Re: Jeffrey Potter
ORB File No: 8490
Hearing held on: Tuesday, July 15, 2025
Place of hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Pursuant to: Section 672.48(1) and 672.81(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: Jeffrey Potter
Counsel: Mr. J. Gilbert
The Person in charge of Hospital: Representative: Dr. A. Alabi
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. M. Dufort
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated September 10, 2025)
Introduction
- On February 16, 2024, Jeffrey Potter, who was 70 years old at the time of the hearing, was found unfit to stand trial on account of mental disorder on the following charges contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada:
Assault peace officer,
Take weapon of peace officer in execution of duty, and
Mischief/damage property not exceeding $5000.
He is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, dated June 25, 2024, that detains him at the Secure Forensic Unit of the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre (hereinafter referred to as “the Hospital”). That disposition includes privileges up to and including that of living in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge of the Hospital.
On July 15, 2025, a panel of the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing to revisit the issue of Mr. Potter’s fitness to stand trial and to review the disposition mentioned pursuant to section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Potter was present and was represented by counsel, though it is noted that from the outset of the hearing Mr. Potter was confused and expressed a belief that other counsel – an individual he named that does not appear on the Law Society of Ontario’s list of lawyers – was supposed to be attending to assist him. Mr. Potter from the outset of the hearing struggled to understand who the representative of the Attorney General was and insisted that there was no hearing taking place. Throughout the hearing Mr. Potter interjected with statements that manifest his complete lack of appreciation of both the alleged index offences, the function and purpose of the Ontario Review Board, the role of his lawyer, and the context of the Hospital’s efforts to organize appropriate services around him in a manner consistent with the objectives set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
The hearing proceeded as scheduled. The record for the hearing included the Notice of Hearing, the most recent Disposition (as mentioned, dated June 25, 2024) and the Reasons for that Disposition. On the consent of all parties, a Hospital Report, dated June 23, 2025, was entered into evidence as an exhibit.
The parties were canvassed for initial positions. Dr. Alabi, Mr. Potter’s treating psychiatrist spoke for the Hospital. He expressed the position that Mr. Potter remained unfit to stand trial, relying upon the caselaw set by the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Bharwani, 2023 ONCA 203. At the time of the hearing the Supreme Court of Canada had not yet released its decision in the same case, cited at 2025 SCC 26, 2025 S.C.C. 26. Dr. Alabi further took the position that Mr. Potter continued to represent a significant threat 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. He 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. Potter to continue to be the subject of a detention disposition.
The representative of the Attorney General joined the Hospital on all issues.
Counsel for Mr. Potter took no position on either the issue of fitness or significant threat. He expressed Mr. Potter’s position however that, if he was found to be unfit, he was seeking a conditional discharge permitting him to be sent home to what Mr. Potter insisted was a large estate with housing staff sufficient to care for his needs.
For the reasons that follow, the Board has determined that Mr. Potter both lacks a reality-based understanding of the charges he is facing and of the criminal process. That lack of a reality-based understanding of the charges and the process also makes it impossible for him to communicate meaningfully with counsel. Accordingly, we find that he is globally unfit to stand trial. The Board has also concluded that Mr. Potter continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that it would be inappropriate to refer him back to the court for consideration of a stay of his charges just as it would be inappropriate to impose any disposition upon him other than that of a detention disposition having regard to the objectives set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
Evidence at the Hearing
The evidence for the hearing came from the Hospital Report mentioned and from the live evidence offered by both Dr. Alabi and Mr. Potter himself.
Turning first to the Hospital Report, it is cumulative in nature and outlines Mr. Potter’s history, his struggles with alcohol historically, and his course while under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board. Mr. Potter is a Canadian citizen and is the youngest brother in a family of 5 children. He reports no history of abuse or neglect as a child but does have a family history of mental illness associated with his father who, as a war veteran, experienced dementia.
Mr. Potter has limited post-secondary education but a varied history of employment. He has worked as a chef at both resorts and bed and breakfasts. His last job was as a banquet chef with the Department of National Defence which terminated in January 2013 as Mr. Potter ceased showing up for work. He is now a Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security recipient. He is globally incapable and, as such, his sister acts as his substitute decision maker for the purpose of managing his financial affairs.
Mr. Potter lived independently and with friends for years prior to his frequent hospitalizations and prior to coming under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board. His sister Margaret has reported that he has struggled with keeping a clean home and would rely on others to clean for him. He had hired cleaning services to help him in the past. He engaged from time to time in hoarding. His failure to pay rent or to maintain his rental units in proper condition led to evictions both from apartments and motels that he lived in. As a result, his family helped him obtain residence in Carleton Place, which continued until he experienced a head injury in 2017. Following this he continued to struggle with maintaining housing. In 2019 he was removed from a motel he was residing at in Smith Falls after refusing to permit cleaning staff to enter for an extended period. The room was found in a malodorous state consisting of messes of faecal matter and urine from both him and his cat. The police were called, and Mr. Potter was brought to the Brockville General Hospital where he was released to a shelter.
The Hospital Report indicates that Mr. Potter had alcohol problems dating back to 1982. He had stated that he had attended residential treatment in the past. It was reported that the various injuries Mr. Potter sustained over the course of his adult life led him to begin self-medicating with alcohol and numerous prescribed and over the counter medications. Several sources report alcohol intake of at least one bottle of wine per day. Mr. Potter’s sister stated that her brother has a long history of alcohol use. His criminal record is limited to a conviction for driving with more than 80mgs of alcohol in his blood on February 9, 2012, in Orangeville, Ontario, for which he was sentenced to a fine of $100 and prohibited from driving for one year.
In terms of mental health history, Mr. Potter has historic diagnoses of generalized anxiety disorder, social phobia, post-traumatic stress disorder, ADHD, and substance use disorder. The Hospital Report indicates that he at one point reported alcohol problems dating back to 1982, though in one outburst by Mr. Potter over the course of the hearing he denied having any history of problems with consuming alcohol or substances. The Hospital Report indicates that his sister Margaret has advised of Mr. Potter’s longstanding difficulties with the secondary symptoms of major mental illness. He has demonstrated anxiety and excessive worrying, compromised ability to concentrate and poor coping skills. He has struggled with self-care and hygiene. Prior to having experienced a serious head injury, Mr. Potter was described as a calm individual. According to Margaret, since that time he has been aggressive and quick to anger. Last year’s Reasons for Disposition summarize an example provided by Margaret where Mr. Potter struck a superintendent while living in Almonte, and another incident where he hit a police officer in Perth.
The Hospital Report explains that Mr. Potter’s significant abuse of alcohol over the years has likely contributed to cognitive decline that has been exasperated by head-trauma and related neurocognitive disorders. He is currently diagnosed with:
Neurocognitive disorder related to both his history of head trauma and his history of alcohol use disorder, and
Unspecified Schizophrenia Spectrum and Other Psychotic Disorder.
- The Hospital Report includes a summary of the index offences as included in last year’s Reasons for Disposition.
“On Sunday, July 16, 2023, Ottawa Police responded to call for service at LCBO store located at 6065 Hazelden Rd. Staff were reporting that a drunk male was in the store throwing bottles of alcohol after being refused service. The male left the store. Another call was received for the intersection of Hazeldean Rd. and Stittsville Main St. of a male swearing and throwing stuff. Cst. Lathan arrived in the area where persons pointed out subject who wandered behind apartment building. She recognized male as person she had dealt with in recent past causing issues at local businesses. Cst. Lathan verbally told male to stop that he was under arrest for mischief and male walked away. She followed male while waiting for back up as he was known to be aggressive. They ended up walking to the Giant Tiger/construction site area on Hazelden Rd. As other officers were arriving Cst. Lathan engaged the male advising him he was under arrest. The male tried to pull away and struggle ensued. Male was taken to the ground. As Cst. Lathen was trying to handcuff male he punched her in the face causing some red marks. Male then grabbed a hold of Cst. Lathan's gun with both hands. Cst. Lathan delivered a strike to male who let go of the gun and started to follow directions. He was handcuffed and escorted to 474 Elgin St. Read R&C. Held for show cause.”
The Hospital Report’s update for the purposes of this hearing begins substantively at page 35. It explains that Mr. Potter made some progress in terms of a co morbid depressive disorder that was characterized by the self-neglect and other difficulties described by his sister Margaret. Mr. Potter responded well to medication and improved in hygiene and behaviour. He became less irritable, his nutritional intake improved, and he became less resistant to care. As a result of the improvements, Mr. Potter was transferred to the Hospital’s Forensic Rehabilitation Unit on January 21, 2025. Since that transfer he has ambulated well with the assistance of a two-wheeled walker. He has been able to complete the majority of the tasks of daily living on his own. He has become easily re-directable, enjoys spending time outside of his room watching the television and reading and interacting with staff. His interaction with peers is limited. His insight, as seen over the course of this hearing, is markedly poor. He endorses multiple grandiose delusions. He manifests the most irritability, as seen over the course of this hearing, when others either do not subscribe to his grandiose delusions, or when he perceives that they are not entirely in agreement with them.
In his testimony, Dr. Alabi adopted the contents of the Hospital Report. He began with an update that was forcefully interrupted by Mr. Potter regarding efforts to locate him suitable accommodation at a long-term care facility. While Dr. Alabi attempted to detail the efforts being made, Mr. Potter insisted that he did not require long-term care. He forcefully stated that he had a “big home on an estate” and “staff that can take care of me at my home.” Dr. Alabi continued with testimony that entirely aligned with the evidence found in the Hospital Report and described efforts to engage Mr. Potter in a fitness assessment. He said that these efforts were to no avail as Mr. Potter’s delusions inform his social interactions with such grandiosity that engagement in any assessment was impossible to obtain. The Board saw some of this grandiosity throughout the hearing as Mr. Potter repeatedly contested the Board’s authority and vacillated between questioning whether his lawyer was present and ordering his lawyer to “do your job and defend me.” By this it was clear that Mr. Potter was of the opinion that his lawyer should subscribe to and advocate the delusions that continue to preoccupy Mr. Potter himself.
Dr. Alabi explained that Mr. Potter remains at level 1 privileges in the Hospital meaning that Mr. Potter is currently limited to accompanied passes on the Hospital grounds. His physical health, mobility concerns and irritability make it inappropriate at this stage to grant him group passes.
Dr. Alabi provided circumstantial evidence going to Mr. Potter’s ability to maintain a reality-based approach to the criminal charges facing him. In commenting on how Mr. Potter has been settling in at the Hospital while maintaining his grandiose delusions, Dr. Alabi explained that while Mr. Potter enjoys reading, when he is engaged in discussion concerning what he is reading he will often approach the subject matter with a degree of dysfunction between what he perceives the book to be about and what it is actually addressing. In addition to this, Mr. Potter remains globally incapable. His reliance on his substitute decision maker is not likely to change over the course of the coming year.
Dr. Alabi was questioned regarding the condition in his detention disposition that requires Mr. Potter to abstain from the consuming of substances and of alcohol. While alcohol has contributed to Mr. Potter’s neurological decline and was a factor in the commission of the index offence, Mr. Potter has not drunk over the course of this past reporting period. Dr. Alabi explained that this was the case in the Hospital’s controlled environment and added that as the Hospital continues to explore appropriate accommodations for Mr. Potter, it would be his preference that the abstain condition be maintained until Mr. Potter’s desire for alcohol and ability to obtain it is tested in a setting outside of the Hospital.
Dr. Alabi explained that while Mr. Potter’s mood has improved, he is entrenched in beliefs that are enshrined in grandiose delusions. Mr. Potter, as seen in this hearing, becomes very irritable, angry, and approaches stages of aggressivity when discussing anything contradicting his beliefs surrounding what he says is his home, staff, the index offences, or the court’s jurisdiction. He explained that Mr. Potter entirely lacks insight into his mental illness, the alleged index offences, the impact of alcohol on his major mental illness and the court process in which he finds himself. As Dr. Alabi spoke to these points, Mr. Potter again forcefully interjected insisting that he does not need his medications, that they contribute to his nervous state and make his body shake and insisted that he “never drank.” He insisted loudly that his lawyer “do his job.”
Dr. Alabi did address the impact of Mr. Potter’s medications on him and said that he is hesitant to change the medications at this time. He indicated that Mr. Potter has at times insisted that the medications are contributing to a decline in his cognitive functioning. Dr. Alabi explained that, inasmuch as Mr. Potter has made some progress in settling in at the Hospital because of the medications, it is not his inclination at this time that the medications be altered, and certainly not increased, until the results of a neurological consultation are received to rule out potential organic factors that may be contributing to what appears to be a new and developing disorder. When asked again about fitness and violence risk assessments, Dr. Alabi explained that, in addition to what has been noted above, Mr. Potter refused to participate in an assessment without his lawyer being present, which would mark a significant straying from the necessary standards of application that inform the assessments’ clinical reliability. At this point Mr. Potter interjected forcefully again, saying that his lawyer had been denied entrance to the Hospital and insisting that the Board make an immediate order that his lawyer be able to attend with him. Mr. Potter did not recognize that his lawyer was, in fact, next to him, and insisted, as noted above, that his lawyer was another individual whose name does not appear on the Law Society’s list of lawyers.
Following the close of Dr. Alabi’s testimony, Mr. Potter testified. He insisted that the Ontario Review Board was not a court and lacked jurisdiction to deal with his matter or make orders concerning him. He renewed his statements as noted with regard to legal counsel that he insisted he had retained. Most importantly, in response to questions from the psychiatrist member of the panel, Mr. Potter testified that:
He was not in trouble with the law that he knows of though he was “arrested by gun-toting police and taken directly to the jail.”
He does not have any charges.
“No one has ever explained what plea options are.”
“In the court I was in, I was presumed to be guilty.”
“The judge decides if someone is guilty or not guilty, but he has no idea how the judge makes that “idea.”
“The Crown presents its position; my lawyer has to present my position. But as I was denied my lawyer at all the times I went to court, I refuse to speak, which got me into the Hospital.”
“If I was going to fight a charge, I would plead not guilty, if I knew what the charges are but I have never been charged.”
“A court appointed lawyer doesn’t know my state, status, or anything about my home. The lawyer I was expecting today was denied admission to the Hospital. I know that because he is not here.”
“I would imagine I would have to attend court in order to put this thing behind me,” this “thing” having reference to “the fact that I am in this Hospital with a bunch of crazies, and I don’t deserve to be.”
As Mr. Potter offered his evidence, he grew increasingly elevated and argumentative. Both by his tenor and the content of his testimony, it was clear that he lacked any reality-based ability to either appreciate the alleged offences, the nature of the criminal process, or possessed the capacity to communicate with counsel in any meaningful way. He repeatedly stated that a “Keith Beckwith” was his lawyer and denied recollection of having any number of other lawyers represent him in the initial court process as presented to him by the representative of the Attorney General. When the representative of the Attorney General confronted him with an assertion he made on November 8, 2023, during a court appearance that he had retained a lawyer called “Richard Chamberlain,” Mr. Potter replied, “I did not ever say anything as stupid as that on a court appearance.”
Repeatedly, in addition to what has been noted here, Mr. Potter interrupted the hearing, displayed irritability and an inability to process the outstanding allegations made against him or the purpose of this hearing.
Submissions
At the end of the hearing the Board received final submissions from Dr. Alabi on the part of the Hospital. In receiving the Hospital’s submissions from Dr. Alabi, the panel was faced with a seeming contradiction. On the one hand, Dr. Alabi began the hearing and his submissions saying that Mr. Potter continued to be unfit to stand trial. He then said that Mr. Potter “was able to answer the fitness questions put to him by the psychiatrist member of the panel.” Given the Hospital’s initial position, as well as the clear evidence that Mr. Potter can neither communicate effectively with counsel (applying the test for unfitness as it was in law at the time of the hearing), nor had an ability to approach the charges against him in a reality-based manner (applying the current state of the law as expressed after Mr. Potter’s hearing by the Supreme Court of Canada), the panel must conclude that Dr. Alabi was speaking to the fact that Mr. Potter had shown over the hearing that he had the ability to engage in an assessment, not that Mr. Potter’s answers to questions put to him indicated that he had “passed the fitness assessment.” In any event, as has been noted above, the Board had no difficulty whatsoever in concluding that Mr. Potter remained unfit to stand trial.
The representative of the Attorney General also argued that Mr. Potter remained unfit and that he represented such a risk that a detention disposition continued to be appropriate. She focused on the rigidity of Mr. Potter’s grandiose delusions and highlighted the complex nature of the trial proceedings that were outstanding. Pointing to Mr. Potter’s demeanor and evidence, she addressed factors that supported the conclusion that he could not communicate meaningfully with counsel. The factors she pointed to also support the conclusion that Mr. Potter is unable to approach the criminal allegations facing him in any reality-based manner.
Counsel for Mr. Potter took no position on the issue of fitness and fairly observed the overwhelming evidence that supported the Crown’s position that the Bharwani test, as it then was, had been satisfied. He reiterated that his client maintains concerns that the doctors at the Hospital are not “real doctors,” that “real lawyers” have not been seeking to assist him, and that Mr. Potter has “no charges against him.” He explained that Mr. Potter is still seeking a conditional discharge so that he can return to, what Mr. Potter says, is a “big home on a large estate with staff” that can care for him.
Analysis and Conclusion
Since the hearing, the Supreme Court of Canada has released its decision in R. v. Bharwani, 2025 SCC 26. That decision refined and restated the test to be applied where the presumption of fitness to stand trial is being displaced. While the Supreme Court of Canada did not discard the contextual approach and importance of an individual’s ability to meaningfully communicate with counsel when considering fitness, it framed the entire analysis around the question of whether an individual is able to approach the criminal process in a reality-based manner. In this regard, one could consider questions such as whether an individual’s major mental illness negates that person’s ability to mount a substantive defence or respond to allegations made. It may negate the ability to understand plea options or their consequences or the nature and circumstances of the charges themselves. It may negate the ability to understand or accept the roles of individuals involved in the criminal process. It may result in an impossibility of meaningful dialogue with counsel. This is by no means an exhaustive list of the ways in which lack of reality-based ability to process and pursue a legal defence may give rise to a finding of unfitness. Nor are each of these considerations required to establish unfitness on a balance of probabilities. One or several of these factors may lead to a lack of fitness that cannot be addressed by any form of trial accommodation. It is noted of course that the purpose of accommodation in this context is not to ensure trial fairness in the face of problems with fitness. Available accommodation, to be a consideration, would have to be considered to address lack of fitness itself.
In Mr. Potter’s circumstances, there are several factors that establish that he is unable to respond to the allegations facing him in any reality-based manner. Mr. Potter suffers from severe delusions driven by apparent neurological trauma that has been complicated by a history of significant levels of alcohol use. His lack of fitness is manifest not just in his irritability and the rigidity of his delusions, but in the fact that those same delusions negate any ability on his part to appreciate or even process the nature and circumstances of the allegations he is facing, the reality of the fact that he is facing serious criminal charges, that persons involved in the legal process are indeed endowed with authority to perform their several functions, and that there is a plea process that influences ultimate outcomes. Mr. Potter has no capacity in such a context to communicate effectively with counsel for the purpose of organizing a defence and response to the allegations facing him. Mr. Potter’s cognitive difficulties, delusions and rigidity are not exclusive to the criminal process facing him but are generalized impacting on his relationships with treatment providers, other patients, his understanding of his housing circumstances and even on his ability to express and understand the books he is reading. The evidence, as mentioned above, was overwhelming that, at this point, Mr. Potter is unfit to stand trial.
The Board is also convinced that it would be inappropriate to refer Mr. Potter back to the court for a recommended stay of proceedings, having regard to the significant threat he continues to pose to the safety of the public. Though the Hospital Report did not include a formal Violence Risk Assessment, yet the evidence clearly established that Mr. Potter continues to suffer from the same delusions and irritability that gave rise to serious index offences. Mr. Potter is insistent that others engage with him in his delusional content. When they do not comply, he becomes irritable and aggressive. This was not just noted in the evidence provided to the Board but in Mr. Potter’s comportment over the course of the hearing. Looking to section 672.54 of the Criminal Code, the Board has real concerns associated with ensuring the safety of the public were Mr. Potter referred back to the court for a recommended stay, or were he offered a conditional discharge. Mr. Potter has no apparent accommodation in the community. His delusional notions of a large house on an estate staffed with individuals who can care for him would leave him confused, lost, homeless, irritable, and aggressive. In such a setting there is a real likelihood that he would seek alcohol as, it is alleged, he did over the course of the index offences. There is a real likelihood that in such stressful circumstances he would commit serious criminal offences that risk serious psychological or physical harm to members of the public; to say nothing of the impact such a course would also have on Mr. Potter’s mental health and other needs. His lack of insight into the alleged offences, his major mental illness, his need for medication, and the impact alcohol has had and would likely have on him again if made available to him, are all serious considerations weighing in favor of the recommended detention disposition.
Mr. Potter requires neurological consultation and a continuation of support regarding medication. The Hospital also requires a detention disposition so as to find him appropriate housing suitable to his needs. It may be that once Mr. Potter settles into appropriate accommodations, he will maintain his delusional content and yet be satisfied with the staff, room, and circumstances at that location, as he has at the Hospital. At that time, and if treatment helps with the concerning levels of irritability and aggressivity noted above, it may be that persistence in his delusions will make Mr. Potter no more of a threat to the public than any other person experiencing troublesome neurocognitive decline. But as Dr. Alabi said over the course of his evidence, these are early days in the seeking of appropriate accommodations and the testing of Mr. Potter’s ability in those circumstances to abstain from alcohol, adhere to treatment, comply with rules and cope with stresses driven by his delusional content.
Accordingly, the Board finds that Mr. Potter continues to be unfit to stand trial and that he continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. It has determined that a continuation of the detention disposition is necessary and appropriate having regard to the primary objective of assuring the safety of the public as well as having regard to the other objectives set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code. An order will issue accordingly.
The Board thanks all of those that assisted and participated in this hearing and encourages Mr. Potter in his engagement with the treatment team as he goes through this next period of review.
DATED this 10th day of September 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
D. Sandor
Legal Member
___________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board