Re: Adam Stoney
ORB File No: 7503
Hearing held on: Thursday, September 4, 2025
Place of hearing: North Bay Regional Health Centre – North Bay Site
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. C. Fromstein
Members: Dr. S. Lessard
Dr. M. Kalia
Mr. E. Siebenmorgen
Mr. A. Mete
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Adam Stoney
Counsel: Mr. B. Perrin
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Mr. P. Trenker
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. D. McCaig
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated September 15, 2025)
Introduction
[1]. On February 21, 2019, Adam Stoney was found not criminally responsible (“NCR”) on charges of assault with a weapon (x2), carry a concealed weapon, break and enter into a dwelling house, and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, all contrary to the Criminal Code. Mr. Stoney was most recently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB” or “the Board”) dated November 4, 2024, ordering his detention at the North Bay Regional Health Centre – North Bay Site (“NBRHC” or “the Hospital”) subject to various terms and conditions, up to and including indirectly supervised access to the community within the Hospital’s catchment area.
[2]. On September 4, 2025, a panel of the Board convened to hold a hearing to review Mr. Stoney’s Disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Stoney was present for his hearing and was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings.
[3]. The issues to be determined were whether Mr. Stoney represents a significant threat to the safety of the public within the meaning of s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and, if so, the necessary and appropriate disposition to manage that risk having regard to the criteria set out in s. 672.54 of the Code.
[4]. At the commencement of the hearing, counsel for the Hospital confirmed its position, as stated in the Hospital Report, that Mr. Stoney no longer represents a significant threat to the safety of the public and that accordingly it was recommending an Absolute Discharge. Counsel candidly pointed out that the Hospital’s written recommendation erroneously relied upon a dissenting opinion from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada. Counsel stated that despite the misstatement, the Hospital’s position remained the same.
[5]. Counsel for the Attorney General reserved her position. Counsel for Mr. Stoney adopted the Hospital’s recommendation.
[6]. In closing submissions, the Hospital and Mr. Stoney maintained their initial positions. Counsel for the Attorney General submitted that Mr. Stoney continued to represent a significant threat. She submitted that the necessary and appropriate Disposition was a Conditional Discharge. Asked whether they wished to advance alternate positions in the event that the panel were to make a finding of significant threat, counsel for the Hospital and for Mr. Stoney each sought a Conditional Discharge in that event. The Hospital sought terms reflecting a Conditional Discharge ordered in 2023, with no abstinence requirement in relation to non-prescription drugs. Counsel for Mr. Stoney submitted that the Conditional Discharge ought to permit his client to work anywhere in the Province of Ontario upon his provision of his contact information to the Hospital.
[7]. For the Reasons set out below, the panel found, unanimously, that Mr. Stoney represents a significant threat to the safety of the public. Having so found, the panel found that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Conditional Discharge, with terms as outlined and discussed at the conclusion of these Reasons.
Evidence for the Hearing
[8]. The Board received documentary evidence in the form of a Hospital Report dated July 10, 2025, marked as Exhibit 1. The Board also heard viva voce testimony from Dr. J.G. Gagnon, Mr. Stoney’s current treating psychiatrist.
Index Offences
[9]. The circumstances of the index offences are contained in the Hospital Report. They are excerpted from last year’s Reasons for Disposition, as follows:
“The following was culled directly from the Case File Synopsis of the Timmins Police Service, dated June 7, 2018:
Count #1: Assault with a Weapon, Sec. 26 7(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada
Count #2: Carrying Concealed Weapon, Sec. 90 of the Criminal Code of Canada
Court Synopsis Count 1 & 2
On May 27, 2018, at approximately 8:41pm, police were dispatched to the front lobby of the Timmins Police building to speak with the complainant in regard to an incident that occurred at approximately 5:45pm, at the victim, J.P. ‘s residence in the City of Timmins. The accused, Adam Stoney had attended the victim’s residence in attempts to locate a male. When the victim informed Stoney that the male in question no longer resided at that address, Stoney asked if he could enter the residence to check for himself. The victim told him no, he could not come in and attempted to close the door. Stoney began to push harder on the door and tried to gain access to the residence. P. reached down to hold onto his dog and was pushing the door closed with his other hand. When P. looked up, he observed the end of what appeared to be a knife in Stoney’s hand. Stoney then swung his arm and struck P. in the face with the knife causing a cut on P.’s face, below his lip on the left side of his face; thus, committing the offence of Assault with a Weapon and Carrying a Concealed Weapon.
P. recalls seeing Stoney at the apartment a few times before when he still had a roommate, however he only knew him as “Stoney”. P. identified Stoney via a photo line-up.
On June 1, 2018, Stoney was located and arrested, cautioned and read his Rights to Counsel. Stoney spoke with Counsel of choice. Stoney was charged accordingly with Assault with a Weapon and Carrying a Concealed Weapon. Stoney was released on a Promise to Appear with several conditions. He is scheduled to attend court on July 17, 2018, at 9:30am.
The following was culled directly from the Case File Synopsis of the Timmins Police Service, dated June 12, 2018:
Count #1: Breaking, Entering, and Committing Contrary to Section 348(1) (b) of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Count #2: Assault with a Weapon Contrary to Section 267 (a) of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Count #3: Weapon: Possession for Dangerous Purpose Contrary to Section 88 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Court Synopsis for Count #1 — Count #3
On June 11, 2018, the victim, D.R. and his friend S.H. were at his residence located in the city of Timmins. At approximately 16:50 hrs, the accused, Adam Stoney attended R.’s residence uninvited. Stoney entered the residence without being granted access by any occupant of the apartment and proceeded to R.’s room where he began to demand money. When R. advised Stoney that he did not have any money to give him, Stoney began stabbing R. with a knife on the left side of his face just outside of his bedroom. H., who was in the neighbouring bedroom, was able to witness the assault and observed Stoney run out of the residence after the attack. Moments after, R. ‘s girlfriend K. G., attended the scene and immediately called 911 for assistance.
At 17:10hrs, Constable McGaghran located Stoney in the parking lot of 320 Second Avenue in the city of Timmins. At that time Stoney was advised that he was being placed under arrest for aggravated assault. He was read his rights to counsel and caution and requested to speak with S.D. As a result of being searched incident to arrest, a steak knife was located in the pocket of his pants. Stoney was transported to the Timmins Police office. As a result of further investigation, at 19:07hrs Stoney was advised that he was being charged with breaking, entering and committing, assault with a weapon and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose. He then spoke with [his lawyer] and was held in police custody pending a bail hearing.
R. sustained two superficial cuts on the left side of his face which did not require stitches.”
General History/Background
[10]. The Hospital Report provides the details of Mr. Stoney’s history and background and has been reviewed by the panel. That information need not be fully summarized in these Reasons, as the Hospital Report is in evidence. Salient information is highlighted as necessary to inform the panel’s analysis of the issues.
[11]. In brief, Mr. Stoney is 33 years old and was 26 at the time of the index offences. He is single and has no children. He is Indigenous and was born in Timmins, Ontario. His parents are both teachers and reportedly live in Attawapiskat. While it is unclear from the Hospital Report where Mr. Stoney lived during his earlier years, there are references in his criminal record and in the record of his hospital admissions suggesting that he spent time in both Timmins and Attawapiskat. Mr. Stoney had two older brothers and a younger sister. According to his mother, Mr. Stoney has both paternal and maternal cousins who have been diagnosed with schizophrenia, reportedly substance induced. Mr. Stoney reportedly has a grade 12 education, completed while in correctional custody. He had no employment history prior to the index offences.
[12]. Mr. Stoney began drinking alcohol at the age of seven or eight years, became a regular drinker at the age of sixteen and acknowledged that by the age of eighteen he was abusing alcohol. He reported experiencing blackouts from drinking, having the “shakes” the next day, and said that his alcohol use affected his education.
[13]. Mr. Stoney has used marijuana from the age of nine to the day of his arrest for the index offences. He stated that he would smoke five to six “joints” every day. He was also taking crystal methamphetamine before his arrest and was “going off anything I could get my hands on”. He was taking amphetamine pills daily and acknowledged that he was “shooting up heroin” every day until his arrest. He used cocaine “not too much” but took it the day before his arrest. He also tried a half a blotter of “acid” the week of the arrest. He had not used ecstasy for one year or mushrooms for “quite some time”.
[14]. Prior to the index offences, Mr. Stoney had a significant criminal record. That record, current to June 7, 2018, is reproduced in the Hospital Report. Notably, beginning in 2009 and continuing to 2017, there are many convictions for failing to comply with various forms of court orders, particularly failing to comply with dispositions and with probation orders (the former in the youth justice context). There are five convictions, dating from his youth to his adult years, for assault with a weapon. In addition, he has one conviction for aggravated assault, assault, and carrying a concealed weapon, plus two convictions for uttering threats. There is no information concerning the circumstances of these offences.
Psychiatric History
[15]. This information is reviewed in some detail below, as it is necessary to appreciate the link connecting Mr. Stoney’s mental condition, his use of substances, his psychotic symptoms, and his violent behaviours. There is a lengthy history of substance use exacerbating his mental condition.
[16]. Mr. Stoney’s first reported psychiatric admission was in November of 2015, when he was 23 years old. He self-reported having consumed cocaine and cannabis prior to his admission, was diagnosed with drug-induced psychosis at discharge, and was prescribed olanzapine. He had experienced several weeks of increasingly aggressive behaviour that was accompanied by a change in his mood, persecutory beliefs, and possible threats to harm. He made statements such as “I’m the true son of God”, expressed paranoid beliefs that people were trying to poison him and/or control his mind, and expressed threats that “people are going to pay” and “I’m going to kill the beast” – referring to his father. His father reported that his son’s unusual beliefs had become increasingly worse with his drug use. He stated that his psychiatric symptoms started years before and recalled a breakup with a girlfriend two years before. He called her a “jezebel” and a witch. He referred to himself as a king and said people were doing witchcraft against him. He also talked about people following him, that everyone was against him and out to harm him.
[17]. Mr. Stoney’s second admission, from February to March of 2017, occurred approximately two months following his release from prison. He had been expressing persecutory ideas and threats to harm family members. He acknowledged smoking “weed” as recently as the day of admission and also used speed and alcohol. He received injectable antipsychotic medication, acknowledged that it was helpful, and expressed a desire to continue with it.
[18]. Two weeks later, on March 31, 2017, he was brought to hospital, actively seeking help, by his CMHA worker who observed that Mr. Stoney was showing signs of early relapse and had been non-adherent to his medications. He had reportedly been discharged from prison two weeks earlier, was released without any medication and had been using cannabis. The hospital note reported that Mr. Stoney stated that over the last week “others have been performing witchcraft on him, and there is a secret order of Jezebels that has been trying to get at home [sic – him?]”. Mr. Stoney settled quickly in hospital and agreed to an increase in the dose of his long-acting injectable medication (Risperidone Consta). He was discharged with diagnoses of schizophrenia and substance use (cannabis) disorder. He attended Diversity Living (a semi-supported accommodation) with his CMHA worker and agreed to be discharged to that residence.
[19]. Mr. Stoney continued to be followed in Timmins by an outpatient psychiatry service, though continued to use cannabis, until the end of May 2017. At that time, he missed his scheduled Risperidone injection, could not be located, and had failed to pay his rent. He was discharged from the outpatient service. Mr. Stoney had three further psychiatric admissions in 2017 and 2018, the last ending just days before the first index offences. His discharge diagnoses on these occasions were listed as follows:
June 26-July 6, 2017 - schizophrenia and substance use disorder (speed and cannabis);
January 20-January 21, 2018 – schizophrenia vs. substance-induced psychosis; and
May 9-May 25, 2018 – schizophrenia.
[20]. On January 20, 2018, Mr. Stoney was brought to hospital by police. He had been taking his clothes off in public and punched his sister and a stranger, stating that they may have killed his baby. His sister reported that he was on a “rampage” and “wants to hurt everybody”. A knife was found in his pants, and blood on his clothing. He refused to say how it got there, stating “that was last week…they were doing black magic…I had to fight back”. On admission, he was subjected to both physical and chemical restraints. He admitted to using numerous drugs, including heroin and speed. He had previously been on the mental health unit from June 26 to July 6, 2017, and presented to the hospital’s emergency department the previous week for homicidal ideation. He had violent themes of people wanting to kill him and wanting to defend himself. He was described as acutely psychotic and had auditory hallucinations.
[21]. During this admission, Mr. Stoney got into a physical altercation with security and nursing staff. His escalation of agitation and violence was reportedly unprovoked, and unexpected. He was placed in seclusion and kept in four-point restraints. Police were contacted and charges were laid by staff. Timmins Police took him off the ward to jail as it was deemed that his risk of aggression could not be safely contained on the unit.
[22]. After three months at the Monteith Correctional Complex, Mr. Stoney was released at the end of April 2018. On May 9th, he was admitted to hospital after his family called the police with concerns that he was behaving strangely, making threats, talking about secret societies and conspiracies, and was stabbing pictures on the wall with a knife. When brought to the emergency room he spat at professionals. He accused his parents of sexually abusing him and admitted to not having slept for several days out of fear he would be killed by members of different cults. He had not been adherent to his prescribed antipsychotic medication. His urine was positive for speed and cannabis.
[23]. Mr. Stoney reported being off his medications for some time, having last taken his Risperidone injection on March 27, 2018. His statements included that his family was heavily involved in a sex cult and that the Nishnawbe-Aski Police Service was aware. He stated that they were into witchcraft and magic and were using that to control his mind. He stated that he had to study “Lucifer and the depth of the abyss” to protect himself. He stated that “they claimed that he violated the laws in the spiritual realm and have warned him that he is not allowed to expose the church in the physical realm”. Mr. Stoney further stated that he designates himself as the CEO of “The Israeli General Reconnaissance Homeland Security Defense Force” but is now being investigated as a terrorist and a sovereigntist. He is being investigated by “the correctional intelligence security unit” in North Bay…. He believes the spiritual realm is very real and “they” can implant thoughts into your consciousness via electronic devices. He called this technique “black ghoul”. He stated that he did not understand why he was hearing voices before but now did. He has studied with witch doctors “the reverse psychiatry secret society, black masters, music, etc.” He claimed to have a gift of telepathy.
[24]. As his medications were optimized, he was no longer preoccupied with conspiracy delusions or thoughts that his parents had assaulted him. Psychoeducation was provided regarding antipsychotic medications and side effects, as well as his substance use. Unfortunately, on May 25, 2018, Mr. Stoney became abusive toward nursing staff and physically violent, flipping a table. A code white was triggered. His Form 3 certificate was rescinded, and Mr. Stoney was discharged to police custody. Two days later, the first of the index offences occurred.
[25]. Mr. Stoney was in custody at the Monteith Correctional Centre following his arrest, from June 12 to October 23, 2018. He initially refused to be seen by a psychiatrist. He became agitated and aggressive and was restarted on medications. On June 22, he presented with sexually inappropriate behaviour with female officers, was threatening to spit at staff, was laughing oddly, and had an elevated affect. For some time, he remained acutely psychotic and floridly manic. He had notable irritability, pressured speech, and a flight of ideas. His thought process was disorganized, and he expressed many delusions of persecution, grandiosity and violent themes. By July 4, a marked change to his mental status was noted. He had greatly reduced irritability, and no pressured speech. His thought process was more organized, and he did not present with delusions of persecution, grandiosity or violent themes.
[26]. Mr. Stoney was admitted to the Provincial Forensic Programs Division at Waypoint (“Waypoint”) from October 25 to December 7, 2018, for his criminal responsibility assessment. He provided a self-report of the index offences during that assessment, notes of which are contained in the Hospital Report. In general terms, he described being affected by paranoid delusions and command hallucinations prior to and at the time of the offences and described not sleeping for extended periods of time prior to each occasion. He also listed various substances that he had consumed, including LSD, crystal methamphetamine, crack cocaine and heroin. He referred to a “Project Blue Beam” that he said was going on prior to his arrest and that he believed led to it.
Course Following the Verdict
[27]. After his readmission to Waypoint following the NCR verdict, Mr. Stoney remained on Risperidone Consta. He reported finding the medication helpful, in that it reduced his agitation. He said that he had not felt paranoid in a long time and had also not experienced hallucinations. He expressed willingness to continue with all his medications.
[28]. The Report prepared for his initial ORB hearing indicated that Mr. Stoney reported feeling less agitated and calmer. He stated that he no longer felt like anyone was after him. Asked about “Project Blue Beam”, he said that he no longer had thoughts of that, and when asked if this is due to the medication, he agreed. Mr. Stoney said he was interested in participating in substance use counselling and anger management. He was in preliminary stages of planning interventions with Waypoint’s Native Leader. He reported an extensive history of using "opiates" which included crack cocaine and heroin. He reported a very limited employment history and confirmed that he often supported himself by selling drugs.
[29]. During his first year at NBRHC, Mr. Stoney began to meet with Ms. Marsden, the Concurrent Disorders Clinician, to address his substance use. Together, they developed a personal relapse prevention plan for him. In addition, he attended three groups to address his substance use: Dual Recovery; Medication Adherence; and the Relapse Prevention group. He completed a DBT-based Skills System Program with the Program’s Behaviour Therapist. This program was designed to help individuals with emotional regulation and helps individuals develop skills in the areas of distress tolerance, interpersonal relationships, and problem solving. He also attended culturally based anger management sessions at the North Bay Indigenous Friendship Centre, as well as personal skill building groups that focused on learning about intergenerational trauma. The following observation from Mr. Stoney’s 2019-2020 reporting period appears in the Hospital Report and bears emphasis:
“Mr. Stoney appears quite motivated to change his past cycle of discontinuing his psychotropic medication, resuming the use of street drugs, and then becoming mentally unwell. He intends to involve himself in drug awareness, relapse prevention, and maintaining a healthy lifestyle.”
[30]. Mr. Stoney continued taking advantage of substance use treatment opportunities during the 2020-2021 reporting year. He attended the Dual Recovery group, and it was reported that he was very committed to abstaining from the use of substances, acknowledging that remaining sober will play a big part in reaching his future goals. He attended and completed a four-week online treatment program through Ngwaagan Gamig Recovery Centre (Rainbow Lodge). The group facilitator reported that Mr. Stoney had done very well in this program and felt he was on track to continue to do so. In April of 2021, Mr. Stoney began attending the group “Using the Medicine Wheel for Relapse Prevention” facilitated by the Concurrent Disorders Clinician and the Aboriginal Mental Health worker.
[31]. Following a period of symptom-free stability while taking a longer-acting injectable medication (paliperidone palmitate), Mr. Stoney’s psychiatrist discontinued this medication on June 21, 2021, to determine whether he could maintain mental stability in the absence of antipsychotic medication. He remained free of symptoms.
[32]. On February 1, 2022, Mr. Stoney transitioned to Maplewood Transition House, a home in North Bay designed to support and prepare individuals for independent living. The home was staffed out of the Hospital’s Forensic Program. He was described as a highly motivated individual, continued to meet with his Concurrent Disorders Clinician and accessed the cultural services offered at the Indigenous Friendship Centre. He also obtained his G2 driver’s license and enrolled in a heavy equipment operator’s course. He began to explore the possibility of employment with a mining company near his home community (Mattagami First Nation). In April of 2022, Mr. Stoney started work with a local welding company in North Bay and was working 10 hours per day, Monday to Thursday.
[33]. Mr. Stoney abstained from drugs and alcohol following his discharge to Maplewood House. His urine drug samples returned with negative results and Mr. Stoney denied experiencing cravings or urges to use substances. He continued to show no signs of mental health instability despite taking no psychotropic medication. During the 2022-2023 reporting period, Mr. Stoney used privileges to visit with family in Mattagami First Nation as well as to attend a training program in the town of Haileybury. There were no reported issues with his compliance during these trips. Maplewood House staff reported that Mr. Stoney did not pose management issues since his transition to the home.
[34]. The Hospital recommended an Absolute Discharge at Mr. Stoney’s April 27, 2023, ORB hearing. The Board ordered a Conditional Discharge but removed his previous substance abstinence term. After receiving a copy of the Disposition in May, Mr. Stoney stated that he wanted to continue pursuing his goals of obtaining full-time employment, living independently and visiting with friends and family. His treatment team advised that he could remain at Maplewood House if he complied with the rules. He did so for a short time but began engaging in rule-breaking behaviour later in May and June.
[35]. Shortly after a treatment team meeting in June, a urine drug screen obtained from Mr. Stoney on May 26, 2023, returned with positive results for oxycodone, cocaine and cannabis. Thereafter, urine drug screen samples provided on June 20 and 21, 2023 returned positive for cannabis. At a meeting on June 27, Mr. Stoney was unwilling to engage in any issues related to his recent drug use, other than to deny using substances at or bringing drug paraphernalia to Maplewood House. He gave up his keys to his room at Maplewood House later that day. When he returned to pick up some of his belongings on July 27, he acknowledged having smoked cannabis. His mood was noted to be elevated with a lot of laughing. He denied having used any other substances. His urine drug screen results from May through July 21, 2023, were:
May 26, 2023 – positive for oxycodone, cocaine, cannabis;
June 20, 2023 – positive for oxycodone, fentanyl, benzodiazepines, clonazepam, cocaine, cocaine metabolite, cannabis;
June 22, 2023 – positive for oxycodone, fentanyl, benzodiazepines, clonazepam, cocaine, cocaine metabolite and cannabis;
July 5, 2023 – positive for oxycodone, fentanyl, cocaine, cocaine metabolite and cannabis; and
July 21, 2023 – positive for oxycodone, fentanyl, benzodiazepines, clonazepam, cocaine, cocaine metabolite and cannabis.
[36]. On July 31, 2023, the outreach team was advised that Mr. Stoney had been arrested and charged with assault, assault with a weapon (two counts) and robbery with violence. He was in custody at the North Bay Jail. A synopsis of the allegations is reproduced in the Hospital Report and has been reviewed by the panel.
[37]. It is reported that Mr. Stoney lunged at a nurse who was attending to a physical injury that he had suffered while in the North Bay Jail. He was upset that the nurse had declined his request for Tylenol earlier in the day.
[38]. Mr. Stoney was readmitted to the Hospital from the jail on October 30, 2023. On admission, he displayed hypomanic traits. He was elated, loud, and intrusive. He voiced extreme excitement about being back in the hospital. Staff described him as being grandiose and tangential with flight of ideas. Following an initial denial, he admitted to his psychiatrist that he had consumed both Suboxone and crystal methamphetamine while in custody. He stated a desire to take the opportunity (presented by his hospital readmission) to improve himself mentally, physically, and spiritually. He made almost immediate attempts to engage with all available services within the Hospital. His actual involvement, however, was inconsistent.
[39]. Mr. Stoney resumed sessions with his Concurrent Disorders Clinician. A note that she made shortly after his readmission contains the following observations:
“Adam . . . mentioned books that he purchased which were delivered to the jail, he ordered many witchcraft, Lucifer, and other books of the same variety. This sparked a lengthy conversation about a cult he firmly believes is controlling everything around him. This cult focuses on sexual deviation amongst other things. It started with being involved in a secret 3 day ceremony that happened on Oct 28, 29 and 30, 2014, the 30th being ‘devil’s night,’ he noted that he cried for many days after this as he believed he had been deemed the devil during this ceremony. His parents were also actively involved, his father being the leader, although he does not call them mom/dad due to lots of resentment he feels towards them. He feels that when he alerted them about his older brother molesting him from as early as he could remember up until the age of 9, they ignored him and, in fact, influenced the hospital to hospitalize Adam for a short period of time until he would state he was lying about the sexual abuse, and eventually get discharged, again his parents controlling same. He firmly believes the cult influenced his brother to act out the sexual abuse. He also believes the lifestyle he chose of ‘being a gangster’ upset this cult and ‘they were worried I would expose them’ so they influenced his NCR finding. He blames this cult for taking the lives of many as ‘sacrifices’ and states he could easily name 74 people, including his brother who passed, ‘He didn’t OD, it was a cover up for a murder.’ Prior to his index offence, he stated he had thought about killing someone and carving ‘I am being chased by aliens’ into their face to prove the cult is real.”
[40]. Mr. Stoney progressed well, earning several increases in privileges and on January 23, 2024, he was deemed appropriate to transfer to Owl Lodge, a rehabilitation unit. In the period following this transfer, however, his mental status became concerning. In February of 2024, on the advice of his psychiatrist, Mr. Stoney started receiving paliperidone palmitate injections, which he had tolerated well in the past. His general mental status improved over the next several months.
[41]. Mr. Stoney tested positive for cannabis on May 24, 2024, on a urine drug screen. He acknowledged having consumed cannabis edibles. He demonstrated no insight into his addiction issues and refused to follow a structured addictions group. Though he met with a Concurrent Disorders Clinician, the sessions were used to work on pro-social behaviours instead of his addiction issues. In June, the possibility of attending an addictions treatment program was reviewed, but Mr. Stoney declined. Asked whether he believed that he had an addiction issue Mr. Stoney replied, "All I say is that I would decline treatment.”
[42]. On July 10, 2024, a co-patient divulged that he had given his Wellbutrin to Mr. Stoney. His urine drug screen was positive for Wellbutrin metabolites. When nursing staff spoke to Mr. Stoney about the positive drug screen, he admitted to taking Wellbutrin, stating that someone brought it to the unit for him.
The Current Reporting Period
[43]. Mr. Stoney began to refuse his injectable antipsychotic medication in November of 2024, stating that he did not have a primary psychotic diagnosis. Since that time, Mr. Stoney has reportedly not expressed any thoughts of paranoia, suicidal ideation, homicidal ideation, mania or any psychotic symptoms. He has continued his sessions with his Concurrent Disorders Clinician, but rather than addressing addiction issues, he used the sessions as an opportunity to vent his frustrations with the forensic system, his lack of progress through it, and his former (prior to January 2025) psychiatrist. Occupational therapy involvement focused on distress tolerance skills and how to navigate distressful situations in a pro-social manner. Mr. Stoney has demonstrated increased competency in this area.
[44]. By May 2025, his engagement with recovery-oriented activities had improved. After responsibility for his psychiatric treatment was transferred to Dr. Gagnon in January 2025, Mr. Stoney expressed a desire to remain sober, acknowledging that substance use frequently leads to paranoia and aggression. While still struggling with taking full accountability for his past behaviors, he showed interest in understanding the impact of early and prolonged substance use on his emotional development and impulse control.
[45]. On April 8, 2025, following a prolonged period of relative stability, Mr. Stoney was transferred to Osprey Lodge, the least restrictive unit within the Hospital’s forensic program. He has been actively involved with Mînowacihewin – Regional Service for Indigenous People (MINO), where he attends smudging and other activities. Mr. Stoney has also attended the North Bay Indigenous Hub (NBIH) where he works with the cultural practitioner and utilizes the NBIH Cultural Services. This includes working with an Indigenous Elder, utilizing traditional medicines, partaking in cultural ceremonies, counselling services, and other cultural events/workshops. He reports that this is a service that he would like to utilize as much as possible once he is discharged from hospital.
[46]. Mr. Stoney maintains significant contact with his family, who remain supportive. He speaks to his parents frequently. His family (mother, father, brother, two nephews and two nieces) visited on August 8, 2024. Mr. Stoney was happy to see them. It is noted that his past conflicts with family have been during his psychotic episodes.
[47]. Mr. Stoney has secured part-time employment and has been working, using his indirectly supervised community passes, since May 27, 2025.
[48]. The Hospital assisted Mr. Stoney with obtaining suitable accommodation in the community. He has been accepted into SUSWIN Village, an Indigenous led and culturally focused housing in the community for Indigenous men who need a place to live.
[49]. Mr. Stoney has reported feeling overwhelmed at times, particularly regarding the potential impact of employment on his ODSP benefits. He stated that financial stress contributes to racing thoughts and anxiety and he has linked this cognitive pattern to impulsive behavior. He was receptive to strategies related to distress tolerance. During an interview with Dr. Gagnon on June 12, 2025, Mr. Stoney raised concerns about not earning enough money at his current job to live independently and expressed that he wanted to stay at the Hospital. He made veiled threats that if the Hospital attempted to force him out, he would self sabotage in order to stay. Despite these concerns, when offered assistance with budgeting, he refused and was not open to discussing the matter further.
[50]. An updated psychological risk assessment for Mr. Stoney was completed on June 27, 2025. The overall opinion was that his:
absolute violent risk is moderate;
risk for future violence is high (without all the supports in place);
risk for serious physical harm (i.e., severity of the violence) is high; and
risk for imminent violence is moderate (given all the supports in place).
Evidence of Dr. Gagnon
[51]. Dr. Gagnon, as noted above, became Mr. Stoney’s treating psychiatrist in January. He stated that he has met with Mr. Stoney approximately 10 times in the ensuing months, in addition to meeting with his treatment team and receiving input from them. He described the most recent 12-month reporting period as a successful one for Mr. Stoney.
[52]. Dr. Gagnon specifically noted Mr. Stoney’s employment over the last several months. He described the work as hard and physical, stating that Mr. Stoney sometimes returns from work feeling sore, though he works out before and afterward. He works five to six days per week. He has managed the stressors associated with the job and the demands of the work itself. Dr. Gagnon referred to a relatively recent incident when a chemical spill occurred at work. Mr. Stoney was upset due to being potentially exposed to dangerous chemicals and experienced a degree of somatization.
[53]. Dr. Gagnon repeatedly spoke of Mr. Stoney’s resolve to remain abstinent from substances. Dr. Gagnon stated that Mr. Stoney has said that he does not want to experience drug-induced psychosis again and is therefore not going to use drugs in the future. He has said, “I don’t want this chaos in my life.” He has decided to follow the rules in the future and not commit crimes. In the past, he associated with people “in the streets”, including drug dealers, and he stated that he wants to stay away from this. Dr. Gagnon stated, “I really believe he means it this time.” He said that he believes that Mr. Stoney is serious when he says that he wants to normalize his life.
[54]. Mr. Stoney’s counsel asked Dr. Gagnon to comment on Mr. Stoney’s insight into his own behaviours, drug use, and its relationship to the “chaos”. Dr. Gagnon said that in the past, Mr. Stoney had taken the posture that it was never him, in the sense that he had refused to take responsibility. Now, his insight into the relationship among drugs, psychosis and his behaviour is “crystal clear”.
[55]. Dr. Gagnon stated that if Mr. Stoney were to use substances, there would be a significant risk to the safety of the public. When he uses drugs, he becomes psychotic. When he uses drugs a lot, he has to pay for them somehow. Dr. Gagnon had “no doubt” that if Mr. Stoney went back to using drugs, the possibility of “chaos” (Mr. Stoney’s counsel’s expression) would be present. For Dr. Gagnon, the question in this case turned on whether Mr. Stoney can remain drug-free. Dr. Gagnon expressed confidence that he could.
[56]. Counsel for the Hospital asked Dr. Gagnon to reconcile his opinion with the psychological risk assessment at p. 69 of the Hospital Report (paraphrased above at para. 50). He stated that the risk in this case is mitigated by Mr. Stoney’s change in attitude. He stated that Mr. Stoney’s previous criminal justice system involvement “goes way back”. He said his risk would always “boil down” to Mr. Stoney making the decision.
[57]. Dr. Gagnon stated that he would wish to see proper substance use support in the community for Mr. Stoney. Asked by a panel member whether Mr. Stoney is agreeable to receiving that support, Dr. Gagnon said that he is “pragmatic” and sees that he needs it.
[58]. Dr. Gagnon commented on Mr. Stoney’s prospects for housing if living in the community. He said that Mr. Stoney still has a place available at the SUSWIN facility, and this program can help him transition to an independent apartment. SUSWIN has rules, and Dr. Gagnon said Mr. Stoney would abide by them even though he is “not a huge fan” of rules and would rather live independently. On the other hand, Mr. Stoney knows that he would need to pay rent and purchase his own food if he lived independently, and he lacks confidence to live on his own. He experiences anxiety around his ability to pay for his housing. Dr. Gagnon said that the Hospital would not put Mr. Stoney onto the street without a place to live if he were to be granted an Absolute Discharge and would allow him to remain in the Hospital while accommodation arrangements were made.
[59]. Dr. Gagnon volunteered that the psychological risk assessment “seems pretty dire” but felt that if the substance use can be managed, Mr. Stoney’s risk should be manageable. He acknowledged that, despite the reference to the “unanimous” opinion at p. 70 of the Hospital Report, there was not a complete consensus of the team to recommend an Absolute Discharge. Some team members suggested an approach of testing Mr. Stoney’s sincerity. Part of some team members’ apprehension was based upon the realities of Mr. Stoney’s history. Dr. Gagnon recognized that there would be some benefit to a Conditional Discharge. Testing Mr. Stoney’s commitment to abstinence is “not an invalid point” as Dr. Gagnon put it. He simply did not believe that it is necessary.
[60]. Dr. Gagnon noted four incidents of positive drugs screens in 2024 and 2025: the use of cannabis “gummies” in May of 2024; two incidents of use of non-prescribed stimulant medications in November and December of 2024; and a positive test for codeine more recently when Mr. Stoney took his mother’s Tylenol 1. Dr. Gagnon characterized the first three incidents as products of Mr. Stoney’s frustration with his treatment team, and the codeine incident as an “honest mistake”. Asked by a panel member to identify triggers for a return to substance use by Mr. Stoney, Dr. Gagnon stated that for him, perceived “huge” injustices, arising for example at the workplace, would place him more at risk. He would also be at risk if he were facing a lot of stressors with which he was not coping well.
[61]. A panel member asked Dr. Gagnon to explain the basis for his belief that Mr. Stoney would now be able to maintain abstinence in the community when he did not do so in 2023 when he was last on a Conditional Discharge. Dr. Gagnon pointed to:
Mr. Stoney’s behaviour over the nine months prior to the hearing;
Mr. Stoney’s more hopeful attitude, inspired by a different approach by his treatment team that expresses more of a belief in him; and
Mr. Stoney’s greater degree of commitment, part of which involves some maturing on his part.
[62]. Dr. Gagnon concluded by emphasizing his belief that Mr. Stoney is serious in his resolve and therefore does not present a significant threat. He stated, “It’s a big leap of faith, no doubt about it.”
[63]. No further evidence was led following Dr. Gagnon’s testimony.
Analysis
Significant Threat
[64]. The panel is guided by the relevant legal principles to be applied to the evidence with respect to the issue of significant threat, as summarized in the decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in Marmolejo (Re), 2021 ONCA 130 at paras 34-37:
…the role of the Board is first to determine whether an NCR accused represents a significant threat to public safety. If the answer to that question is "no" or uncertain then the NCR accused must be discharged absolutely: Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625, [1999] S.C.J. No 31, at pp. 659-61, 669 S.C.R. If the NCR accused does present a significant threat, the Board must either conditionally discharge or detain the individual: Winko, pp. 662, 669 S.C.R.
It is important to bear in mind that the Board's responsibility to grant an absolute discharge is non-discretionary in the event that it harbours any doubt about whether the NCR accused represents a significant threat: Carrick (Re), [2018] O.J. No. 4878, 2018 ONCA 752, at para. 16. As the majority of the Supreme Court emphasized in Winko, at pp. 652-53 S.C.R.: "Once an NCR accused is no longer a significant threat to public safety, the criminal justice system has no further application."
Individuals with mental disorders are not inherently dangerous: Winko, at p. 653 S.C.R. There is no presumption of dangerousness and no burden on the NCR accused to prove a lack of dangerousness: Winko, at pp. 660-61, 662 S.C.R. Rather, the legal and evidentiary burden of establishing significant threat rests on the Board or the court: Winko, at p. 663 S.C.R.
The threshold for significant risk is "onerous": Carrick (Re) (2015), 128 O.R. (3d) 209, [2015] O.J. No. 6524, 2015 ONCA 866, at para. 17. A significant threat to the safety of the public means a foreseeable and substantial risk of physical or psychological harm to members of the public: R. v. Ferguson, [2010] O.J. No. 5138, 2010 ONCA 810, at para. 8. The conduct must be of a serious criminal nature: Ferguson, at para. 8. A very small risk of grave harm will not suffice, nor will a high risk of trivial harm: Ferguson, at para. 8. The threat must be more than speculative in nature; it must be supported by evidence: Winko, at p. 665 S.C.R.; Pellett (Re) (2017), 139 O.R. (3d) 651, [2017] O.J. No. 5025, 2017 ONCA 753, at para. 21.
[65]. Further, in Marmelejo at para. 47, the court held that, “the risk of substance abuse does not justify the denial of an absolute discharge unless that substance abuse would pose a significant threat to the public.”1
[66]. Some comment is appropriate in relation to the notion in the Hospital Report that an Absolute Discharge is necessary and appropriate in part because if Mr. Stoney commits further criminal offences occasioned by his substance abuse, he should be held accountable under the conventional sentencing scheme of the criminal law. As counsel for the Hospital acknowledged at the outset of the hearing, the Hospital’s recommendation in this case was based, in part at least, on a misreading of the Supreme Court of Canada’s reasons in R. v. Owen, 2003 SCC 63. The mandate of review boards under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code is not contingent upon the NCR accused’s ongoing experience of a “mental disorder” as that term has been defined for purposes of s. 16. Rather, review boards must have regard, among other factors, to the individual’s “mental condition” in determining whether a significant threat to the safety of the public exists. This term, as the Supreme Court has held, is broader than the meaning of “mental disorder”. As stated by Justice Binnie for the majority at para. 39 of Owen:2
“The paranoid psychotic state in which the murder had been committed in 1978, triggered by amphetamine abuse, had apparently subsided. However, while the evidence suggests the respondent was not suffering in 1999 from a ‘mental disorder (emphasis added) as required by Cr. C. ss. 16 and 672.34 to qualify initially for NCR status, the Board in making subsequent dispositions is required by s. 672.54 to have regard to the NCR person’s “mental condition” (emphasis added), which is a term of broader scope, and which in the respondent’s case was certainly a relevant consideration for the Board in the spring of 2000. As McLachlin J., as she then was, pointed out in Winko, supra, at para. 40:
Public safety will only be ensured by stabilizing the mental condition of dangerous NCR accused.”
[67]. Mr. Stoney’s risk to public safety is rooted in the potential for another psychotic episode driven by his consumption of substances. This is undisputed among the parties and overwhelmingly clear from the evidence. He has a significant history demonstrating that his mental condition, whatever may be its precise diagnosis (and we make no finding thereon), is exacerbated by substance use. The evidence also demonstrates a link between drug-fuelled exacerbation of his condition and criminal behaviour of a dangerous nature, in particular assaults involving the use of weapons. When faced with such clear evidence, it is not open to the Board to simply absolutely discharge Mr. Stoney and leave the criminal justice system to respond when he re-offends. In Owen, the majority of the Supreme Court responded to such a contention as follows, at para. 65:
“The respondent says that if he were to re-offend while on drugs, he would be subject, like anyone else, to the strictures of the Criminal Code. But he is not like anyone else. He is an NCR detainee whose drug abuse is linked to a demonstrated propensity for violence, including murder, and Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code is designed to take measures to protect the public safety before violence occurs, not (as in the ordinary case) to punish the offender afterwards.”
[68]. Where a review board finds, as this panel has, that an individual represents a significant threat to the safety of the public, then the grant of an Absolute Discharge impermissibly requires the board to ignore the statutory framework under which it acts.
[69]. Returning to the evidence in this case, it is evident that Mr. Stoney has made important strides while under the Board’s authority and the Hospital’s care, including:
remaining adherent to his prescribed antipsychotic medication, expressing that he had found it helpful in achieving mental stability and reducing his agitation;
participating, during his first two years under Board jurisdiction, in a variety of programs and groups aimed at addressing his substance use and at providing culturally relevant anger management;
expressing commitment to breaking his previous cycle of discontinuing medication, returning to substance use, and becoming mentally unwell;
maintaining abstinence from substance use, confirmed by negative drug screens, while living in supervised accommodation from February of 2021 until May of 2023;
pursuing vocational opportunities in the community, by obtaining his driver’s license and taking a course to prepare him for full-time work, and finding employment; and
developing a therapeutic relationship with the Hospital’s Concurrent Disorders Clinician, leading to the development of a relapse prevention plan.
[70]. By 2023, Mr. Stoney was on a very positive trajectory and stated that his time in the Hospital had provided him an opportunity to turn his life around. Unfortunately, after the substance use abstention clause was removed from his Disposition in May of 2023, he started to disregard the rules of his residence and returned to the use of many different substances, including oxycodone, fentanyl, cocaine, benzodiazepines, clonazepam, and cannabis. The reasons for this remain unknown on the evidence, as Mr. Stoney refused to discuss his return to substance use with his treatment team. He then committed an assault with a weapon3 and spent several months in pre-sentence custody at the North Bay Jail.
[71]. When readmitted to the Hospital from jail in late October of 2023, Mr. Stoney exhibited delusional ideation similar in nature to some of his psychotic symptoms as documented prior to and immediately following the index offences.
[72]. Mr. Stoney is to be commended for embarking upon a generally positive trajectory since becoming again subject to Dispositions that contained substance use prohibitions. While struggling with the strictures of the Hospital’s forensic service and sometimes exhibiting rude, argumentative and oppositional behaviour (including substance use while in the Hospital), he has used his privileges constructively, including acquiring new employment at which he has worked since May of 2025. As was repeatedly mentioned by Dr. Gagnon in his evidence, Mr. Stoney has again verbally expressed his commitment to a lifestyle of sobriety and avoidance of criminal activity. Dr. Gagnon also repeatedly emphasized his belief that Mr. Stoney is sincere in his expressions, and that he can and will avoid substance use if granted an Absolute Discharge. He emphasized Mr. Stoney’s progress during the nine months preceding the hearing in explaining the basis for his belief.
[73]. In approaching the threshold question in this case, however, the Board must consider the evidence as a whole. That evidence includes:
a pattern of assaultive behaviour, including the use of weapons such as knives, disclosed by Mr. Stoney’s prior criminal record, his conduct during the index offences, his more recent offences in the community, and his assaultive behaviour in the jail (lunging at a nurse) and during hospital admissions that predated the index offences;
the added risk of serious physical harm occasioned by the use of a weapon during Mr. Stoney’s assaults (weapons, of course, constituting significant force multipliers in relation to physical injuries);
the clear connection between Mr. Stoney’s history of assaultive behaviour and the exacerbation of his mental state associated with his polysubstance use;
the very concerning psychological risk assessment, which rates Mr. Stoney as at high risk for both violence and for serious physical harm in the absence of his supports; and
Mr. Stoney’s unexplained return in 2023 to the consumption of multiple substances, followed by serious criminal conduct, shortly after receiving a Disposition that removed the prohibition on his substance use, all despite two years of sobriety in the community and the completion of multiple forms of substance use programming.
[74]. The panel can accept that Mr. Stoney is sincere in his resolve, expressed to Dr. Gagnon, to refrain from substance use, and that he has matured somewhat since his return to substance use in 2023. However, since that time, he has not lived in the community. He has also refused further offers of substance use treatment. Prior experience, summarized above and detailed earlier in these Reasons, demonstrates that his good-faith intentions and willpower have not been sufficient to support his desire to live substance-free after many years of drug use. Absent the support and monitoring for substance use provided by a forensic service and the oversight provided by the Board, there is a real likelihood that Mr. Stoney would again find himself unable to resist the temptation to use substances, particularly in light of the stressors he would experience in the community. Such use would likely, as it has in the past, result in severe and rapid deterioration of his mental state, to the point of psychosis. In such a state, as the pattern indicated by his history indicates, Mr. Stoney would be highly likely to again engage in criminal conduct that would carry significant potential for causing serious physical or psychological injury to others.
[75]. The panel is therefore driven to the conclusion that Mr. Stoney represents a significant threat to the safety of the public. This finding, we hasten to add, should not be interpreted as in any way a reflection on Mr. Stoney’s character, nor does it minimize the strides that he has made towards his rehabilitation. As explained below, the panel recognizes those efforts by making a Disposition that seeks to support his goals of living a healthy, productive life while protecting public safety in a manner that also maximizes his liberty.
The Necessary and Appropriate Disposition
[76]. The panel is satisfied that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Conditional Discharge, although Mr. Stoney has not had a community living privilege as part of his Disposition since 2023. In consideration of the positive strides that he has made in his community reintegration, particularly in relation to maintaining his employment4 and his management of his indirectly supervised community privileges, he can now be expected to take primary responsibility for his continued wellness, with necessary support from the Hospital’s forensic program. Appropriate housing at SUSWIN House awaited him at the time of the hearing and, in any event, the Hospital was prepared to allow him to remain while he arranged alternate housing if he wished.
[77]. Mr. Stoney’s counsel, in his alternate submission, proposed a Conditional Discharge on terms that would allow Mr. Stoney to work anywhere in Ontario. He expressed interest in working at a mine, which would entail travel away from North Bay and potentially living at a mining camp. On the evidence, Mr. Stoney knows that most mining operations conduct drug testing of their workers. Should he obtain this type of employment, monitoring in the community for drug use could therefore still be feasible.
[78]. Mr. Stoney needs the support and monitoring that can be provided by the Hospital. He therefore will be required to report to the person in charge of the Hospital, or his or her designate, no less than monthly, and will be required to submit samples for testing purposes to determine whether he has consumed alcohol, drugs, or any other intoxicant. The panel did not find it necessary to prohibit, in its Disposition, Mr. Stoney’s consumption of alcohol, drugs, or other intoxicants. He should not take from this that the Board does not consider such consumption as a significant risk factor; it clearly is, and Mr. Stoney has expressed his awareness of this along with his resolve to independently avoid drug use. The panel wishes to acknowledge his stated resolve, but also, through ongoing screening and testing, to monitor any substance use and assess its impact, if any, on his mental condition. This degree of monitoring is essential for the protection of the public.
[79]. Mr. Stoney is also ordered to provide his contact information, including the name and location of his employer. This will be particularly important if Mr. Stoney obtains employment that requires him to live outside the City of North Bay.
[80]. Bearing in mind the role of weapons in Mr. Stoney’s prior criminal conduct, the Conditional Discharge will require that he refrain from having in his possession any firearm, ammunition or other offensive weapons, or being in the company of any person possessing a firearm other than a peace officer.
[81]. Finally, the Disposition will contain the standard provisions requiring notification of the Hospital and the Review Board of changes to Mr. Stoney’s address or telephone number.
Conclusion
[82]. In making its determinations, the panel has evaluated the evidence through the lens of the factors in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, including the safety of the public as the paramount consideration as well as Mr. Stoney’s mental condition, his reintegration into society, and his other needs.
[83]. The panel wishes Mr. Stoney the best of success as he works with his treatment team and community resources and supports over the coming year.
DATED this 15th day of September 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Mr. E. Siebenmorgen
Legal Member
__________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board
Footnotes
- This principle was also expressed in Wall (Re), 2017 ONCA 713 at paras. 25, 29.
- See also on this point: Peckham v. Ontario (Attorney‑General), 1994 CanLII 3445 (ON CA), 93 C.C.C. (3d) 443.
- While the Hospital Report states that Mr. Stoney was initially charged with assault, two counts of assault with a weapon, and robbery with violence, counsel advised at the conclusion of the hearing that Mr. Stoney was ultimately convicted of assault with a weapon.
- It is difficult to overstate the significance of Mr. Stoney’s commitment to the pursuit of gainful employment. The panel notes that prior to the index offences, he had no history of employment and supported himself through drug dealing and his ODSP benefits.