Ontario Review Board
Re: Brandon Mott
ORB File No: 6695
Hearing held on: Thursday, July 24, 2025
Place of hearing: Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care 401 Sunset Drive, St. Thomas Ontario (Via Zoom Audio-Visual Technology)
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code
Before: Alternate Chairperson: Mr. P. Capelle Members: Dr. T. Verny Dr. M. Kalia Mr. D. Sandor Mr. A. Bouvier
Parties Appearing: Accused: Brandon Mott Counsel: Mr. S. Gehl
The Person in charge of Hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Zamprogna
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. D. Rows
REASONS FOR DECISION
(Dated September 22, 2025)
Introduction:
[1]. On October 28, 2014, Brandon Mott, who was 24 years old at the time of the hearing, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on a charge of theft not exceeding five thousand dollars, contrary to the provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada.
He is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, dated November 19, 2024, that detains him at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care, St. Joseph’s Health Care London (hereinafter referred to as “the Hospital”). That disposition grants Mr. Mott certain privileges including that of living in the community of Southwestern Ontario in an accommodation approved by the person in charge. It also imposes conditions, including that of abstaining from the non-medical use of alcohol, drugs or other intoxicants and that of submitting samples for the purpose of monitoring the ordered abstention.
[2]. On June 24, 2025 the Ontario Review Board received a notification from the Hospital pursuant to section 672.56(2)(b) of the Criminal Code advising that Mr. Mott had lost place of accommodation in the community as a result of alleged substance use that included cannabis, alcohol, methamphetamines and cocaine, and had been returned to the Hospital for a period of assessment and review with a goal of stabilization addressing of the substance use issues. The restriction of his liberty was expected to last over seven days.
[3]. On July 24, 2025, a panel of the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing at the Hospital via Zoom Audio-visual Technology pursuant to section 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Mott attended the hearing and was represented by his lawyer, Mr. S. Gehl.
[4]. The record for the hearing included the Revised Notice of Hearing, the Board’s response, Reasons for Adjournment from an initially scheduled hearing, Mr. Mott’s most recent disposition (as mentioned above), the Reasons for that Disposition and a Hospital Report written in November 2024. On the consent of all parties, a “Report of the Hospital to the Ontario Review Borad” (referred to as the “Restriction of Liberty Report”) dated July 3, 2025 was entered into evidence as an exhibit. The only issues before the Board were those associated with the restriction of Mr. Mott’s liberty. None of the parties sought a change to his reigning disposition.
[5]. The parties were canvassed for initial positions. Ms. Zamprogna, counsel for the Hospital, expressed the position that Mr. Mott had experienced a restriction of his liberty and that the approach taken by the Hospital was justified, necessary and represented the least onerous and least restrictive option available to the Hospital at the time. She further took the position that the restriction continued to be justified, necessary, and the least restrictive option available. Both the representative of the Attorney General and counsel for Mr. Mott joined Ms. Zamprogna in that position.
[6]. The representative of the Attorney General joined the Hospital on all issues.
[7]. Benefitting as it did from the helpful joint submission, this panel of the Ontario Review Board deliberated on the evidence and concluded that the joint submission was entirely appropriate and that both the initial and the ongoing restriction of Mr. Mott’s liberty met the test set by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Re Campbell, 2018 ONCA 140.
Evidence at the hearing
[8]. By way of background, Mr. Mott is 34 years old and is not capable of making decisions related to his treatment and medication. On October 28, 2014, he was found not criminally responsible, as mentioned above, on a charge of theft under $5000. The essence of the charge is that he entered a private residence while its occupants were sleeping, moved around papers and took a cigarette and a lighter. He fled when confronted. He has long-standing struggles with substance use and major mental illness that have contributed to a lengthy criminal record that includes a conviction for assault, several convictions for break and entering and theft. He has a long history of antisocial methods of problem-solving in his quest to meet his material needs. His current diagnoses are Schizophrenia, Substance Use Disorder, Anti-Social Personality Disorder and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (by history).
[9]. Mr. Mott’s most recent Reasons for Disposition set out his course under the Board’s jurisdiction. It outlines chronic, serious mental illness, a continuation of active paranoid symptoms, lack of remorse, deceitfulness and disregard for social norms. It explains that Mr. Mott lacks insight globally and that this continues to severely impact his treatment progress. He has poor insight into his substance use issues and the risk they pose to the public. It poignantly states that in the past few years to the date of the last annual review hearing, Mr. Mott has had six readmissions to the Hospital resulting from substance use and mental decompensation. Mr. Mott’s main risk derives from his antisocial personality disorder. The Board was purposeful in noting that:
Dr. Mokhber concluded her testimony stating that if Mr. Mott demonstrates that he can live in the community while maintaining his abstinence from the use of substances, and not engage in any inappropriate behavior, the hope is that he could progress to some kind of discharge disposition at his next review [emphasis added].
The Board at that time was encouraged by Mr. Mott’s, to that point, recent efforts to achieve abstinence from use of substances. It encouraged Mr. mott to maintain a good therapeutic relationship with the treatment team and to engage in programming to develop the skills he needs to reintegrate fully into the community. This was on November 8, 2024.
[10]. The Hospital’s Restriction of Liberty Report explains that almost immediately after Mr. Mott was moved into a supervised group home in Port Bruce, Ontario, concerns were raised concerning his use, selling, offering and distributing of crystal methamphetamine to other patients. Though the risk to public safety identified in the previous Reasons for Disposition contemplated exactly this type of behaviour, efforts were made to work with Mr. Mott for a period of over three months following which Mr. Mott was served with an eviction notice. Accompanying the notice was evidence that Mr. Mott was providing and encouraging other vulnerable clients in the home with illegal drugs. He was brought back to the Hospital, experiencing a restriction of his liberty, accordingly.
Analysis and conclusion as to initial restriction of liberty
[11]. Mr. Mott’s almost immediate resort to exactly the type of behaviour that had been identified by the previous panel of the Ontario Review Board as representing a significant threat to the safety of the public, coupled with his eviction and resultant homelessness clearly establishes that the Hospital was placed in a position where it had only one option when considering the objectives (and particularly the primary objective) set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code. Mr. Mott had engaged in serious criminal behaviour that exposed other members of the public to serious harm. He himself had engaged in substance use that has been an established risk factor now for almost a decade. He had no social supports and no recourse to other housing in the community that was suitable, particularly given the regression he displayed on a key risk factor identified by the previous panel. The Hospital’s restriction of Mr. Mott’s liberty was justified, necessary, and represented the least onerous and least restrictive option available to it at the time.
Evidence re ongoing restriction of liberty
[12]. Following Mr. Mott’s readmission to the Hospital on June 23, 2025, he was placed on the Forensic Assessment Unit with a goal of stabilization and further treatment planning around community integration. Mr. Mott continued to show little insight into either his major mental illness or his need for treatment. He refused blood samples or an MRSA swab in spite of the reigning Board disposition. He displayed irritability and some hallucinations and delusional thought. He stated that he had died five times so he could hear spirits and asserted that there were “too many spirits in this place.” He displayed grandiosity and paranoia that targeted treatment providers. He continued in his angry, frustrated and psychotic state through to July 3, 2025, though his symptoms of antisocial personality disorder remained evident.
[13]. In his update to the panel, Dr. A. Prakash, Mr. Mott’s treating psychiatrist explained that Mr. Mott continued on the Forensic Assessment Unit as the Hospital engaged in further assessment to guide the process of Mr. Mott’s reintegration into the community. Dr. Prakash testified that Mr. Mott does not do well in highly structured and supervised environments – that he rebels and takes advantage of other patients – and indicated that the Hospital was, accordingly, looking at some form of independent living in the community. This eyebrow-raising approach to the primary objective will require significant safeguards if undertaken. Dr. Prakash is not unaware of this concern. He confirmed that Mr. Mott, to the date of the hearing, was oppositional to residential programming, continued to show little to no insight into the risk his mental illness and substance use poses to the safety of the public, and limited insight into his need for treatment. Mr. Mott is governed by the symptoms of his anti-social personality disorder. Dr. Prakash indicated that Mr. Mott has shown some interest in one-on-one therapy. It may well be that, having regard to the primary objective that guides the Hospital’s implementation and enforcement of the Board’s disposition, significant, sustained progress in one-on-one therapy will be required before Mr. Mott’s reintegration into the community by way of independent living can be given any real consideration. This will surely be a consideration for the next Board.
Analysis and conclusion as to the ongoing restriction of liberty
[14]. In any event, Mr. Mott continues at this time to manifest symptoms of major mental illness that contributed to the commission of multiple criminal offences and to the commission of the index offence. He has returned to the Hospital in a state that regressed from that observed on the evidence by the previous panel. While the primary symptoms of his primary mental illness – schizophrenia – appear to have largely returned to baseline, Mr. Mott continues to manifest the equally concerning symptoms of his substance use disorder and anti-social personality disorder. He has not engaged meaningfully to this point in one-on-one therapy designed to address either of those disorders and the Hospital is considering what remains its only apparent option in satisfaction of the ultimate objective set out in s. 672.54. Absent significant and sustained progress with one-on-one therapy leading to insight and gains in those two domains, an attempt at reintegration into the community by way of independent living is not just counterintuitive. It is fraught with concerns associated with s. 672.54’s primary objective.
[15]. As a result, the Board agrees that Mr. Mott’s continued restriction of liberty is justified and necessary and represents the least onerous and least restrictive option available to the Hospital at this time.
[16]. The Board thanks all who have assisted with this hearing and reiterates the encouragement to Mr. Mott provided by the previous Board in terms of sobriety and engagement with the treatment team.
DATED this 22nd day of September 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
D. Sandor Legal Member
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board