed that Mr. Gillis has never before been on Lithium except for a short period in the past when he took it only for a few days. It will be important to test Mr. Gillis’ willingness and compliance to continuing taking further treatment, particularly against the backdrop of a history of non-compliance with medication and a stated preference for a more naturopathic approach to dealing with his bipolar disorder.
No other evidence was presented.
Submissions of the Parties
- The hospital submits that Mr. Gillis continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the maintenance of a detention order with changes to the travel passes to allow for indirectly supervised travel up to two weeks with an approved itinerary including
international travel as well as a condition that Mr. Gillis is not to drive without the written revocable consent of the hospital, is the necessary and appropriate disposition,
With respect to the restriction of liberty, the hospital’s position is that the decision to admit Mr. Gillis under the Form 49 for the period from May 27th to July 14th was reasonable and warranted in the circumstances.
Counsel for the Attorney General, Ms. Davies, stated her agreement with the hospital’s position on both the annual review and the restriction of liberty echoing the hospital’s concern that Mr. Gillis’ stability is quite recent, that because of his propensity to have relatively quick onset of hypomania and the occasional breaches of his disposition with respect to substances, a detention order continues to be the necessary and appropriate disposition. The Form 49 has been required several times over the course of the past few years and continues to be.
Counsel for Mr. Gillis, Ms. Hyslop, agrees that the restriction of liberty was necessary and appropriate and was the least restrictive course of action available to the hospital. With respect to the annual review, though significant threat is not contested, Ms. Hyslop submits that a detention order would not be the least onerous deposition given the gains that have been made by Mr. Gillis over the past year. Ms. Hyslop added that convenience is not enough to justify a more onerous disposition as stated by the Court of Appeal in Re: Davies and it is not simply because Mr. Gillis is residing in Quebec and that the provisions of the Mental Health Act cannot be utilized there, that this justifies having a detention order.
Ms. Hyslop submits that a conditional discharge with a residence specification for Mr. Gillis to reside at his current residence, to report weekly to the person in charge or its designate and the consent to treatment provision under s. 672.55(1) as well as the other existing conditions which are to abstain and submit to testing a well as the driving only with the permission of the hospital is the least onerous and least restrictive disposition. Mr. Gillis is well supported by his family who will not hesitate to reach out to the hospital when they have concerns and the Board must give consideration to the fact that there is an absence of evidence of any real risk to any member of the public given that even in the instances where Mr. Gillis has been hospitalized over the course of the past year or so, he has not demonstrated any aggression towards others. With respect to this most recent incident, Mr. Gillis may have been guilty of bizarre behaviour, but nothing more.
Ms. Hyslop also requests that paragraph 2(g) of the existing disposition be removed requiring Mr. Gillis to be accompanied by staff or an approved person in order to travel beyond a 300-kilometre radius of the hospital and to add the permission to travel internationally, up to two weeks, indirectly supervised with an approved itinerary.
Conclusion and Disposition
Having considered all of the evidence tendered at the hearing, and the submissions of the parties, the Board finds that Mr. Gillis continues to meet the threshold of significant risk to the safety of the public as set out in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code of Canada and as further defined in Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625.
According to Winko, a ‘significant threat to the safety of the public’ means a real risk of physical or psychological harm to members of the public that is serious in the sense of going beyond the merely trivial or annoying. The conduct giving rise to the harm must be criminal in nature. Further, it is noted that evidence to determine whether an individual is a significant threat to the safety of the public can include the past and expected course of the NCR accused’s treatment, if any, the present state of the NCR accused’s medical condition, the NCR accused’s own plans for the future, the support services existing for the NCR accused in the community, as well as other items.
In arriving at the determination that Mr. Gillis continues to meet the threshold of significant threat to the safety of the public, the Board relies on the uncontroverted evidence of the hospital, including its report and the oral testimony of Dr. Gojer. Absent a Board Disposition, Mr. Gillis would likely be non-compliant with treatment which would lead to a decompensation of his bipolar illness, possibly leading to substance use, and highly likely leading to hypomania then mania, which in turn would likely cause the re-emergence of behaviours similar to those at the time of the index offences.
Mr. Gillis has demonstrated occasional resistance to complying with his ORB disposition and the oversight of the hospital by eloping, using substances, refusing to come in when asked for UDTs and appointments.
In looking at the full record before us, we find that the detention order remains necessary and appropriate to manage the risk and is more that a mere convenience issue. The Form 49 has been utilized several times going back to March of 2024 when Mr. Gillis was in travel to B.C. contrary to the terms of his disposition. In his evidence, Dr. Gojer further opined that the provisions of the Mental Health Act, regardless of the province, would likely prove insufficient to affect an admission to hospital.
To his credit, Mr. Gillis is currently demonstrating good engagement with the hospital treatment team, but this is very recent. He has been on Lithium for only a few weeks though his commitment to taking it is encouraging.
We find the proposed changes to the travel passes (travel for up to two weeks, indirectly supervised with a prior approved itinerary) reasonable. This will provide Mr. Gillis for an opportunity to demonstrate his ability to manage with more autonomy, while still under a detention order. The proposed condition regarding permission to drive but only with the written revocable consent of the person in charge is also necessary and appropriate and will enable Mr. Gillis’ driving privileges to be managed more effectively, including quicker reinstatement when appropriate.
Having considered the four factors set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, namely the protection of the public, which is the paramount consideration, the mental condition of the accused, his reintegration into society and his other needs, the Board finds that a detention order, with the above changes, remains the necessary and appropriate and least onerous and least restrictive disposition, in all of the circumstances.
With respect to the hospital’s decision to significantly increase the restriction of Mr. Gillis’ liberty by admitting him to hospital between May 27, 2025, and July 14, 2025, we make the finding that that decision was necessary and appropriate in the circumstances of Mr. Gillis experiencing a hypomanic episode which if not treated, could lead to mania and behaviours that are more than annoying or bizarre. Mr. Gillis’ family had expressed concerns, and the incident leading to police intervention and Mr. Gillis being brought to a hospital in Gatineau were certainly evidence of a situation that was rapidly devolving. Moreover, the evidence persuades us that the hospital did end the restriction as soon as Mr. Gillis was approaching his baseline and was deemed to be stable enough to return to his home.
In closing, we wish to emphasize that we note the very significant, albeit recent, improvements in Mr. Gillis’ situation, particularly with his willingness to take treatment, and we wish him continued improvement over the course of the next year.
DATED this 8th day of September 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. M. Labrosse
Alternate Chairperson
___________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board