Re: Shane S. Thomson
ORB File No: 8458
Hearing held on: Monday, August 25, 2025
Place of hearing: Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care 401 Sunset Drive, St. Thomas
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Weinstein
Members: Dr. A. Park Dr. M. Kalia Ms. C. Murray Mr. A. Mete
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Shane S. Thomson Counsel: Mr. S.F. Gehl
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Zamprogna
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. D. Rows
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated September 23, 2025)
Introduction
On January 10, 2024, Shane Thomson was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of assault, assault causing bodily harm, resist peace officer, theft motor vehicle, and break and enter, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (Criminal Code”).
On August 25, 2025, a panel of the Ontario Review Board (“Board” or “panel”) convened to review Mr. Thomson’s current Disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. At the time of the hearing, Mr. Thomson was subject to a Conditional Discharge.
Mr. Thomson was present at the hearing and was represented by counsel, Mr. Stephen Gehl, throughout.
A Hospital Report (the "Hospital Report") dated May 6, 2025, was entered as Exhibit 1. An Updated Hospital Report (the “Updated Report”) dated August 11, 2025, was entered as Exhibit 2.
The issue at this hearing is whether Mr. Thomson is a significant threat to public safety, as defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code. If so, the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances must be determined, bearing in mind the factors enunciated in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
For the reasons set out below and based on the documentary evidence and viva voce evidence, the Board concludes that Mr. Thomson continues to present a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board finds that a Conditional Discharge is the necessary and appropriate Order on the terms set out in our formal Disposition having regard to the safety of the public, which is the paramount concern, and also having regard to Mr. Thomson’s mental health and other needs.
Position of the Parties
- At the commencement of the hearing, the parties were canvassed for their without prejudice positions. The hospital, represented by Ms. Zamprogna, supported by counsel for the Attorney General, Mr. Rows, took the position that Mr. Thomson no longer continues to represent a significant threat to the public and the necessary and appropriate Disposition is an Absolute Discharge. Mr. Gehl agreed with the hospital position and submitted that Mr. Thomson should receive an Absolute Discharge. Therefore, there was a joint submission on all issues.
Current Psychiatric Diagnoses
- Bipolar Disorder; and
Substance Use Disorder
Index Offences
The circumstances giving rise to the Index Offences are described in detail in the Hospital Report. In summary, on February 26, 2022, Mr. Thomson entered the bathroom where his mother was. He attacked her by grabbing her head, pulling her hair out and spanking her on the buttocks. She tried to escape the bathroom, but Mr. Thomson blocked her exit. He smashed a picture on the ground displacing glass all over the floor. Mr. Thomson’s stepfather arrived at the scene and called 911 while trying to stop the attack. Mr. Thomson grabbed his stepfather’s arm and ripped off his shirt resulting in an injury that left blood pouring down his stepfather’s arm. When police arrived at the scene, Mr. Thomson ripped the radio from the officer’s vest and grabbed onto the collar portion of the officer’s vest. Mr. Thomson resisted arrest and was subdued by the officer until additional officers came to assist.
On March 10, 2022, Mr. Thomson stole a motor vehicle from the victim’s residence. He crashed the vehicle into a hydro pole and fled on foot. He then broke into and entered a mobile home and committed the theft of a hatchet.
Mr. Thomson has no other criminal history.
Background Information
The Hospital Report and Updated Hospital Report contain extensive information regarding Mr. Thomson’s background and history, the entirety of which need not be repeated here in detail. However, the following information is noteworthy.
Mr. Thomson is a 40-year-old man. He lives in a common-law relationship in a three-bedroom home in Chatham, Ontario.
Mr. Thomson is a certified plumber. He is currently unemployed.
The Hospital Report provided excerpts from the Independent Assessment Report of Dr. William J. Komer dated September 18, 2023. Those excerpts include:
“At the age of 16, Mr. Thomson started drinking alcohol. He reported that he abused alcohol in his 20’s. Mr. Thomson said that he consumed a case of beer a week. He has experienced relationship problems, blackouts and morning tremulousness related to alcohol use. …”
“When Mr. Thomson was 15 years old, he started using cannabis. He reported smoking three grams of cannabis a week in contrast to previously reporting having less than two grams of cannabis daily. … He informed that he has experienced “general paranoia” from cannabis use, but not in a long time. … Mr. Thomson has not attended any substance abuse treatment programs.”
From May 28 to June 5, 2020, Mr. Thomson was admitted to the St. Thomas Elgin General Hospital on a Form 1. A Form 3 was subsequently completed. At the time he had developed manic symptoms and delusional beliefs. He thought he was communicating with God following an apocalypse. He was diagnosed with bipolar disorder by Dr. Laporte.
Following his discharge on June 5, 2020, Mr. Thomson continued to have psychiatric care in the community, initially by Dr. Laporte and then Dr. C. Umeadi in Chatham.
Dr. Umeadi referred Mr. Thomson for counselling to Ms. Mary Cooper of the First Response Team of the Canadian Mental Health Association Lambton Kent Branch. He reported using cannabis daily and having limited alcohol intake. He was noted to be anxious, with a low mood, and overwhelmed with his marital situation, finances, and his father’s recent death. Ms. Cooper determined he was appropriate for Rapid Assessment & Intervention Team supports. Mr. Thomson started working with a case manager in October 2020.
Dr. Umeadi continued providing follow-up care on a regular basis, noting low mood on several follow up dates. On June 18, 2021, it is noted that Mr. Thomson advised Dr. Umeadi that he had not taken his medication for days.
From February 26 to March 8, 2022, Mr. Thomson was admitted to the Chatham-Kent Health Alliance. He was taken to hospital by police after the index offences of that date. It is noted that Mr. Thomson reported taking Seroquel in the midafternoon rather than in the evening and had missed that dose for up to three days. A Form 1 was completed and was followed by a Form 3. He admitted to having one to two drinks on weekdays and two to six drinks on weekends, using LSD “just once” recently, and using cannabis daily. He was having clear psychotic symptoms during that admission. Upon discharge, Dr. Devarajan diagnosed him with a bipolar mood disorder with mood incongruent psychotic symptoms, a cannabis use disorder, and an alcohol use disorder.
Course Since Last Disposition
Mr. Thomson continues to live in the community with his common-law partner, Ms. Coulter.
During the early part of this reporting period, Mr. Thomson was isolative and withdrawn, which the outreach team believed was due to his ongoing depressive symptoms. Ms. Coulter reported that she filled Mr. Thomson’s medication dosette to help keep him on track with his medications. During that time, Mr. Thomson was not motivated to add structured activities to his day and did not leave home much.
In October 2024, the CMHA case manager reported that Mr. Thomson had not been participating in any rehabilitation and was worried that her coordinator would suggest discharging him from their services. The outreach team has since spoken with Mr. Thomson’s CMHA case manager regarding the concerns of Mr. Thomson being released from the CMHA’s care. His case manager reiterated that they are a rehabilitation service and Mr. Thomson’s engagement in in rehabilitation has been minimal. It was suggested that they would continue working with him for at least six months although it could be a year or more.
Due to his ongoing depression, medication changes were made on October 30, 2024. In November 2024, nearly a month after the medication changes, Ms. Coulter reported that Mr. Thomson was presenting with hypersexual behaviours. This resulted in further medication changes, and on December 31, 2024, Mr. Thomson reported to Dr. Masaud that his restless feeling had disappeared, he had no racing thoughts, that his hypersexual behaviours improved but he continued to feel depressed and slept up to 16 hours per day. Further medication changes resulted.
By March 4, 2025, Mr. Thomson reported that he felt a bit better and had more energy and ambition. He started doing small household chores. He reported poor concentration and had a marked left-handed tremor. He reported that he had not used cannabis or alcohol. More medication changes ensued.
Mr. Thomson reported that his relationship with Ms. Coulter can be a stressor at times, and she reported on numerous occasions that she has contemplated leaving the relationship. Ms. Coulter continues to be Mr. Thomson’s main personal support. The Updated Hospital Report notes that, as of late, there have been no discussions about Mr. Thomson and Ms. Coulter terminating their relationship in the near future.
Mr. Thomson is reported to have good insight into the index offence and the circumstances surrounding it. He is noted to have good insight into his mental illness and continues to agree with his diagnosis of bipolar mood disorder. When asked what symptoms he experiences when in a decompensated state, he stated that he becomes increasingly depressed. He stated that he has not experienced any psychotic symptoms since the time of the index offences.
Mr. Thomson is capable to make treatment decisions. He has been compliant with all of his medications this reporting period. He has worked well with his community psychiatrist to make adjustments to his treatment regimen.
Mr. Thomson reported that he has not used cannabis since New Year’s Eve, leading into 2025. After Mr. Thomson’s ORB hearing was adjourned in May 2025, he reported that he would like to be able to “smoke a joint” occasionally. This is in contrast to prior statements, when asked if cannabis could potentially lead to a decompensation in his mental status, Mr. Thomson stated that he did not believe cannabis use would negatively impact him but that he did not intend to use it. He has not accepted treatment for his substance use disorder.
Oral Evidence at the Hearing
Dr. Prakash is Mr. Thomson’s psychiatrist and co-author of the Hospital Report and Updated Report. He provided oral evidence at the hearing to supplement the documentary evidence.
Dr. Prakash testified that since the creation of the Updated Hospital Report, Mr. Thomson has been assigned a new community psychiatrist, Dr. Adewuyi. Dr. Adewuyi practices out of the same office as Dr. Masaud who has since left that medical office.
Dr. Adewuyi has seen Mr. Thomson twice since becoming his community psychiatrist and has made medication changes that will be described later in the oral evidence.
Mr. Thomson’s diagnosis remains bipolar disorder and substance use disorder. The struggle has been finding the treatment to improve his depression. Dr. Prakash testified that Mr. Thomson has not been manic for two to three years. He stated that Mr. Thomson now has gone through another year with multiple medication changes without sustained mania or psychosis.
Dr. Prakash testified that Mr. Thomson has a cannabis use disorder diagnosis. Mr. Thomson was using cannabis prior to admission to hospital and prior to the index offence as well. He posited that Mr. Thomson’s mania and psychosis flows from untreated bipolar disorder. Mr. Thomson now does not experience psychosis or mania because he has mood stabilizing medications.
Dr. Prakash stated that he doesn’t believe that cannabis is a violence risk in Mr. Thomson’s case. Though Mr. Thomson was using cannabis up to the time of his initial hearing, there was no evidence of violence because he was being treated for his bipolar illness.
Factors that decrease Mr. Thomson’s risk of harm to the public are good support from his partner, Ms. Coulter, stable housing, and stable finances.
Dr. Prakash testified that Mr. Thomson is not attending CMHA groups. He acknowledged that on page 22 to 23 of the Hospital Report there was concern that Mr. Thomson would lose CMHA support because of his failure to engage in rehabilitation. However, Dr. Prakash believes that CMHA is not stepping away from providing Mr. Thomson care. There have been fewer CMHA visits but Ms. Coulter texts CMHA and has a multi-year relationship with them.
Dr. Prakash testified that Mr. Thomson’s insight into the need for medication is good. He has been adherent since starting treatment after the index offence.
Mr. Thomson self-reported cannabis use more than once in the reporting year. He is consuming cannabis similar to his future plans for cannabis use, which includes sharing a joint with Ms. Coulter in the evenings. There was no known decline in his mental state this year despite his cannabis use. It has not been a goal of the hospital to include treatment for substance use.
If Mr. Thomson is manic and psychotic, the use of cannabis will increase his risk to the public.
Dr. Prakash testified that Mr. Thomson’s main personal support system is Ms. Coulter, which puts a lot of pressure on her. She does all of the work inside and outside the home. As Mr. Thomson’s depression improves, their relationship is improving. If she were not to remain in the relationship with Mr. Thomson, he would have to use his own income to cover medication expenses. Currently, Ms. Coulter’s medical plan covers 80 percent of his medical expenses.
In response to questions of Mr. Rows, Dr. Prakash testified that Mr. Thomson has breached his disposition infrequently with the use of cannabis. The amount of cannabis Mr. Thomson plans to use would not trigger a risk to public safety. Dr. Prakash testified that it is his psychiatric opinion is that Mr. Thomson’s risk profile does not meet the test for significant threat. He believes that the Mental Health Act is sufficient to manage Mr. Thomson’s risk.
In response to a question of the Board, Dr. Adewuyi continues to make medication changes. With a reduction in valproic acid from twice per day to once per day, the treatment team observed a reduction in Mr. Thomson’s depressive symptoms. Fluoxetine was added to the medication regimen, which also accounted for a reduction in Mr. Thomson’s depressive symptoms. The day prior to the hearing, Dr. Adewuyi changed the Fluoxetine from 20 mg to 30 mg daily and decreased the dosage of the mood stabilizer (valproic acid) from 500 mg daily to 250 mg daily. Dr. Prakash agreed that the treatment of bipolar depression can overshoot and convert symptoms to mania. However, Dr. Prakash believes Mr. Thomson is not a significant threat because of his overall risk profile.
Dr. Prakash testified that four to five months prior to the index offences, the community psychiatrist discontinued the prescription of olanzapine and increased Zoloft, which triggered a manic episode. Since the index offences Mr. Thomson has experienced depression only. In response to a question of the Board, Dr. Prakash acknowledged that the hypersexuality experienced by Mr. Thomson this reporting year was a manic symptom, but was unsustained, and did not devolve into a manic episode. Ms. Coulter recognized the hypersexuality, mentioned it to the CMHA worker, and it was dealt with by the increase of one of the mood stabilizers.
Dr. Prakash testified that with Ms. Coulter in the relationship and supporting Mr. Thomson, his risk decreases dramatically.
Ms. Coulter assists Mr. Thomson with medications in that she organizes calling the pharmacy and arranging delivery. Mr. Thomson is able to take the medication on his own, but the organizing of obtaining the medication requires support when in a depressed state.
One of Mr. Thomson’s strengths is that he values professional supports. He goes to all doctor’s appointments and meets with the team.
One of Mr. Thomson’s diagnoses remains substance use disorder. He is using an indica strain of cannabis, which is mostly THC. He currently has one to two puffs once or twice per year. In the future, Mr. Thomson intends to consume cannabis in the amount of about 0.5 mg shared with his partner two to three times per week. Dr. Prakash stated his advice to Mr. Thomson would be to not use cannabis at all, but he does not believe that the use of cannabis increases his risk to the public.
In response to a question of the Board, Dr. Prakash testified that there is no discharge dated for his CMHA services. In general, CMHA support is not indefinite. CMHA support isn’t currently playing an integral role in Mr. Thomson’s risk mitigation strategy but is more of a sounding board with Ms. Coulter who connects frequently with the CMHA worker.
Dr. Prakash testified that he has a general concern that since Mr. Thomson is not connected to a substance treatment program, his use may increase. However, it is his opinion that Mr. Thomson’s history of a link between violence and substance use is not significant.
In response to questions of the Board, Dr. Prakash agreed that given Mr. Thomson’s history of treatment-resistant depression, CBT for depression may offer some benefit. Mr. Thomson’s depressive symptoms appear to be connected to his use of cannabis as a coping strategy. Dr. Prakash further noted that the severity of depression has recently diminished, and Mr. Thomson may now be more receptive to participating in such therapy.
Dr. Prakash testified that some individuals would react to medication changes within hours or days. In other individuals, a notable effect of medication changes wouldn’t be seen for weeks or months. In Mr. Thomson’s there was four to five months between the medication change and the index offences. At that time, the dose of mood stabilizers were decreased, antidepressants increased, and there was an increase in cannabis use until the time of the index offence.
Analysis and Conclusions:
- The Board appreciates that the parties put forward a joint submission for an Absolute Discharge. However, the Board does not accept the joint submission. The Board does not reject the joint submission of the parties lightly. As the Court of Appeal stated in Hassan (Re), 2011 ONCA 561, [2011] O.J. No. 3800 at para. 24 the Board “ought to tread cautiously” before making an order that restricts the accused’s liberty beyond that which the hospital and Crown think necessary. However, at para. 25 the court went on to say:
“However, the Board does not necessarily err because it declines to follow a hospital’s or Crown’s recommendation. Automatically adhering to the position of a hospital or Crown would mean abdicating its own role.”
The Court of Appeal in Osawe (Re), [2015] ONCA 280 was clear that the Board has a duty to reject a joint submission that does not meet the requirements of s. 672.54.
The Board has made its own independent finding of significant risk based on the factors set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
In Winko, the Supreme Court outlined that, in coming to the conclusion on the issue of significant risk, a Review Board should closely examine a range of evidence, including: the circumstances of the original offence; the past and expected course of the accused’s treatment; the present state of the NCR accused’s medical condition; the NCR accused’s own plans for the future; the support existing for the NCR accused in the community; and most importantly, the recommendations provided by experts who examined the NCR accused.
The index offences committed in 2022 were very serious. A violent assault was committed against a family member. Another offence involved stealing and crashing a motor vehicle, the consequences of which could have been catastrophic.
Mr. Thomson continues to suffer symptoms of his bipolar disorder. Despite pharmacological treatment, Mr. Thomson has ongoing symptoms of depression that impact his daily living.
Mr. Thomson’s bipolar illness is not stable, and this has necessitated ongoing and frequent changes to his medication regimen. The most recent medication change included a reduction in the dosage of the mood stabilizer by half just one day prior to the hearing. Despite ongoing and complex modifications to the medication regimen, Mr. Thomson has not been in remission from his bipolar disorder since the index offences. His symptoms continue to be inadequately treated despite the best efforts of his experienced psychiatrists.
In his testimony, Dr. Prakash agreed that while treating bipolar depression, it is possible for the psychiatrist to overshoot and convert to symptoms of mania. In fact, in this reporting year, Mr. Thomson suffered symptoms of mania in the form of hypersexuality. With great credit to Ms. Coulter, she recognized this behaviour and reported it. This permitted timely treatment and this symptom of mania abated.
We note that the current treatment strategy of decreasing the mood stabilizer while increasing the dose of antidepressant in order to treat depressive symptoms was also used prior to the index offense, which triggered a manic episode. As such, we believe that Mr. Thomson continues to be at risk of decompensation of his mental status.
Further, Dr. Prakash testified that the reason why Mr. Thomson developed mania prior to the index offences was due, in part, to the fact that he was on doses of mood stabilizers that were too low to effectively prevent a manic episode. Similarly, we note that currently Mr. Thomson’s valproic acid is not at a therapeutic dose at 250 mg daily. We also note that his lithium is only at a low-moderate dose of 900 mg daily. Dr. Prakash was not aware of the results of any recent serum lithium levels.
Mr. Thomson has yet to achieve any period of clinical stability. It is our finding that oversight by the ORB is necessary at this time as Mr. Thomson’s bipolar disorder, which is his major risk factor, is not yet adequately treated.
The Board notes that Ms. Coulter organizes Mr. Thomson’s medications and provides significant support by remaining in touch with CMHA regularly. Mr. Thomson himself does not remain in touch with CMHA in any meaningful way. The Board is of the opinion that the oversight provided by Ms. Coulter has been necessary for Mr. Thomson to remain medication adherent while living in the community. Without the excellent support of Ms. Coulter, Mr. Thomson’s lack of motivation during depressive periods would likely lead to non-adherence with medications. Dr. Prakash testified that Mr. Thomson requires Ms. Coulter’s support with tasks as simple as organizing phone calls to the pharmacy and picking up medications.
It is noteworthy that Mr. Thomson was non-adherent with his medication immediately prior to the index offences.
Ms. Coulter reported Mr. Thomson’s hypersexuality, which Dr. Prakash described as an unsustained manic symptom. Mr. Thomson, did not himself report hypersexuality. The Hospital Report notes that Mr. Thomson felt his hypersexual behaviour was “personal stuff” that did not need to be discussed with the Outreach Team. The Board finds that it is likely that the manic symptom was unsustained only because it was reported by Ms. Coulter and treated promptly.
Dr. Prakash described factors that decrease Mr. Thomson’s risk of harm to the public, which are largely related to his common-law relationship with Ms. Coulter, including good support from his partner (including organizing medications and maintaining communications with CMHA), stable housing, and stable finances. Ms. Coulter is currently working and providing an income for the couple, paying the mortgage on the home, and her benefits provide payment for 80 percent of the cost of Mr. Thomson’s medications. Mr. Thomson is not employed due to the symptoms of his illness. Without Ms. Coulter in the relationship, Mr. Thomson’s risk of harm to the public would significantly increase.
Given that Mr. Thomson does not personally initiate or maintain regular communication with the CMHA and is not engaging in any of its rehabilitation programs, Ms. Coulter (who is not a professional support) is integral to ensuring that Mr. Thomson’s risk of harm to the public is managed.
Unfortunately, Ms. Coulter and Mr. Thomson have experienced a strained relationship in the reporting year. She reported on numerous occasions that she has contemplated leaving the relationship. As per the Hospital Report, the CMHA case manager considered that, if Ms. Coulter left the relationship, it would negatively impact Mr. Thomson’s stability.
The Board relies on the Re-Offence Scenario described in the Hospital Report as follows:
Absent his current level of support, Mr. Thomson would likely fall away from treatment, stop taking his medication, and relapse into substance use. This would lead to a decompensation of his mental status, which would result in a re-emergence in his psychotic symptoms of his bipolar disorder, similar to the time of his offences, increasing his risk of serious violence.
Although Mr. Thomson is now connected with a new community psychiatrist, the Board finds that the support of Ms. Coulter is at risk as they have experienced instability in their relationship this past year. Ms. Coulter’s support is a major factor in Mr. Thomson’s relative stability in the community and risk management. Further, the continued support of CMHA is tenuous and of unknown permanence given his lack of engagement with them. CMHA support is necessary for the management of Mr. Thomson’s risk should Ms. Coulter be unable to remain a support or need to reduce the level of her support.
Due to all of the above factors, the Board finds that the Mental Health Act would not be sufficient to protect the safety of the public. If Mr. Thomson’s mental status deteriorated and he became manic, particularly where CMHA or family supports are not present, his risk to the public would likely be unacceptably high before he would be certifiable.
Based on the evidence before us, the Board agrees that Mr. Thomson satisfies the test set out in Marmolejo (Re), 2021 ONCA 130, in which Justice Tulloch reviewed the relevant test in paragraph 37:
“The threshold for significant risk is “onerous”: Carrick (Re), 2015 ONCA 866, 128 O. R (3d) 209, 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 ONCA 810, at para. 8. The conduct must be of a serious criminal nature. 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; Pellett (Re), 2017 ONCA 753, at para. 21.”
Given our finding of significant risk, we are tasked with determining the Disposition for the coming year.
Mr. Thomson has a significant substance use history and he was using substances at the time of the index offences. Dr. Prakash confirmed that Mr. Thomson continues to carry the diagnosis of substance use disorder. Mr. Thomson has not accepted recommended treatment for his substance use disorder and Dr. Prakash now confirms that treatment for the cannabis use has not been a treatment goal of the team.
Regardless of Mr. Thomson’s substance use disorder diagnosis, Dr. Prakash is of the opinion that Mr. Thomson’s mania and psychosis flows from him not receiving adequate treatment for his bipolar disorder. He thinks that the amount of cannabis that Mr. Thomson intends to use is not a risk factor unless he is both manic and psychotic. However, Dr. Prakash did indicate that he has a concern that Mr. Thomson’s cannabis use would increase over time.
Based on self-report of Mr. Thomson and Ms. Coulter, it is Dr. Prakash’s opinion that cannabis use has not destabilized Mr. Thomson’s mental state since he has received treatment for bipolar illness. Regardless, the Board has serious concerns that cannabis will cause future destabilization and we encourage Mr. Thomson not to use substances due to the fragility of his bipolar illness. However, clause 1(b) of the Disposition is being removed based on the opinion of Dr. Prakash as it will be the least restrictive and least onerous Disposition under the circumstances, while he remains under the watchful eye of his forensic treatment team.
The Board congratulates Mr. Thomson on his progress and cooperation with treatment this past year. In the coming reporting year, the Board would like to see the following:
a) A stable medication regimen with optimization of Mr. Thomson’s mood stabilizing medications;
b) Active participation in a substance rehabilitation program and better insight into the relationship between cannabis use / substance use and his risk of violence;
c) Personal interactions, communications, and engagement between Mr. Thomson and CMHA. It will be necessary for Mr. Thomson to develop the skills to personally interact, engage with, and communicate with CMHA rather than having almost complete reliance on Ms. Coulter in this regard; and
d) Continued improvement in Mr. Thomson’s depressive symptoms, which significantly impacts Ms. Coulter who is his only day-to-day support in the community.
- Upon consideration of all the evidence, the submissions of the parties, and the criteria set forth in s. 672.54, the paramount consideration being the safety of the public, in addition to the mental condition of Mr. Thomson and his other needs, we conclude that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Detention Order on the terms set out in our formal Disposition.
DATED this 23rd day of September 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. C. Murray Legal Member Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board