Re: Diana L. Kireto
ORB File No: 8389
Hearing held on: Tuesday, January 20, 2026
Place of hearing: Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Weinstein
Members: Hon. E. Kruzick Dr. K. Hand Dr. J. C. Rose Mr. R. Rainboth
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Diana L. Kireto Counsel: Mr. D. Shannon
The Person in Charge of Hospital Representative: Dr. P. Schubert
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. S. Frenette
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated February 10, 2026)
Introduction
On September 20, 2023, Diana Kireto was found not criminally responsible (“NCR”) on account of mental disorder on a charge of criminal harassment contrary to the Criminal Code Canada (“Criminal Code”). Ms. Kireto is detained at the Forensic Unit of the Thunder Bay Regional Hospital Sciences Centre (“TBRHSC” or “hospital”) pursuant to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB” or “Board”), dated January 31, 2025, and is currently under the jurisdiction of the Board.
On January 20, 2026, Ms. Kireto appeared before a panel of the Ontario Review Board at the TBRHSC for her annual hearing. Ms. Kireto attended the hearing by an audio-visual link from Geraldton, Ontario, accompanied by her partner. Ms. Kireto was represented by her counsel, Mr. D. Shannon, who attended in person.
Positions of the Parties
- At the outset of the hearing, the Alternate Chair canvassed the parties for their initial, without prejudice, positions. On behalf of the hospital, Dr. Schubert indicated that Ms. Kireto poses a significant threat to the safety of the public and recommended that there be no change to the existing Disposition. On behalf of the Attorney-General, Ms. Frenette agreed with the hospital’s position. Mr. Shannon, on behalf of Ms. Kireto, concurred. As a result, this was a joint submission.
Issues at the Hearing
- The issues for the Board are to determine whether Ms. Kireto is a significant threat to the safety of the public, and if so, what disposition is necessary and appropriate in the circumstances.
Findings
- For the reasons that follow, the panel found that the threshold for significant threat is met, and that the necessary and appropriated disposition is a continuation of the current Detention Order Disposition.
Index Offence
- The allegations giving rise to the index offence(s) are set out in last year’s disposition and as obtained from the Ontario Provincial Police occurrence report of April 25, 2023, as follows:
“Complaint: [parent] called police to report that, Diana Kireto, is harassing her by calling her non-stop.
Occurrence Location: B[...] Avenue East.
Investigation:
On April 24, 2023, P.C. Thornton responded to a report of harassment at B[...] Avenue. Here he spoke with the complainants, [parents] who are Diane Kireto’s parents. Diana’s daughter, [daughter], was present during initial complaint. Both [parents] were very emotional and frustrated when speaking with police about the ongoing issues with Diana. [Parent] started to explain that over the last year, issues with Diana have been escalating. Diana frequently gets into disputes with her [parents] and they are scared of her. [Parent] referenced an instance that occurred over a year ago where Diana attended their residence, forced her way into the residence and began disputing with her [parents]. In this instance, Diana took her [parents’] phone away to prevent them from calling the police on her. [Parents] informed that Diana is very strong and her and [parent] are easily overpowered by her. [Parent] and [parent] explained that Diana constantly calls their home number for hours on end. When speaking about the constant ringing, both [parent] and [parent]. began to cry. It was clear to P.C. Thornton that the stress of managing Diana has had its effects on the mental wellbeing of [parent] and [parent] while [parent] recovers from surgery. Both [parent] and [parent] fear Diana will attend their residence and she will force her way into the home again.
On April 24, 2023, P.C. Thornton attended Diana Kireto’s residence of W[…], Unit Number […]. Here Diana was formally warned for harassment and was told to stop phoning her parents. Diana was upset with police and did not take the news well. P.C. Thornton informed Diana that her parents were in good health, while [parent] was recovering from [….]surgery and that they needed their space from her. Diana was told that her parents would reach out to her when they are ready to make contact with her.
On April 25, 2023, [parent] called the Greenstone Detachment to inform P.C. Thornton that Diana had placed multiple calls to their home phone during the day. As a result, Diana Kireto will be located, arrested, charged, and released on a Form 10 for harassment.
On April 27, 2023, [parent] will attend the Greenstone O.P.P. detachment to provide police with an audio-visual statement on the matter. Victim Services and the Greenstone Crime Unit have been notified on the interview date.”
Background
Following Ms. Kireto’s arrest and prior to the Court’s finding of NCR, Ms. Kireto was assessed on a number of occasions by Dr. Schubert at the Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre to provide an opinion as to whether she suffered from a mental disorder to exempt her from criminal responsibility.
In a report prepared for the court dated July 11, 2023, Dr. Schubert set out the following background information:
“Ms. Kireto suffers from well-documented mental disorders. Ms. Kireto suffers from Intellectual Disability – Mild with evident impairments in problem solving, working memory, communication skills, insight, judgment, and a compromised ability to learn from prior experiences. Ms. Kireto also presents with a personality structure suggestive of Borderline Personality Disorder. She displays difficulties in interpersonal relationships, impulsivity, emotional dysregulation, and at times intense and inappropriate anger. Ms. Kireto has historically been diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder (or Schizoaffective Disorder – bipolar type). However, this appears less evident over the last several years (possibly due to ongoing treatment with mood-stabilizing medication, lithium.)”
At Ms. Kireto’s NCR hearing, the Court agreed with Dr. Schubert and found that Ms. Kireto’s cognition was impaired to the degree that it rendered her incapable of appreciating the quality of her actions at the time of the index offence.
Ms. Kireto is a 59-year-old woman who was exposed to trauma and adversity in her upbringing, including physical and emotional abuse and intrafamilial sexual abuse. Together with her siblings, she was apprehended by the Children’s Aid Society (“CAS”) and placed in foster care. It was reported that she had intellectual challenges beginning in childhood.
Ms. Kireto has had a number of mental health admissions and involvements with the legal system arising from her inability to manage her behaviour. About 11 years ago, a cognitive assessment determined that she had impairments and symptoms consistent with Behavioural Variant Frontotemporal Dementia. At 54 years of age, a psychological assessment concluded that her symptoms were consistent with Mild Intellectual Disability.
In the past, Ms. Kireto often relied on her former common-law spouse, who is also the father of her child. More recently, Ms. Kireto relies on her partner, to enable her to reside independently in the community. Ms. Kireto is incapable of treatment decision and decision for property and finances. Ms. Kireto’s daughter is the substitute decision maker (“SDM”).
Current Diagnoses
- As set out in the Hospital Report, Ms. Kireto’s diagnoses is:
- Intellectual Disability – Mild
- Bipolar I Disorder
- Borderline Personality Disorder
Evidence at the Hearing
The Hospital Report dated January 6, 2026, was made an exhibit at the hearing. The Board also heard the oral evidence of Dr. Schubert. He co-authored the Hospital Report and adopted its contents. As such, in these Reasons, the Hospital Report will only be referred to briefly.
Dr. Schubert testified that Ms. Kireto has been living in Longlac, Ontario, with her partner, who was identified as being with her at today’s hearing. They now live in Geraldton, Ontario, at the home of her partner’s niece. The current disposition provides for discretionary privileges up to and including to reside in the community of Northwestern Ontario.
Since her initial ORB hearing, Ms. Kireto has been assessed on a weekly basis by her Forensic Case Outpatient Manager, Mr. McGuire. In addition, she has the local support from Developmental Services Ontario (DSO) Adult Protective Services (APS) worker, Ms. Barrett.
Dr. Schubert testified that Ms. Kireto had a ‘mixed’ year reporting year. In the last two years, while under the ORB, there have been issues with Ms. Kireto’s adherence with medication which led to acute manic episodes resulting in lengthy hospitalizations. This past year, following last year’s ORB hearing, Ms. Kireto had a 5-month hospitalization.
In his testimony, Dr. Schubert confirmed that Ms. Kireto lives with a diagnosed bipolar disorder comorbid with intellectual disability. The combination contributes to these lengthy hospitalizations. In the hospital, Ms. Kireto remained in a manic state, compounded by a lack of insight and cognitive limitation. She was labile in mood, rapidly shifting from euphoria to anger and irritability. Dr. Schubert testified that Ms. Kireto was intrusive, perseverative, and confrontational toward staff and co-patients, frequently disrupting the ward milieu. Dr. Schubert referred the panel to the examples set out on pages 22 and 23 of the Hospital Report.
Ms. Kireto’s behaviour led to some restrictions of liberty and, thereafter, an ROL hearing, following which she remained on the inpatient unit. Dr. Schubert described that Ms. Kireto’s speech remained pressured. She often yelled at the staff and other patients and her mood remained labile. She was sexually disinhibited and occasionally exposed herself, made inappropriate comments, or unwantedly kissed male co-patients.
Dr. Schubert testified that while hospitalized, Ms. Kireto physically assaulted or threatened nurses. These incidents remain concerning given her serious criminal record and coupled with Ms. Kireto’s difficulty in complying with orders.
Despite Ms. Kireto’s criminal conduct toward her elderly parents in the past, they have given the hospital revocable written consent for continued contact with Ms. Kireto. Dr. Schubert testified to a telephone conversation with Ms. Kireto’s case manager last week, where her parents reconfirmed that they wish to continue having contact with their daughter and that, at present, they did not have any significant difficulties with her. Ms. Kireto’s parents have continued contact with her, including by telephone, two or three times a week. Ms. Kireto also has some support from her daughter. The family were able to get together over the Christmas holidays. Ms. Kireto’s partner helps her, and the two of them are together most of the time.
Dr. Schubert opined that Ms. Kireto’s lengthy hospitalizations are indicative of her risk to others and the likelihood of her reoffending. Having said that, Dr. Schubert pointed to the fact that Ms. Kireto has had a good six months. Since August or, the beginning of September, Ms. Kireto made all of her appointments with Dr. Schubert and her case manager. Dr. Schubert remarked that she presents, as at today’s hearing, as calm and engageable. He also testified that Ms. Kireto has been compliant with her medication. In Dr. Schubert’s most recent assessment, Ms. Kireto seems to have a better understanding of the importance of medication.
Ms. Kireto attends the emergency department in Geraldton to get her depot antipsychotic medication. She has consistently attended those appointments. Her medications are set out in the Hospital Report. By staying on top of her medications, Dr. Schubert stated that he and the hospital team hoped Ms. Kireto could continue moving along this positive direction in the coming reporting year.
In response to a question for counsel for the Attorney General, Dr. Schubert stated that Ms. Kireto appears to be properly attired for the harsh Northern Ontario winter. In response to a question concerning Ms. Kireto’s relationship with her parents, Dr. Schubert stated that their boundaries, as set, are respected by Ms. Kireto. Her parents stated verbally that they wish to maintain contact with her. While Ms. Kireto’s parents complained about her smoking in their home, there were no expressed concerns about harassment or reporting that they were victimized or uncomfortable in the current arrangements.
In response to a question from the panel about Ms. Kireto’s treatment for her disorder and the curves in Ms. Kireto’s lithium levels, Dr. Schubert stated she is currently taking the medications as listed in the Hospital Report. Dr. Schubert opined that it is possible that Ms. Kireto, like most people, misses taking her medication from time-to-time which results in the curves. Her medication is being closely monitored. More importantly, with the monitoring, Dr. Schubert opined that he and the team are pleased that Ms. Kireto is now consistent with the depot antipsychotic medication which has brought her to a new and improved baseline
In response to a question about Ms. Kireto’s relationship, Dr. Schubert referenced the bottom of page 21 of the Hospital Report, where it is mentioned that Ms. Kireto’s breakdown last year was related to feeling that her partner was controlling and taking her money. While Dr. Schubert could not testify to Ms. Kireto’s partner’s motivations in the relationship, he and the team do not have any concerns regarding Ms. Kireto’s safety in that relationship. While it may be an unusual arrangement, Dr. Schubert testified they are companions and describe themselves as romantic partners.
Ms. Kireto’s APS worker looked into the relationship and reported no concerns. Ms. Kireto’s money is distributed by the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) and has the oversight of the Ontario Public Guardian and Trustee (PG&T). While Ms. Kireto’s partner does not deny that they have conflicts, they are usually related to his attempts to look after Ms. Kireto’s best interests and are not concerning to the hospital team. Overall, the relationship has benefited Ms. Kireto. Dr. Schubert stated that he believed that Ms. Kireto’s partner would reach out to the hospital team, as he has in the past, if he observed or had any concern for Ms. Kireto’s well-being.
In response to a question from the Board about Ms. Kireto’s substitute decision maker, Dr. Schubert confirmed that Ms. Kireto’s daughter, who is a social work student living in Thunder Bay, is SDM.
No other evidence was called.
Submissions
- After hearing the evidence, counsel informed the Board that this remained a joint submission. As a result, counsel submitted that Ms. Kireto continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public. Counsel agreed that detention with the same terms and conditions as set out in last year was the least onerous and least restrictive and necessary and appropriate Disposition.
Analysis
Significant Risk
The Board accepts Dr. Schubert’s opinion that Ms. Kireto continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public public within the meaning of s.672.5401 of the Criminal Code.
The Supreme Court of Canada, in Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625, at para. 62, referred to a significant threat as: “[A] real risk of physical or psychological harm to members of the public that is serious in the sense of going beyond the merely trivial or annoying. The conduct giving rise to harm must be criminal in nature.” Justice McLachlin made it clear in Winko that the threshold of significant threat is a “relatively high” one. She said at para. 69, that “the phrase conjures a threat of threat to public safety of sufficient importance to justify depriving a person of his or her liberty”.
We accept Dr. Schubert’s expert evidence that risk associated with Ms. Kireto is primarily related to her limited cognitive capacity and her lack of insight into her mental health.
Bearing in mind that this was a joint submission, in considering all the evidence, the panel is unanimous and independently finds that, within the legal definition, Ms. Kireto poses a significant threat to the safety of the public. When Ms. Kireto is not adherent with her medication, the evidence supports that Ms. Kireto’s mental state decompensates, as it did at the outset of this reporting year.
We also rely on the evidence, as set out above, that when Ms. Kireto was hospitalized this past year, she exhibited aggressive and other concerning behaviour. The evidence also supports the conclusion that she poses a risk to her parents, the victims of the index offence, and that this risk requires oversight and management by a forensic hospital team. As a result, we find that the risk of Ms. Kireto committing a serious criminal offence is real and relatively high.
Disposition
Since the Board finds that Ms. Kireto poses a significant threat to the safety of the public, it must make a disposition for the forthcoming year. We bear in mind the paramount consideration being protection of the safety of the public and take into account the needs of Ms. Kireto and her rehabilitation into society.
In considering the evidence, the Board finds that a Detention Disposition on the same terms as last year’s disposition is necessary and appropriate in the circumstances. The evidence supports that it remains important for the hospital to quickly intervene and return Ms. Kireto to the hospital if there is an increased risk to the safety of the public. In considering the necessary and appropriate disposition, we bear in mind the least onerous and least restrictive disposition while still protecting the safety of the public.
Conclusion
In our opinion, Ms. Kireto’s residence in the community requires the same Detention Disposition put in place last year. Mindful of the events of this past year, should the need arise, the hospital should have the authority to return Ms. Kireto to the Hospital quickly to ensure safety to the public.
On the evidence at this hearing, the Board has no difficulty in accepting the parties’ joint submission that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a Detention Order containing the same terms and conditions as found in last year’s Disposition.
DATED this 10th day of February 2026 at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Hon. E. Kruzick Legal Member
__________________
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board