Attorney-General of Ontario v. MacPherson, 2025 CanLII 92538

Ontario Review Board

Re: Hana MacPherson

ORB File No: 8715

Hearing held on: Monday, July 14, 2025

Place of Hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre

Pursuant to: Section 672.47(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: Hana MacPherson

Counsel: Ms. K. Reid

Person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. A. Sandhu

Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Dr. M. Dufort

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated September 8, 2025)

Introduction

1. On February 3, 2025, Hana MacPherson, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on a charge of dangerous operation, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. At the time of the finding of not criminally responsible, the Honourable Court did not make a disposition and referred the matter to the Ontario Review Board.

2. On July 14, 2025, the Ontario Review Board (“ORB”) convened a hearing at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, hereinafter referred to as the hospital, to conduct Ms. MacPherson’s initial hearing pursuant to s. 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code. Ms. MacPherson was present for the hearing and was represented by her counsel, Ms. Karen Reid. Ms. MacPherson’s partner, Jason Barkley, was also present at the hearing. The following documents were entered as Exhibits for the hearing:

3. Synopsis

4. Transcripts

5. Endorsed Information

6. Hospital Report dated June 28, 2025

7. Amended Release Order dated February 3, 2025

8. The issues for this hearing are whether Ms. MacPherson represents a significant threat to the safety of the public and, if so, to determine the necessary and appropriate disposition having regard to the factors set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

9. For the reasons set out below, the Board finds that Ms. MacPherson poses a significant threat to the safety of the public and that a detention order with permission to reside in the community in approved accommodation, along with other terms and conditions which shall be detailed in the Analysis and Conclusion section of these reasons, is the necessary and appropriate disposition.

Index Offences

5. The circumstances of the index offences have been extracted from the Crown Brief Synopsis follows:

“On the morning of January 17, 2023, Ms. MacPherson was driving in Rockland in her vehicle. An observer noted that Ms. MacPherson was driving in the middle of the road, “clipped on vehicle” and nearly collided with another. She then turned into a parking lot of a shopping centre and before parking almost struck other vehicles in the parking lot. Ms. MacPherson’s windshields were covered with snow and ice, obstructing her view while driving.

After police arrived to Ms. MacPherson’s car, they could not see inside the vehicle due to the ice and snow. Ms. MacPherson was then viewed by police through an unfrozen part of the driver side window and appeared to be confused. She did not respond to instruction given by police to open her door. Police described Ms. MacPherson as “confused” and providing a “blank stare,” and thus, broke the driver side window out of concern for a medical emergency. As the window broke, Ms. MacPherson did not open the car door. She was then observed to be “emotionless,” with a black hand gun in her lap. The weapon was later identified as a pellet hand gun.

Ms. MacPherson was brought to Montfort Hospital where she placed on a form under the mental health act.”

Background Information

6. The hospital report set out the details of Ms. MacPherson’s personal, legal, and psychiatric history. Briefly summarized, Ms. MacPherson is 46 years of age and was born in the Czech Republic. She was raised in the Czech Republic with her mother, her father and her older brother, David. There were no issues at home or at school while she was residing in the Czech Republic.

7. At nine years age, she and her family fled to Spain to escape the conflict in their home country. Approximately four years later, her parents separated, and she moved back to the Czech Republic with her mother and her older brother.

8. Ms. MacPherson explained that she graduated from high school at the expected time. She said around this time she was in a romantic relationship with a gentleman and at 20 years old, she and her romantic partner immigrated to Lethbridge, Alberta. She later married this gentleman and completed a Business Diploma at Lethbridge College. She added that while living in Lethbridge she was suffering from anxiety and saw a psychologist.

9. At 24 years of age, she and her husband separated, and she moved to Ottawa, where she studied Economics at Carleton University. She worked at TD Bank for several months until moving to Halifax with her then partner. In Halifax she lived with her boyfriend and began working in an office through a staffing agency. In 2010, she decided to move back to the Czech Republic because her boyfriend was misusing alcohol, and she struggled to find other employment.

10. In 2015, she moved to Scotland, where she worked in a bank, in a hotel and for two charities. In 2017, she moved back to Ottawa and had to stay at the Cornerstone Women’s Shelter. She explained she stayed at the shelter in 2019 and 2020, before moving to 373 Princeton Avenue, supportive housing operated by Cornerstone, where she lived until 2022.

11. In 2022, she had begun a romantic relationship with Jason Barkley and she decided to move into his apartment in Rockland.

Criminal History

12. Ms. MacPherson has no prior criminal record.

Psychiatric History

13. Ms. MacPherson first presented with mental health problems to the Ottawa Hospital in January 2018. She was diagnosed with psychosis but refused treatment. She was not felt to be certifiable under the Mental Health Act and was discharged home. At that time, Ms. MacPherson was followed by the Psychiatry Outreach Program and was accepted for a transitional emergency shelter placement. She was not taking any medications.

14. Ms. MacPherson was admitted to the Ottawa Hospital from April 27, 2018, to May 4, 2018. This admission was for psychosis, where she expressed grandiose and paranoid delusions.

15. Ms. MacPherson returned to hospital on October 25, 2018, with psychosis. She was admitted to the Ottawa Hospital until December 6, 2018. She had not taken the prescribed antipsychotic medications following her discharge in May 2018. Ms. MacPherson was found incapable to consent to treatment, and a Community Treatment Order was initiated. The Public Guardian and Trustee was her substitute decision-maker (SDM).

16. Ms. MacPherson was subsequently followed as an outpatient by a psychiatrist at The Ottawa Hospital, until April 2021. Her Community Treatment Order ended in November 2020, apparently after she contested it and it was overturned by the Consent and Capacity Board.

17. Ms. MacPherson was treated with long-acting injectable antipsychotics. This was initially Risperidone 37.5 mg by injection every two weeks. She had side effects from this medication, so it was switched to Paliperidone (Trinza) 350 mg every twelve weeks. This long-acting antipsychotic was last dispensed in September 2021. Ms. MacPherson does not appear to have taken any antipsychotic medications after September 2021.

18. Ms. MacPherson was brought to the Montfort Hospital on December 17, 2022 on a Section 17 by police in Rockland. She had been staying at the River Rock Hotel but was quite disorganized in the lobby of the hotel. Staff contacted 911 and police and paramedics attended. At the time of admission to the Montfort Hospital, Ms. MacPherson was quite delusional and paranoid.

19. During the admission to hospital, Ms. MacPherson was prescribed Olanzapine 15 mg by mouth at night. Her boyfriend, Jason, reported that Ms. MacPherson “suddenly started to accuse him of trying to kill her.” He reported that she was “talking to herself and no longer able to function.” He said that she was drinking alcohol most days but was not using any other substances. Ms. MacPherson’s dose of Olanzapine was reduced to 10 mg because she was sedated during the daytime. By the end of the admission, she denied most of her previous delusional beliefs.

20. Ms. MacPherson was referred for outpatient follow-up at the Montfort Hospital. Her primary diagnosis was schizophrenia, as it had been at previous admissions at the Ottawa Hospital.

21. Ms. MacPherson’s current diagnoses are:

• Schizophrenia, multiple episodes, in partial remission

• Alcohol use disorder, moderate

Evidence at the Hearing

22. The hospital’s evidence was presented through its report dated June 28, 2025, and through the oral testimony of Dr. A. Sandhu who is Ms. MacPherson’s attending psychiatrist in the Forensic Program.

23. Following the NCR finding on February 3, 2025, Ms. MacPherson’s release order was amended, and she has since been living with her partner, Jason Barkley, in their trailer on a property in Clarence/Rockland, east of Ottawa.

24. Ms. MacPherson has continued to meet with her Montfort Hospital general psychiatrist, Dr. Davidson, once monthly. She is on a long-acting injectable antipsychotic (Invega) to manage her symptoms of schizophrenia. Ms. MacPherson has been on a community treatment order for the past two years and it was recently renewed. According to the evidence provided by Ms. MacPherson herself during the hearing, her CTO requires her to attend the Montfort Hospital to receive her long-acting injectable medication, and she is required to attend appointments with Dr. Davidson.

25. Dr. Sandhu stated that Ms. MacPherson was admitted to the Montfort between April 4th and 17th when she was brought there under a Form 47. Mr. Barkley had reported to Dr. Davidson that Ms. MacPherson was experiencing psychotic symptoms which triggered the process of bringing her into the hospital for stabilization and treatment. Ms. MacPherson is currently incapable of consenting to treatment, and her SDM is the Public Guardian & Trustee.

26. Ms. MacPherson has been very open with the forensic treatment team and has consented to disclosure of her records with the Montfort Hospital. At the time of the admission, Ms. MacPherson was highly symptomatic and was expressing that she felt unsafe at home due to issues with an historical friend and upon admission to the hospital stated that she was feeling unsafe.

27. According to Dr. Sandu, Ms. MacPherson is highly motivated to seek employment and wishes to be able to resume driving as this will facilitate her being able to travel to work. The treatment team would like to ensure that there are objective methods of testing for substances in place, as well as further clinical observations, to gauge her readiness to resume driving a motor vehicle. There is no set timeline for this to happen though Dr. Sandhu would expect this to happen over the course of the next few months.

28. Further to questions posed to him by counsel for the Attorney General, Ms. Dufort, Dr. Sandhu responded as follows:

(a) It would be reasonable to include a weapons prohibition in the disposition given the nature of the index offences and the fact that Ms. MacPherson had been carrying a BB gun with her at the time of the incident. It was confirmed that there are currently no more weapons in the possession of Ms. MacPherson and that a Forfeiture and Destruction order was issued for that purpose.

(b) At the time of the admission to hospital in early April of this year, Dr. Sandhu believes that Ms. MacPherson had lost insight into her situation as she was highly internally preoccupied and was demonstrating aggression, mostly towards property. She was not willing to come into hospital which triggered the need for the Form 47.

(c) Dr. Sandhu agrees that it would be helpful for the general psychiatrist, Dr. Davidson, to remain involved at some level with Ms. MacPherson. This could be of great assistance if Ms. MacPherson needs readmission to hospital as that might be difficult to achieve at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre (ROMHC) given the current bed pressures. It will also be helpful to continue to share information with the Montfort Hospital and to hopefully at some point transfer Ms. MacPherson’s care back to the Montfort Hospital. In addition, Ms. MacPherson has a very positive rapport with the team at the Montfort and so she is likely to continue to work with them in some capacity.

(d) Dr. Sandhu acknowledged that a general psychiatry team does not have the same responsibility as a forensic treatment team to ensure the oversight and compliance with the terms of an ORB disposition.

(e) Ms. MacPherson’s spouse, Mr. Barkley, has demonstrated good awareness regarding the symptoms of Ms. MacPherson’s schizophrenia. He is very involved in her care and has come to all of her appointments with Dr. Sandhu. The collateral information that he provides has been quite helpful.

(f) Dr. Sandhu acknowledged that Mr. Barkley works nights and that there is concern in ensuring that Ms. MacPherson maintains healthy habits, including good sleep. It is not known whether she would be looking for a night job, but this will be explored further.

29. Further to the questions posed to him by counsel for Ms. MacPherson, Ms. Reid, Dr. Sandhu responded as follows:

(a) He acknowledged that Ms. MacPherson likes to keep herself busy, that she has a lengthy employment record in the community and that she has an Economics degree.

(b) Ms. MacPherson had late onset of mental illness as she was in her late 30s at the time of her first documented psychotic episode.

(c) Ms. MacPherson had a miscarriage at age 43 which appears to have been a pivotal event in her life which triggered the devolution of her mental health and prompted an increased alcohol consumption to cope with her situation. At the time Ms. MacPherson was working in a wine shop and recognized that this was not assisting with her alcohol use disorder. According to Dr. Sandhu, she is now more motivated to abstain from alcohol and Mr. Barkley is also supportive of promoting abstention from alcohol use.

(d) Dr. Sandhu acknowledged Ms. MacPherson’s education and ability to maintain employment, as well as her good response to optimizing medication are protective factors and good indicators that she could have a future involving a full remission of symptoms.

(e) Dr. Sandhu will inform Dr. Davidson of the conditions in the disposition once it is issued and there will be a discussion between them regarding the ongoing involvement of the general psychiatry team and whether it is appropriate to engage in a shared care model. Dr. Sandhu wants to leverage the good therapeutic rapport that Ms. MacPherson has with Dr. Davidson, however he acknowledges that the forensic treatment team has a duty to the ORB disposition and that there is a tendency for the forensic treatment team to be less permissive about issues such as drug and alcohol use.

30. In response to questions posed to him by members of the panel, Dr. Sandhu acknowledged that he did not explore the issue of travel passes and that he acknowledges that Ms. MacPherson successfully travelled to Spain for two weeks during the month of May to visit and reconnect with her father. Dr. Sandhu indicated that he is not aware of any plans in this respect but indicates that he would generally be supportive of her ability to travel provided that she is compliant with medication and the reporting provisions of her disposition.

31. With respect to driving, the conditions of Ms. MacPherson’s judicial release order prohibit her from driving at this time. Dr. Sandhu has not made a report to the Ministry of Transportation. He believes that it would appropriate to include a condition in the disposition that would permit Ms. MacPherson to drive with the permission of the person in charge of the hospital or its designate.

32. Dr. Sandhu acknowledged that the use of alcohol increases Ms. MacPherson’s violent risk and that he is aware that she has consumed some alcohol since her NCR finding and that she will need the supports of the hospital and available programming at the hospital and in the community in order to assist her with this issue. Ms. MacPherson’s judicial release order did not prohibit her from consuming substances; however, Dr. Sandhu is recommending that the disposition require her to abstain from the use of drugs and alcohol and that she be required to submit to random urine screens. According to Dr. Sandhu, Ms. MacPherson is highly motivated to abstain in order to be able to regain her driving privileges.

33. With respect to Ms. MacPherson’s insight, Dr. Sandhu believes that her insight is fairly good when she is less symptomatic. With respect to insight into to the effects of alcohol on her violent risk, this remains a work-in-progress and Dr. Sandhu acknowledges that further education is needed to help her understand the disinhibiting effect of alcohol and its impact on her life. Dr. Sandhu confirmed that in exploring the approved accommodation, access to alcohol and cannabis will be part of that assessment.

Evidence of Jason Barkley

34. Ms. MacPherson’s partner, Mr. Jason Barkley, briefly provided evidence at the hearing and indicated that though Ms. MacPherson is content to meet with Dr. Sandhu, it does require a lot of travel back and forth for them. Mr. Barkley stated that there is no marijuana in the home and that Ms. MacPherson occasionally will take a puff of cannabis when spending time out at friends’ homes. With respect to alcohol, there is alcohol in the house, but she does not touch it. When Ms. MacPherson travelled to Spain she did so between her injections at the hospital.

35. No other evidence was presented.

36. No further evidence was presented.

Submissions of the Parties

37. The Board was presented with a joint submission of all parties that Ms. MacPherson meets the threshold of significant threat to the safety of the public and that a detention order with

permission to reside in the community with the approval of the person in charge of the hospital is the necessary and appropriate disposition to manage the risk.

Analysis and Conclusion

38. Having considered all of the evidence tendered at the hearing, and the submissions of the parties, the Board finds that Ms. MacPherson meets the threshold of significant threat 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.

39. 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.

40. Ms. MacPherson has suffered from schizophrenia for several years, for which she has intermittently sought treatment. The index offence of dangerous driving was committed in the context of psychotic episode. Ms. MacPherson was driving her vehicle while her view was completely obstructed with ice and snow and fortunately, no one was harmed during this incident. Ms. MacPherson had reportedly been abusing cannabis and alcohol during her psychotic episode.

41. Ms. MacPherson has demonstrated an ability to engage in treatment and has an established therapeutic relationship with a general psychiatry treatment team at the Montfort Hospital, which will likely remain involved at some level. Ms. MacPherson is noted to have some deficits in her insight, particularly as it relates to the impact of substances on her mental condition. At this time, she is externally motivated to abstain to regain the ability to drive, which she expresses is needed for her to be able to secure and maintain employment. It is noted that Mr. MacPherson is a university-educated woman with a lengthy employment history.

42. It is early in Ms. MacPherson’s recovery. It will be important for her to engage fully with her forensic treatment team at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre to commence receiving psycho-educational support with respect to her illness and its manifestation, as well as her alcohol use disorder.

43. Ms. MacPherson appears to have good support from her current partner, Mr. Barkley, though the hospital will need to conduct a proper O.T. assessment to ensure that the current accommodation is appropriate and approved.

44. 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, her reintegration into society and her other needs, the Board finds that a detention order is the necessary and appropriate, and the least onerous and least restrictive disposition to manage the risk at this time. The disposition shall include the following conditions:

• to live in the community in approved accommodation;

• abstention from substances and the requirement to submit to random screens for substances;

• a weapons prohibition;

• permission to travel will be for a maximum period of two weeks, indirectly supervised, with an approved itinerary; and

• permission to drive but only with the prior written approval of the person in charge of the hospital or its designate.

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