Re: Jason Bynen
ORB File No: 8814
Hearing held on: Wednesday, August 20, 2025
Place of hearing: Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care
Pursuant to: Sections 672.47(1) and 672.48(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Weinstein
Members: Dr. S. Simpson
Dr. J. Cheston
Ms. K. Tomaszewski
Ms. D. Smith
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Jason Bynen
Counsel: Mr. V. Zenobio
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Lefebvre
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. S. Curry
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated September 4, 2025)
Introduction
On June 13, 2025, Mr. Jason Bynen was found unfit to stand trial on charges of mischief, assault with a weapon and assault a peace officer, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada.
The Court did not make a Disposition and ordered Mr. Bynen be detained at the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care (“Waypoint”), for an initial Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”), pursuant to s. 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code.
On August 20, 2025, the Board convened a hearing at Waypoint to make an initial Disposition.
Mr. Bynen was present at the hearing and was represented by his counsel, Mr. Vincent Zenobio.
A Hospital Report, dated July 30, 2025 (the "Hospital Report"), was entered as Exhibit 1. A Fitness Update, dated August 14, 2025 (“Fitness Update”), was entered as Exhibit 2. An Inpatient Progress Report, dated August 20, 2025 (“Inpatient Progress Report”), was entered as Exhibit 3.
In accordance with s. 672.48(1) of the Criminal Code, the Board must decide whether Mr. Bynen is unfit to stand trial on the day of the hearing, within the meaning of s. 2 of the Criminal Code. Specifically, is Mr. Bynen unable, on account of mental disorder, to understand the nature of a trial and the possible consequences of the proceedings and to meaningfully communicate with counsel? If Mr. Bynen is found fit, he must be sent back to court. If he is found unfit, the Board must make a Disposition that is necessary and appropriate, considering the criteria set forth in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
For the reasons set out below, and based on the evidence before us, the Board has concluded that Mr. Bynen is fit to stand trial and that he should be returned to court.
Current Psychiatric Diagnosis
- Schizophrenia
Outstanding Charges
- The following excerpts from the Hospital Report provide a summary of the Outstanding Charges:
“October 2, 2024 - Mischief and Assault with a Weapon
Patricia advised that her son, Jason, was diagnosed with schizophrenia and would regularly hear voices. She advised that at times the voices he was hearing were of her voice and her husband’s. She explained that on previous occasions, Jason had smashed the windows in the home, but it had not been to that extent before. She advised she believed his mental health was worsening because on this occasion he was talking back to the voices, which was not a known thing for him to do. Officers reviewed Jason’s history and observed numerous calls for service where he was the subject of complaints in relation to mental health.
Details
On October 2, 2024, at 1402 hrs, officers were dispatched to a heated family dispute at [address] in Angus, ON. The complainant, Patricia Shea, advised that her son, Jason Bynen, was smashing things in the house.
Patricia advised call takers that she had locked the doors after Jason had gone outside, and he had soon after begun to smash the windows around the home. It was believed at the time that Jason was attempting to regain access into the house and was in possession of a crowbar or other similar tool that was being used to destroy the home.
Officers observed the front of the home, noting that the front door and living room window were smashed. Officers proceeded to the back of the property and located Jason. Upon initial observation, Jason was crouched beside a blue car which was parked in the back. He was holding a small unknown object in his hand and was poking at the front passenger tire of the vehicle as if in an attempt to puncture it. Officers could see that all of the windows of the vehicle were smashed, and glass was spread throughout the driveway around it. The [sic] was also a second vehicle; a brown van that had the driver’s window smashed. Jason began to walk toward the garage behind the house when officers called to him.
At 1509 hrs, a statement was taken from Patricia regarding the incident. Patricia was clearly distraught and was visibly shaking while speaking with officers. She expressed an extreme fear of what Jason was capable of and stated that she was not sure want he would have done if he had gotten into the home. She advised that she believed Jason was capable of causing them harm, as his mental health was declining.
December 20, 2024 - Assault Peace Officer
On Friday, December 20, 2024, the accused, Jason Bynen, entered the McDonalds located at 85 Dunlop Street West in the City of Barrie after being removed 2 hours earlier. The accused entered the store, did not make a purchase, and then proceeded to lay down at one of the tables and go to sleep. Staff asked the male to leave several times prior to contacting police.
When police arrived, the accused was then asked again, several times, to leave and advised that if he did not, he would be arrested. The accused refused (Charge #1). As a result, officers attempted to take physical control of the accused in order to remove him. He immediately began kicking at officers and refused to leave. The accused was taken to the ground and continued to struggle with officers, again kicking and swinging his arms (Charge 2).”
Criminal Offence History
- Mr. Bynen does not have a history of criminal convictions; however, the Hospital Report notes the following:
“Officers reviewed Jason’s history and observed numerous calls for service where he was the subject of complaints in relation to mental health.”
- The fail to leave premises charge, on December 20, 2024, under the Trespass to Property Act remains outstanding and reportedly will be dealt with, should Mr. Bynen be rendered fit for trial.
Background, Education and Employment History, and Substance Misuse History
- Mr. Bynen’s background, education and employment history are set out in detail in the Hospital Report. The following extracted paragraphs are relevant to this hearing:
“Ms. Shea and Mr. John Bynen separated when their son was three years old. The latter reportedly struggled with addictions and was verbally abusive to his wife. Mr. Jason Bynen may have been witness to his father’s verbal violence on at least one occasion, following which his father was arrested in the family home. Mr. John Bynen maintained inconsistent contact with his son throughout his childhood.
Mr. Bynen struggled with school. Though he was not diagnosed with learning disabilities, he received extra support with his studies. After starting high school, he began refusing to go to school, and by his mid-teens, he was no longer attending classes. He thereafter lost contact with his friends. He did not obtain his high school diploma.
Mr. Bynen has been homeless since the index offences, living on the streets in Barrie and Wasaga Beach. Ms. Shea noted that his father, Mr. John Bynen, is, to her knowledge, also homeless in the Wasaga Beach area. She reported her belief that her son has been off medications since October 2024. Ms. Shea expressed that while she supports her son, he is no longer welcome to move back into her home.
Ms. Shea reported that her son has a history of significant marijuana use, alcohol use, and cigarette use. She believes that Mr. Bynen stopped smoking marijuana several years ago.”
Psychiatric History Prior to the Outstanding Charges
- Mr. Bynen’s psychiatric history prior to the Outstanding Charges is set out in detail in the Hospital Report. The following extracted paragraphs are relevant to this hearing:
“According to Ms. Shea, as documented in the Waypoint Psychosocial Assessment, Mr. Bynen was quite young when he began to experience symptoms of mental illness. She recalled his having informed her that he had begun hearing voices when he was ten years old. She believes his mental status decompensated more rapidly during his teenage years. He was using marijuana during this time period.
Waypoint’s Psychosocial Assessment reveals that Mr. Bynen had received support from the Canadian Mental Health Association’s Early Psychosis Intervention Program under the care of Dr. Mulder since approximately 2018.
Outpatient Psychiatric Reports - Dr. Mulder
Records found on the ConnectingOntario database indicate that Mr. Bynen met with Dr. Mulder for outpatient psychiatric support eight times between June 10, 2021, and July 8, 2024. Common themes discussed during these appointments appear to be Mr. Bynen’s alcohol consumption, symptoms of schizophrenia and medications.
Royal Victoria Hospital - Inpatient Admission - October 25 to 29, 2021
Police brought Mr. Bynen to hospital after his mother found him in their garage cutting the palm of his hand. Mr. Bynen reported that he was hearing voices telling him to cut his throat, so he was preparing for this by first cutting his hand.
Royal Victoria Hospital - Inpatient Admission - November 28 to December 17, 2021
EMS transported Mr. Bynen to hospital after his family called 911 due to him throwing a television through a window. Mr. Bynen advised that he acted in frustration due to the auditory hallucinations he experienced.
Royal Victoria Hospital - Inpatient Admission - January 30, 2024, to February 9, 2024
Mr. Bynen initially presented to RVH Emergency Department with concerns of auditory hallucinations. He then left hospital before all investigations and treatments were complete. Mr. Bynen returned to hospital a second time on January 30 with expressed concerns of command hallucinations telling him to harm himself.
Royal Victoria Hospital - Inpatient Admission - April 16, 2024, to May 3, 2024
Police transported Mr. Bynen to hospital after he punched through a glass door at his home.”
Psychiatric History Subsequent to the Outstanding Charges
- Mr. Bynen’s psychiatric history subsequent to the Outstanding Charges are set out in the Hospital Report. The following extracted paragraphs are relevant to this hearing:
“Royal Victoria Hospital - Inpatient Admission - October 2 to October 7, 2024
Police transported Mr. Bynen to hospital following an incident where he caused excessive environmental damage to his family home (current index offense).
Royal Victoria Hospital - Inpatient Admission - October 20 to October 23, 2024
Mr. Bynen presented to the emergency department with bizarre behaviour. His stepfather, whom there was a no-contact order with, had called 911 to report Mr. Bynen’s bizarre behaviour.
Royal Victoria Hospital - Emergency Department - December 3, 2024 (x2) and December 5, 2024.
Centre for Addiction and Mental Health – Inpatient - December 6, 2024, to unknown.
Central North Correctional Centre (CNCC)- December 20, 2024, to June 18, 2025.”
Course in Hospital
- Mr. Bynen’s course in hospital is set out in detail in the Hospital Report. The following extracted paragraphs are relevant to this hearing:
“Mr. Bynen was admitted to the Forensic Assessment Program of Waypoint’s high secure division on June 18, 2025, in transfer from Central North Correctional Centre, subsequent to having been deemed Unfit to Stand Trial on June 13, 2025.
Mr. Bynen’s impulse control and judgment appeared poor. He was placed in seclusion at the outset for ongoing monitoring.
Nonetheless, Mr. Bynen remained in seclusion as of the date of preparation of this report.”
Position of the Parties
Counsel for the hospital, the Attorney General and Mr. Bynen advised that this was a joint submission: all were adopting the hospital’s position that Mr. Bynen is now fit to stand trial and that an order to return him to court should be made. In the interim, all terms in his current release are to remain, including the no-contact provision, pending his return to court.
Counsel for Mr. Bynen confirmed, as an officer of the court, that he can meaningfully communicate with his client and that his client does meet the criteria to be found fit, under R v Taylor and R v Bharwani, 2025 SCC 26 (“Bharwani”).
Counsel represented Mr. Bynen at his initial trial, at which he was found unfit, and he agrees with the doctor’s recommendation that Mr. Bynen is now fit to stand trial.
Evidence at the Hearing
- The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence from Dr. Van Impe. Dr. Van Impe co-authored the Hospital Report, the Fitness Report and the Inpatient Progress Report. He testified as follows:
a) At their first meeting, he would have described Mr. Bynen as being in extreme, profound psychosis. As set out on page 11 of the Hospital Report, Mr. Bynen was exhibiting psychomotor agitation and evident thought disorder. Mr. Bynen was obviously psychotically disorganized and could not participate meaningfully in any conversations.
b) Shortly after Mr. Bynen’s admission, it became apparent that Mr. Bynen was exaggerating his misunderstanding of the court process and of a trial. Mr. Bynen was started on treatment with risperidone at a fairly high dose, which has been effective in treating his psychosis. Mr. Bynen acknowledged that were other factors at play, which were causing him to hide the full extent of his capacity to understand the process, and procedures, of a trial.
- In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Van Impe testified:
a) Mr. Bynen understands the nature and object of the proceedings.
b) Mr. Bynen understands the possible consequences of the proceedings.
c) Mr. Bynen can communicate meaningfully with counsel.
d) He adopts Mr. Zenobio’s opinion with respect to the mental status of his client.
e) Mr. Bynen’s mental disorder is now fully treated and would not interfere with him participating meaningfully in court.
f) Mr. Bynen has a reality-based understanding of all of the above matters.
- No other evidence was called.
Analysis and Conclusions
Fitness to Stand Trial
- The first issue for the Board to decide is whether Mr. Bynen remains unfit to stand trial.
Applicable Law
- The Supreme Court of Canada addressed the fitness test, most recently in R v Bharwani, 2025 SCC 26 (“Bharwani”). In this decision, the Supreme Court emphasized the following, with respect to the fitness test:
a) Fitness to stand trial does not require an accused to make decisions in their best interests. Instead, “it requires making decisions based on an understanding of reality that is not overwhelmed by delusions, hallucinations, or other symptoms of their mental disorder.”1
b) The accused is fit to stand trial if they can “make and communicate reality-based decisions in the conduct of their defence or instruct counsel to do so”2 and “intelligibly communicate these decisions to counsel or the court.”3
c) Conducting a defence involves “making decisions that an accused must always make personally and those which relate to the exercise of their right to full answer and defence, such as decisions about pleas, the mode of trial, selection of counsel, whether to testify, whether to call or cross-examine witnesses, and closing submissions, among others.”4
d) The “capacity” required to make these decisions includes “a reality-based understanding of the nature or object of the proceedings and their possible consequences, an ability to understand the available options and their consequences, and an ability to select between those options when making decisions.”5
e) “Transient” mental health symptoms do not necessarily compromise an accused’s ability to conduct a defence. The focus is “always on assessing the extent to which an accused’s mental disorder impairs their understanding of reality when making and communicating decisions in their defence.”6
f) The fitness to stand trial test is “contextual,” and the inquiry “focuses on the decisions that form part of an accused’s defence in a specific case, and not in the abstract.”7
g) The same test for fitness to stand trial applies to all accused, whether they are represented by counsel or not.8
Determination on Fitness
Having heard and considered all of the evidence and submissions from the parties, the Board agrees with the joint submissions of the parties, that Mr. Bynen is fit to stand trial. The Board finds that the test for fitness, as outlined in s. 672 of the Criminal Code and R v Taylor and R v Bharwani, 2025 SCC 26, has been met.
Mr. Bynen understands the nature and object of the proceedings; he understands their possible consequences, and he can communicate meaningfully with counsel. Mr. Bynen has a reality-based understanding of the nature, object and possible consequences of the proceedings and has the ability to make decisions regarding his defence.
Mr. Bynen’s mental disorder is now under control, and it would not interfere with his ability to communicate with counsel or to meaningfully participate in a trial.
In particular, the Board relies on the following from the Inpatient Progress Report:
“I had the opportunity to assess JB on the morning of August 20, 2025, in advance of his initial Ontario Review Board hearing. Since I last assessed JB one week ago, it has become increasingly clear that he has been intentionally misleading us with respect to his knowledge of courtroom process, procedure and the roles of court officials. At my request, the behavioral supports specialist designed a questionnaire focused on the Taylor test questions whereby one response to each question was obviously the correct answer and the others were ridiculous. Despite this, he responded to some of the questions in a manner that was clearly erroneous.
When challenged on this by the behavioral support specialist he admitted that he had intentionally selected incorrect responses because he was either in a bad mood or was lazy. Furthermore, when the test was administered approximately 5 days apart, he was not consistent and answered some questions incorrectly after previously providing correct responses and vice versa.
JB is clearly concerned about the potential consequences of addressing his criminal charges and has repeatedly asserted that he does not have anywhere to live currently if he is released to the community. Based on today’s assessment it has become my opinion that he has engaged in efforts to appear purposely unfit in order to prolong his admission to our facility.
During my assessment of JB on the morning of August 20, 2025, he was in physical restraint due to some agitation he had demonstrated earlier today. Despite this, he engaged well in conversation and had no difficulties providing responses that I considered to be linear, organized and goal directed. I reviewed the pen and paper tests he had completed within the last week and he acknowledged clearly that he knew the correct response to all the questions but had been "lazy". I asked JB why he would want to appear as if he were unable to participate in court and he referenced not having a place to live and not having sufficient funds. He stated that he would be homeless if released to the community and indicated a preference to remain either in hospital or in custody. He was concerned that his ODSP funding would no longer be available, and I suggested that this would be reinstated once he was in the community. He then expressed concerns with the amount of money he was provided by ODSP and indicated that it was insufficient for him to order take-out food as often as he would like. I suggested to JB that his concerns about shelter and food were unrelated to his fitness to stand trial.
He agreed, once again, to participate in an assessment of his fitness to stand trial. Not only is JB aware of his specific charges but he can also describe the conduct leading to these charges. He suggested that he had not actually assaulted anyone with a weapon but acknowledged waving a hammer around. He certainly understood the roles of his defense attorney, the Crown attorney and the Judge. He was aware of the pleas available to an accused and when I asked him if he had considered how he would plead he stated, "obviously I did it". I asked him, based on that response, how he would plead, and he stated, "obviously I did it, but I don’t think I am guilty". I asked JB why he did not consider himself to be guilty if he had committed the offenses and he reported, "It was because of the schizophrenia, I have voices". I indicated to JB that he may want to discuss this with a lawyer, and we briefly touched on an NCR assessment and what that could entail. JB was also able to identify the consequences of being found guilty and not guilty. He also correctly identified and defined the terms oath and perjury.
Although JB laughed somewhat inappropriately a couple times during this assessment, this did not preclude him from participating. I am of the opinion that not only can JB correctly answer the Taylor test questions but he is also able to participate in court proceedings and to do so in a meaningful and reality-based manner.
Based on the results of this assessment I will be offering the opinion at JB's Ontario Review Board hearing this morning that he is currently fit to stand trial and should be returned to court in a timely manner to address his current criminal charges.”
- The Board therefore concludes that Mr. Bynen is fit to stand trial at the time of this hearing, pursuant to s. 672.48(1). Accordingly, the Board orders that Mr. Bynen be returned to court, where the issue of fitness will be tried and a verdict will be rendered, pursuant to s. 672.48(2).
DATED this 4th day of September 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Mr. J. Weinstein
Alternate Chairperson
___________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board
Footnotes
- Bharwani, supra, at para. 6.
- Ibid.
- Ibid at para. 77.
- Ibid at para. 6.
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- Ibid at para. 65.
- Ibid at para. 82.