Re Trisha Wall, 2025 CanLII 97813

Re: Trisha Wall

ORB File No: 5240

Hearing held on: Tuesday, August 12, 2025

Place of hearing: Brockville Mental Health Centre, via Zoom videoconference

Pursuant to: Section 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Goldenberg

Members: Ms. K. Weisbaum

Dr. R. Wood Hill

Dr. T. Stirpe

Mr. J. Cyr

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Trisha Wall

Counsel: Mr. P. Lewandowski

The Person in charge of Hospital: Representative: Dr. J. Gray

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. J. Masse

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated September 24, 2025)

I. Background

1. On December 15, 2008, the accused, Trisha Wall, was found not criminally responsible (NCR) on a charge of mischief contrary to the Criminal Code. Ms. Wall is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”) dated December 18th, 2024, which discharges her on certain terms and conditions.

2. On July 16, 2025, the Brockville Mental Health Centre (“BMHC” or the “hospital”) advised the Board that Ms. Wall was admitted to hospital on July 7, 2025, on a Form 1 under Ontario’s Mental Health Act, RSO 1990, c M.7 (MHA). As of July 16, 2025, her admission was continued under a Form 3, which expired on July 20, 2025, at which time her admission was renewed under a Form 4, which is set to expire on August 20, 2025.

3. Following receipt of the hospital’s letter dated July 16, 2025, the Board responded to the hospital on July 17, 2025, questioning whether the Board had jurisdiction, having regard to the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Young (Re), 2011 ONCA 432.

4. On August 12, 2025, a panel of the Board convened a hearing via Zoom videoconference to consider Ms. Wall’s case and current situation. Ms. Wall was present for the hearing, represented by her counsel, Mr. Paul Lewandowski. Also present were counsel for the Attorney General, Ms. Jaqueline Masse, and Ms. Wall’s psychiatrist, Dr. Jonathan Gray.

5. For the reasons that follow, the Board found that it did not have jurisdiction to conduct a hearing and declined to make any finding pursuant to s. 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code.

Hearing

6. At the beginning of the hearing, the Alternate Chair raised the issue of whether the Board had jurisdiction, given the decision in Young. The Alternate Chair also noted that prior to the hearing, the hospital had provided an updated hospital report with a request for a hearing to change the terms of Ms. Wall’s disposition to a detention order.

7. The Alternate Chair canvassed the parties on the issue of whether to proceed with a disposition hearing. Mr. Lewandowski stated that he preferred to not presently deal with a disposition hearing, but rather to focus on the restriction of liberty issue. Ms. Masse stated she did not disagree with this approach, given the decision in Young.

8. Following some further discussion, Dr. Gray stated that prior to the hearing, he had discussions with Ms. Wall about his submissions at her hearing last year. He wanted to correct three items that were included in those submissions, as he had promised Ms. Wall he would do, and provide context to the panel.

9. Specifically, in his submissions last year:

i) Dr. Gray had stated that Ms. Wall had presented a knife to her partner and expressed homicidal ideation, and that he had suggested she may have done this to avoid an absolute discharge. At the hearing, Dr. Gray clarified that this had not been Ms. Wall’s intention, rather, he now accepts that Ms. Wall was confused at the time of the incident, that her behaviour reflected her immediate experience and was not an attempt on her part to manipulate the outcome of her hearing last year.

ii) Dr. Gray had also stated that Ms. Wall stopped eating for four days after her admission and he had implied this was an impulsive, self-harming act by Ms. Wall to gain the attention of nursing staff. Ms. Wall had since clarified to Dr. Gray that she had not eaten for 11 days, not as a bid for attention, but due to a genuine loss of motivation to eat following the end of a significant long-term relationship. After 11 days, she began eating again. At the hearing, Dr. Gray confirmed his current view that Ms. Wall’s 11-day period of not eating was a legitimate grief response to external events, not a relapse of her mental illness or an effort to manipulate staff.

iii) Dr. Gray had further suggested that Ms. Wall’s catastrophic reactions to life events were symptoms of her underlying mental illness. Ms. Wall disagreed. On reflection, at the hearing, Dr. Gray acknowledged that the breakup with her life partner was devastating to Ms. Wall—it was the end of her first serious long-term relationship, which ended suddenly and painfully. Under similar circumstances, many people might briefly experience homicidal thoughts or intense anger. While not condoning such thoughts, Dr. Gray stated at the hearing that such thoughts can fall within the range of normal human reactions and are not necessarily signs of mental illness. Importantly, unlike in the past, Ms. Wall did not engage in self-injury or other harmful behaviors at that time.

10. In response to questions from the Alternate Chair, Dr. Gray stated that Ms. Wall was currently admitted to hospital under a Form 4 according to the provisions of the MHA. Her involuntary hospitalization was necessary due to voiced suicidal and homicidal ideation and continued as of the time of the hearing on August 12, 2025. The Form 4 would expire on August 20, 2025, however, it could be extended as necessary and Ms. Wall would retain the right to challenge any subsequent renewal(s), as provided for in the MHA.

11. Mr. Lewandowski added that the current approach under the MHA to managing Ms. Wall’s hospitalization would be better for his client and he would discuss this approach with her going forward.

12. Having heard from Dr. Gray, when asked by the Alternate Chair, neither Ms. Wall, Mr. Lewandowski, or Ms. Masse had any questions for Dr. Gray, nor did they wish to call any further evidence.

Analysis and Conclusion

13. The Board finds that it did not have jurisdiction to hold a restriction of liberty hearing with respect to Ms. Wall’s detention in hospital under the MHA. The MHA is a distinct Ontario law that permits doctors to admit and keep someone in hospital if the person meets certain psychiatric risk criteria, even if a Board order allows them to live in the community, as is the case for Ms. Wall.

14. As stated by Mr. Justice Doherty in Young, at paragraph 13:

“I think the language of the Criminal Code clearly indicates that confinement under the Mental Health Act does not trigger the hearing requirement under s. 672.81(2.1).”

Beginning at paragraph 19, Doherty J. continued:

“An involuntary committal under the Mental Health Act has nothing to do with the

Review Board or the terms of any disposition made by the Review Board. Committal under the Mental Health Act depends on the criteria set out in that Act and is determined using the procedures set down in the Mental Health Act…Confinement pursuant to the Mental Health Act is not a restriction on liberty made pursuant to any authority delegated to hospital personnel by the Review Board and is, therefore, not subject to the requirements of s. 672.81(2.1).”

15. It was appropriate for the hospital to notify the Board in its letter of July 16, 2025, of Ms. Wall’s detention under the MHA. This is consistent with the finding in Campbell (Re), 2018 ONCA 140, where, at paragraph 69, Mme. Justice Fairburn of the Ontario Court of Appeal stated:

“[W]hen the hospital is in doubt, notice should be given…This kind of responsible notice is encouraged. While notice under s. 672.56(2) will generate an automatic review under s. 672.81(2.1), it is always open to the hospital to simply inform the Board about a decision that has changed the NCR accused’s liberty status.”

16. Similarly, in Young, the Court stated at paragraph 21:

“In holding that an involuntary committal under the Mental Health Act does not trigger the Review Board’s obligation to conduct a restriction on liberty hearing, I do not disregard the submissions of all counsel that it is important that the Review Board be made aware of any restrictions on the liberty of persons subject to a Review Board disposition. Clearly, if a person subject to a Review Board disposition is confined under the terms of the Mental Health Act, the Review Board should be made aware of that order.”

17. It was clear to the panel that Dr. Gray is managing Ms. Wall’s care under the MHA to address both her best interests and the risk she poses to others. The MHA sets out a step-by-step process for involuntary admission, moving from short assessments to longer renewals, each requiring strict legal criteria and regular review. Admission may extend from 72 hours (“Form 1”) to 14 days (“Form 3”) to one, two, or three months (“Form 4” Certificate of Renewal), with rights advice and the opportunity to appeal to the Consent and Capacity Board at each stage.

18. The panel notes Dr. Gray’s comment that avoiding an unnecessary restriction of liberty hearing was appreciated. The discussion at the hearing regarding Ms. Wall’s management in hospital under the MHA reassured the panel that her current care appropriately addresses her best interests and, importantly, her risk of harm to the public, and reinforced the panel’s position that the Board does not have jurisdiction relative to Ms. Wall’s current detention in hospital.

19. With respect to Ms. Wall’s current disposition, the Board was not prepared to hear arguments. If the parties wish, they may initiate the usual process for an early review.

20. In summary, in the present case, there is no reviewable restriction under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code.

DATED this 24th day of September, 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

Ms. K. Weisbaum

Legal Member

__________________

Office of the Registrar

Ontario Review Board