Re: Cadell Mark
ORB File No: 8581
Hearing held on: Tuesday, August 12, 2025
Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health 1001 Queen Street West, Toronto
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before: Alternate Chairperson: Ms. C. Finley Members: Dr. P.E. Cook Dr. A. Park Ms. J. Ferguson Ms. B. Little
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Cadell Mark Counsel: Mr. J. Berman
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. S. Rosales-Zelaya
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. M. Feindel
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated September 18, 2025)
Introduction
On April 5, 2024, Cadell Abraham Mark was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCR) on a charge of assault causing bodily harm contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. He is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the ORB/the Board), dated September 19, 2024, detaining him at the Forensic Service of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto (CAMH/the hospital) with discretionary privileges including the ability to reside in the community in supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge.
On August 12, 2025, the Board convened to conduct the annual hearing of Mr. Mark’s disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Mark was present and represented by Mr. Berman.
At the outset of the proceedings, all parties were canvassed as to their positions on the two issues to be determined by the Board: whether Mr. Mark continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public, and if so, the necessary and appropriate disposition having regard to the criteria set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
Ms. Rosales-Zelaya, on behalf of the hospital, submitted that Mr. Mark continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and the necessary and appropriate disposition is a continuation of the detention order with the same terms and conditions, with the area for accommodation expanded to include the Greater Toronto Area (GTA).
Mr. Feindel, on behalf of the Ministry of the Attorney General, concurred in the hospital’s position. Mr. Berman conceded that Mr. Mark remains a significant threat to the safety of the public and concurred in the hospital’s position that the current order continue subject to the changes recommended by the hospital.
Findings
- For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that Mr. Mark continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and the necessary and appropriate disposition is a continuation of the current detention order with conditions amended in accordance with the recommendation of the hospital.
The Index Offence
- The circumstances of the index offence are excerpted from last year’s Reasons for Disposition dated September 19, 2024, as follows:
“The complainant, Mr. Abraham Mark (Mr. Cadell Mark’s father), was residing with his wife, Mrs. Mary Mark (Mr. Cadell Mark’s mother). Mr. Cadell Mark was of no fixed address. Police were told that he had been diagnosed with “schizophrenia, anxiety, paranoia, and depression”, and that he had not been taking his medication. It was noted that police had attended this address for prior domestic related occurrences in the past. It was noted that “alcohol and drugs were not a factor in this incident”.
“On Friday December 15, 2023, at 12:29 pm, the complainant contacted police advising that his son had come into his house and had “attempted to kill him”. When police arrived, the victim stated that his “son forced his way into the home and started to attack him using his fists”. The complainant sustained significant injuries to the left side of his face, which included swelling and bruising. He also sustained a two-inch laceration to the top right of his head which required stitches, as well as a two-centimeter laceration to the rear of his head. This was a result of his falling onto the kitchen table. He was transported to Credit Valley Hospital via ambulance. Upon police arrival, the accused had left the residence on foot. Police searched the area with the K-9 unit, but this yielded negative results. At 2:15 pm, the accused was observed walking down the catwalk by 4180 Sugarbush Rd. He was subsequently placed under arrest for the charge of Assault Causing Bodily Harm. He was read his rights to counsel and indicated that he understood those rights.”
Background Information
The Hospital Report contains detailed information about Mr. Mark’s background and psychiatric history and have been excerpted below:
Mr. Mark is a 35-year-old single male, with no dependents from Toronto, Ontario. Prior to his arrest, he resided in a backyard shed on his family’s property. He was financially supported by ODSP.
The following information was summarized from the NCR Report authored by Dr. Claire Harrigan, dated February 29, 2024 unless otherwise indicated.
Mr. Mark was born in Toronto, Ontario. He was the younger of two brothers. His brother was eight years older than him. His family moved to Mississauga when he was eight years old. There were no reported complications with his mother’s pregnancy and he reached his developmental milestones on time. His parents originally hailed from Grenada. Mr. Mark described his childhood as “okay”, but he felt “lonely” because his brother was so much older than he was. Mr. Mark did not have difficulty making friends. He participated in many extracurricular activities, such as track and field, volleyball, and basketball. He also attended his local church youth group, but did not identify as being religious. The family was said to be geographically stable and financially sound. Mr. Mark’s father worked in the Information Technology Department at a hospital in Toronto, while Mr. Mark’s mother was employed as a social worker. Mr. Mark denied getting into fights with his parents as a child. He did say that his father was “more strict” with him, whereas his mother would “be the one to talk to me about rules and feelings”. He described himself as being a “quiet” child who “liked to listen” and “liked to get good grades”. He maintained good grades in courses that he enjoyed, such as Drama or English, and worse grades in subjects that he was uninterested in.
Mr. Mark began smoking marijuana at the age of sixteen, and described his use as being “social”. He did not believe that his marijuana use had a major effect on his academic performance, but did share it was a possibility. Mr. Mark attended Brock University when he was eighteen years old. He was not accepted into his first choice of programs, which was psychology, so he took some other general courses. He stated that he prioritized socialization and drug use over his academics. He was smoking marijuana on a daily basis at this point. He had to drop out when he did not pass any of his courses. He attributed this to not being able to study psychology, which is what he was interested in.
The family noticed a shift in their son’s mental status when Mr. Mark returned home from university for a visit at the age of 20 or 21 years old. Mr. Mark was “no longer focused” and “wanted to smoke marijuana all day long”. Given that the family did not approve of his drug use, Mr. Mark began spending more time with his friends. He eventually opted to live at a youth shelter, instead of at home, due to arguments about his cannabis use. The family became aware of the extent of Mr. Mark’s mental health concerns after staff at the youth shelter informed them that Mr. Mark had been brought to hospital on a number of occasions due to concerns around paranoid ideation and suicidal thoughts.
The following years were marked by a recurrent cycle of Mr. Mark living with family for a short period of time (e.g. one week), and then proceeding to reside at shelters or on the street. He had a number of hospital admissions due to non-compliance with antipsychotic medication. Mr. Mark denied that he had intentionally avoided his family when they came to visit him at university, instead saying that they “must have come at an awkward time, or they didn’t inform me”. His family was “angry” when he eventually returned home, as they attributed his dropping out of university to his marijuana use. They were upset at the financial cost of tuition and that Mr. Mark had failed his courses. They continued to be upset with Mr. Mark when he smoked marijuana at home. They would continually ask Mr. Mark to stop smoking, complaining about his substance use and stating it was a waste of money.
Mr. Mark also believed that his parents were “using Christianity to punish [him]” because they encouraged him to attend church with them. He shared with writer in the Hospital Report that he doesn’t believe in Christianity and “doesn’t believe in any religion.” He stated that his family held this against him and “assumed his spiritual beliefs and priorities were off, because [he] wasn’t in tune with God. This caused him to leave the family home and enter the shelter system.
Substance Use:
- Mr. Mark admitted to smoking cannabis daily. He smoked approximately one and a half grams per day for the past decade before he was incarcerated. He denied any other substance use, including the use of illicit drugs or over the counter medications. It appeared that his ongoing cannabis use was a source of arguments between him and his family, and over the years had a significant impact on his mental health.
Legal History:
- Mr. Mark has no known prior criminal convictions.
Psychiatric History:
The Hospital Report indicates that Mr. Mark’s current diagnoses are: Schizophrenia; cannabis use disorder; gambling disorder.
Mr. Mark’s psychiatric history dates from 2015. During the period of 2015 until the index offence, Mr. Mark had multiple admissions to hospital. Mr. Mark experienced psychotic symptoms, paranoia, delusions and hallucinations in the context of cannabis use and noncompliance with medication which is detailed in the Hospital Report and need not be set out here.
Concerning Behaviours
- There have been no episodes of concerning behaviour over the past year.
Evidence at Hearing:
The evidence at the hearing consisted of the Hospital Report, dated July 10, 2025 (Exhibit 1), and the viva voce evidence of Dr. Jaiswal, Mr. Mark’s treating psychiatrist.
Dr. Jaiswal testified that overall Mr. Mark had a positive reporting year. He transitioned to a general forensic unit and is currently engaged with the treatment team, has participated in activities on the unit, has achieved level 8 passes, allowing him indirectly supervised passes in the community with no concerns arising as a result, and has taken steps to reconcile with his father. Dr. Jaiswal reported that Mr. Mark’s mother has taken him out on approved person passes and that the hospital has no concerns with respect to his mother.
In response to queries about possible housing in the community for Mr. Mark, Dr. Jaiswal advised that initially the hospital would be seeking supportive housing and that although 24-hour supervision would not be required, some level of supervision which would allow staff to check on Mr. Mark to assess his mental state would be needed. It would be important to provide support in managing stress and to closely monitor his mental status.
With respect to a time frame for moving Mr. Mark into the community, Dr. Jaiswal advised that he has had one interview and is waiting for a second interview to be scheduled. Dr. Jaiswal testified that a continued detention order is being sought by the hospital as it is necessary for the hospital to approve Mr. Mark’s housing accommodation to ensure he is properly housed given that he has experienced homelessness in the past. Dr. Jaiswal added that this will be Mr. Mark’s first transition into the community under the auspices of the ORB and that such a transition will cause Mr. Mark stressors and potentially expose him to substances, all of which the hospital will need the opportunity to monitor. The hospital is recommending that the geographical area in which Mr. Mark could reside be expanded to include the GTA given that his family resides in the western part of the GTA and given that some housing which may be appropriate for Mr. Mark may be available in that area.
Dr. Jaiswal testified that Mr. Mark has described, to his credit, that the index offence occurred because of tension and difficulties with his father and that historically, he has had a conflictual relationship with his father. Dr. Jaiswal noted that Mr. Mark acknowledges that he was experiencing a significant burden of psychotic symptoms at the time of the index offence and was not able to step away from conflictual interactions with his father.
In response to questions from Mr. Feindel, Dr. Jaiswal reported that Mr. Mark has not exhibited tension or anger while in hospital and that the hospital has no concerns with respect to conflict.
Dr. Jaiswal indicated that Mr. Mark is on long term injectable medication which will be continued once he moves into housing in the community. In addition, Mr. Mark will have to continue to abstain from substance and be tested for that. Dr. Jaiswal added that once housing could be found that met these criteria, Mr. Mark would be ready to transition into supportive housing in the community. Dr. Jaiswal added that once Mr. Mark has developed the necessary skills of independent living while in supportive housing, he may be able to move into more independent housing later.
Dr. Jaiswal confirmed Mr. Mark’s diagnosis of schizophrenia and testified that Mr. Mark continues to experience negative symptoms including a lack of motivation. Dr. Jaiswal indicated that as a result of the staff noting that Mr. Mark is not proactive, an occupational therapist has helped Mr. Mark develop a schedule and stick to that schedule, which has helped him with respect to the basic activities of daily living. Dr. Jaiswal testified that Mr. Mark is engaged in adaptation training and that although he needs reminders from time to time, it is helping him adapt to his new schedule.
In response to a query about psychoeducational programming for Mr. Mark’s family, Dr. Jaiswal advised that there is not such a program at CAMH but that the treatment team could look into it.
When asked about Mr. Mark’s gambling disorder and his finances, Dr. Jaiswal testified that Mr. Mark only gambles on NBA games and that the hospital is aware of this and are working to make sure it doesn’t get out of control and become a stressor. Mr. Mark has been referred to a problem gambling program and addiction services program and the recreational therapist has been working with him to develop a budget and determine an amount with which he can gamble. Dr. Jaiswal added that currently, this was not a source of concern.
At the conclusion of the hearing, both Mr. Feindel on behalf of the Attorney General and Mr. Mark’s counsel, Mr. Berman, endorsed the recommendation of the hospital.
Analysis and Conclusion
The Board carefully considered the Hospital Report and the evidence of Dr. Jaiswal and unanimously concluded that Mr. Mark continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. The definition of “significant threat” is guided by the principles set out in Winko v British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 624, which defines it as a risk of serious physical or psychological harm that is criminal in nature. Mr. Mark suffers from schizophrenia and continues to experience negative symptoms including lack of motivation. Historically, when experiencing psychotic symptoms he has engaged in violent behaviour. Further, his symptoms have been exacerbated by non-compliance with treatment, substance use and stress.
Mr. Mark had a history of intimidating and assaultive behaviour towards his family members, especially his father. His father was the victim of the index offence and Mr. Mark has assaulted his father on other occasions, including one in 2019 that required his father to be hospitalized. His assaultive behaviour appears to be connected to his non-compliance with antipsychotic medication and the associated increase in psychotic symptoms.
Should Mr. Mark no longer be under the auspices of the Board, he would experience increased stressors in the community and difficulties in completing the activities of daily living. Mr. Mark has a long history of non-compliance with taking medication and of substance use resulting in decompensation and he has exhibited violence in the past when this occurs, including during the commission of the index offence. As such he remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.
Having found that Mr. Mark continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public, the panel must consider the necessary and appropriate disposition taking into consideration the criteria set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, which includes the need to protect the public from dangerous persons, the mental condition of the accused, the integration of the accused into society and the other needs of the accused.
The panel unanimously finds that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a continuation of the current disposition which is a detention order with amended conditions. Mr. Mark has had a good year. He has been engaged in his programs, been compliant with his medications and is getting along well with other residents and staff. He enjoys the support of his mother and is reconciling with his father, with whom he has had a very conflictual relationship. He will face challenges in moving to a less structured and less supportive residence. He will require the support and supervision of the treatment team to manage the stress associated with that transition and to help him gain the skills he needs to be successful in a community setting. It is anticipated that once Mr. Mark has made further progress and suitable supportive housing has been found, that he can make a successful transition into the community.
The panel accepts the joint recommendation of the hospital, the crown and counsel for Mr. Mark that a continuation of the current disposition, namely a detention order on the general forensic unit with community living in approved accommodation with a change to the community entry from Metropolitan Toronto to the Greater Toronto Area. This is the necessary and appropriate disposition to manage Mr. Mark’s risk to the safety of the public.
In conclusion, the panel wishes to congratulate Mr. Mark on a successful year in the community. We are hopeful that he will continue to make progress in the coming year.
DATED this 18th day of September, 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Ms. J. Ferguson Legal Member
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board