Re: Lyndon T. Whitehead
ORB File No: 8890
Hearing held on: Tuesday, January 20, 2026
Place of hearing: Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre
Pursuant to: Section 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Weinstein
Members: Dr. K. Hand
Dr. J.C. Rose
Hon. E. Kruzick
Mr. R. Rainboth
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Lyndon Whitehead
Counsel: Mr. U. Agostino
The Person in charge of Hospital: Representative: Dr. E. Leinonen
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. S. Frenette
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated February 10, 2026)
Introduction:
On October 24, 2025, Mr. Lyndon T. Whitehead was found unfit to stand trial, on two charges of committing indecent acts in public places, both contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. The Court did not make a disposition. It ordered that Mr. Whitehead appear at the Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre (“TBRHSC”) for an initial Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“The Board”), pursuant to s. 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code. The finding of unfit to stand trial was based on a fitness report by Dr. Leinonen, dated October 22, 2025.
On January 20, 2026, the Board convened a hearing at TBRHSC to make an initial Disposition.
Mr. Whitehead has been detained at the Thunder Bay District Jail (“TBDJ” since July 3, 2025.
Mr. Whitehead attended the hearing by videoconference and was represented by his counsel, Mr. U. Agostino, who attended in person.
A Hospital Report, dated January 13, 2026 (the “Hospital Report”), was entered as Exhibit 1.
In accordance with s. 672.48(1) of the Criminal Code, the Board must decide whether Mr. Whitehead is unfit to stand trial on the day of the hearing, within the meaning of s. 2 of the Criminal Code. Specifically, is Mr. Whitehead unable, on account of mental disorder, to understand the nature or the possible consequences of the proceedings and to meaningfully communicate with counsel? If Mr. Whitehead 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 found that Mr. Whitehead is unfit to stand trial. The Board also found that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Detention Order, with the highest level of privileges being to live in the community, in accommodations provided by the person in charge. While living in the community, he is to report not less than twice per month.
Current Psychiatric Diagnoses:
- The Hospital Report sets out Mr. Whitehead’s current psychiatric diagnoses:
Unspecified Psychotic Disorder
Obsessive-compulsive Disorder
Substance Use Disorder
Outstanding Charges:
- Full details of the Outstanding Charges are set out in the Hospital Report. The following is a summary:
a) On June 30 and July 3, 2025, in Webequie, Ontario, witnesses reported seeing Mr. Whitehead exposing himself and masturbating in public areas, including at a nursing station.
b) Mr. Whitehead was arrested on June 30th and again on July 3rd, by Nishnawbe-Aski Police Service officers. He was cooperative during both arrests, understood his rights, and was released on a Form 10 undertaking with conditions, after the first arrest.
Background:
Lyndon Whitehead is a 31-year-old, Indigenous man from Webequie, Ontario. He has a history of neurological conditions, including spina bifida, meningocele repair, a ventriculoperitoneal (VP) shunt, hypotonic bladder, and neurogenic anus. He uses incontinent products and has experienced recurrent urinary tract infections.
Mr. Whitehead reportedly lived with his parents but was removed from their home because of behavioral issues, including screaming and exhibiting frustration. Most recently, he lived alone, in a disorganized trailer in Webequie.
He has a history of recreational substance use, including opioids, cocaine, and cannabis, and has been on Suboxone for opioid use disorder since 2019.
The following extracted paragraphs from the Hospital Report outline Mr. Whitehead’s course both before being found unfit, as well as his course since this finding:
Course Prior to the Finding of Unfit
“Mr. Whitehead had been residing with his parents, however he would get frustrated and apparently would scream at them, prompting removal from his parents’ residence. Most recently he has been living alone in a trailer in Webequie, which was observed to be in disarray by the NAPS officers when they had attended there.
Mr. Whitehead has a medical history notable for neurologic conditions including spina bifida, meningocele repair, a ventriculoperitoneal (VP) shunt, hypotonic bladder, and neurogenic anus. He uses incontinence products. When he was 17 years old, he was seen for a surgical consultation at Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre (TBRHSC). At that time he had been self-catheterizing intermittently, and had recurrent urinary tract infections. He had a CT scan of his head on May 2, 2024, which showed that the ventricular shunt catheter was not communicating with the connector in the subcutaneous soft tissues. The lateral ventricles were dilated. These findings were similar to the comparison scan in August of 2015
According to the admission history from Lake of the Woods District Hospital, on July 14, 2024, Mr. Whitehead was described as having a history of recreational use of opioids, cocaine, and cannabis. He had been on Suboxone for the treatment of opioid use disorder since 2019. At the time he reported using intravenous cocaine every two weeks, and cannabis several times per week.
In September, Mr. Whitehead was described as seeming to be selectively mute, where he would rarely speak, but then suddenly would speak coherently. For example, to ask staff for a Tim Horton’s coffee. He was also described as being sexually inappropriate at times. He never spoke to the staff about his charges or legal status.
More recently, it seems that Mr. Whitehead has been getting used to his current dorm, and has been able to be housed with co-inmates. He has seemed less anxious overall. He continues to interact verbally rarely. He tends to spend a lot of time lying in bed, and the staff discovered that he had developed a pressure sore on his coccyx area, which he had not reported to the staff. It was not clear whether he was aware of this.
Course Subsequent to Being Found Unfit
The General Practitioner at the TBDJ referred Mr. Whitehead for a head CT, which was completed on November 24, 2025. The impression was of a stable appearance of the VP shunt, which does not appear to communicate with the connector in the subcutaneous tissues. Persistent lateral ventriculomegaly was described as unchanged. This was in comparison to imaging in May of 2024. There were no acute changes described. It appears that these results were discussed with Mr. Whitehead in December of 2025, and a neurosurgery consultation was offered, but Mr. Whitehead declined this.
It appears that his Suboxone was discontinued on October 18, 2025 due to concerns about hoarding, and he was subsequently started on Sublocade injections.
Mr. Whitehead said that he has not had any contact with his family since being incarcerated, though he did describe their relationship as close. When asked why he has not reached out to them, he stated, “I have nothing to say right now.”
When asked why he did not speak the last times I met with him, Mr. Whitehead replied, “I chose to be quiet and listen. I had no idea what to say.” When asked if there was anything that prevented him from speaking, he said there was not. When asked about his potential plans for the future, he indicated that he would likely remain in Thunder Bay, saying that he has some friends who live here. That being said, he had no plans as to where he would live if he were to be released into the
community.”
Psychiatric History:
Lyndon Whitehead has a complex psychiatric history, including a single known hospitalization in July 2024, at Lake of the Woods District Hospital. He was admitted after exhibiting erratic behavior, such as banging his head against a wall, and reporting that he was hearing voices telling him to harm others. During his hospitalization, his symptoms were assessed to likely stem from OCD, rather than from psychosis. He was treated with Sertraline (an antidepressant) and a low dose of Risperidone (an antipsychotic).
In March 2025, his family physician prescribed Invega Sustenna (a long-acting antipsychotic). It was discontinued because of side effects and the belief that his psychotic symptoms had been resolved. However, his functioning reportedly deteriorated after stopping the medication. He was later restarted on antipsychotic medication, and he has continued taking antidepressants while in detention.
Psychiatrically, Whitehead has a history of obsessive-compulsive disorder (“OCD”) and possible psychosis, although some clinicians believe his symptoms may be related to substance use, rather than to a primary psychotic disorder. He has been treated with antipsychotic, and antidepressant, medications, but his functioning has remained low. He has been selectively mute during his detention and psychiatric interviews, and his cognitive functioning appears impaired
Currently, Mr. Whitehead is being treated with Olanzapine (antipsychotic), Sertraline, and Mirtazapine (antidepressants), along with Cogentin for side effects. Despite this treatment, he remains selectively mute and exhibits low cognitive functioning, leading to a forensic psychiatrist's conclusion that he was unfit to stand trial. His psychiatric presentation has not significantly improved, and further neuropsychological, and medical, assessments are recommended.
Position of the Parties:
Dr. Leinonen’s position, as the assessing psychiatrist, was that Mr. Whitehead is fit to stand trial and that he should be returned to court. In the alternative, should this Board find that Mr. Whitehead is unfit, the necessary and appropriate Disposition would be a Detention Order, with the highest level of privileges being to live in the community, in accommodations approved by the person in charge. While living in the community, he would be required to report not less than twice per month. He further suggested a clause allowing Mr. Whitehead indirectly supervised passes to travel to northern Ontario for up to seven days, with prior approval of his itinerary by the person in charge. Dr. Leinonen maintained this position at the end of the hearing.
At the conclusion of the hearing, counsel for the Attorney General stated that it was her opinion that Mr. Whitehead is currently unfit to stand trial and that the appropriate Disposition is a Detention Order. She had some reservations about the appropriateness of both the community living provision and the indirectly supervised passes to northern Ontario that had been recommended by Dr. Leinonen.
At the conclusion of the hearing, counsel for Mr. Whitehead stated his position was that his client was unfit to stand trial. He agreed with the Hospital’s recommendation as to the necessary and appropriate Disposition.
Evidence at the Hearing:
The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence from Dr. Leinonen. Dr. Leinonen co-authored the Hospital Report, as well as the Fitness Report.
Dr. Leinonen testified as follows:
a) His initial meetings with Mr. Whitehead at the TBDJ, in August and September 2025, were unproductive, with Mr. Whitehead largely presenting as non-verbal and unengaged.
b) Collateral information from jail staff suggested possible selective mutism, potentially intentional, as Mr. Whitehead could speak coherently when motivated, such as requesting coffee from Tim Hortons.
c) There are several medical concerns about Mr. Whitehead, including a complex urological history and issues with a ventral peritoneal shunt (“VPS”), which prompted a recommendation to admit him to the hospital for further observation and assessment. However, because of bed shortages, he remained at TBDJ.
d) Mr. Whitehead’s presentation changed significantly during a meeting on January 13, 2026, via Ontario Telecommunication Network (O.T.N.) He was much more interactive and engaged at this meeting.
e) Mr. Whitehead participated productively in his fitness assessment, which lasted about an hour. He demonstrated an understanding of court procedures and potential trial outcomes, and he exhibited the ability to communicate about his legal situation. Mr. Whitehead was able to carry on a calm, reality-based conversation, although he was vague and uncertain with respect to certain details, as set out in the Hospital Report.
f) Mr. Whitehead’s fitness improvement was attributed to ongoing medication optimization, including antidepressants and antipsychotics, and possibly increased familiarity and rapport with his doctor. There was no indication that Mr. Whitehead’s neurological status had changed. Mr. Whitehead was cooperating with his medication regimen, which also suggested continuing fitness.
g) The meeting with Mr. Whitehead lasted for an hour or so. Mr. Whitehead was quite engaged in this meeting, and it was his impression that Mr. Whitehead did have the ability to understand the roles of the various parties and procedures of the court and of potential outcomes of a criminal trial. Mr. Whitehead was able to have a calm, reality-based conversation with him, although Mr. Whitehead was vague and uncertain with respect to certain details as set out in the Hospital Report. He believes Mr. Whitehead would have the ability to communicate with counsel.
- In response to questions from the Attorney General, Dr. Leinonen testified:
a) His last contacts with Mr. Whitehead were an in-person meeting in September 2025 and 2 meetings by OTN in January 2026.
b) During the January 13, 2026, meeting, Mr. Whitehead acknowledged his silence at earlier meetings, saying, “I chose to be quiet and listen. I had no idea what to say.” There was no indication of any external factors preventing Mr. Whitehead from speaking.
c) To educate Mr. Whitehead on the roles of the participants in court proceedings and relevant legal concepts, he explained the terms in simple language and checked for his understanding of the concepts. He would wait a few minutes, and ask Mr. Whitehead if he understood a particular concept, such as the role of a Crown Attorney.
d) Mr. Whitehead was able to repeat his concept of the various roles, in his own words. For example, Mr. Whitehead would explain the role of a Crown Attorney as something like, “They are against me or trying to prove the charges,” or describe perjury as, “if I were caught lying under oath, I could get a separate criminal charge.”
e) He did not foresee any deterioration in Mr. Whitehead’s mental health, provided he remained on his current medication regimen.
f) His current working diagnosis is that Mr. Whitehead suffers from a schizophrenia-spectrum illness, based on a review of his psychiatric history and previous diagnoses.
g) It is too early to opine about the likelihood that Mr. Whitehead would be able to live in the community, in accommodation approved by the person in charge. Mr. Whitehead would need to be assessed on an ongoing basis, in a controlled environment such as TBRHSC, the appropriate privileges could be determined. The hospital would always proceed in a very stepwise and cautious manner in granting him privileges.
- In response to questions from counsel for Mr. Whitehead, Dr. Leinonen testified:
a) He also met briefly with Mr. Whitehead on January 14, 2026, to discuss the incident that happened in Barrie. However, this matter is not before us today.
b) His meetings on January 13 and 14 with Mr. Whitehead were all by O.T.N., not in person. In the January 13 meeting, some of the jail’s nursing staff were present. The meetings at the TBDJ in September and October were in person, and he was alone with Mr. Whitehead.
c) The meetings in August and September 2025 were quite short, about 10 to 15 minutes each, and unproductive, as Mr. Whitehead was nonverbal.
d) Mr. Whitehead is being treated by the psychiatrist associated with the TBDJ. He is currently being treated with olanzapine, an oral antipsychotic medication, taken twice daily. Mr. Whitehead was originally on risperidone, at 5 mg twice a day, which he considers quite a low dose. Mr. Whitehead is now on olanzapine, on a total of 30 mg daily, which he considers quite a substantial dose. This increase in medication occurred in September 2025.
e) During his interview with Mr. Whitehead on January 13, the nurses occasionally prompted Mr. Whitehead when he remained silent, asking him if he had heard the question. After a pause, Mr. Whitehead answered that he had not, and the doctor repeated the question. Mr. Whitehead then answered.
f) Mr. Whitehead required some education regarding the role of a prosecutor, particularly with respect to the concept of perjury. Mr. Whitehead did not repeat these concepts to the doctor word for word, but provided a short, simplified version, which remained accurate.
g) He could not explain what changed from his in-person meetings with Mr. Whitehead versus his most recent meeting; he can only speculate that it could be the result of his new medication regimen, or an increase in their familiarity and rapport. He agreed that his first two meetings were very brief.
h) In his brief meeting with Mr. Whitehead on January 14, 2026, he did ask Mr. Whitehead a couple more questions about the Taylor test, just to make sure there was no major change in his presentation, and there was not. Mr. Whitehead appeared to be able to answer the Taylor test questions appropriately, and his responses on January 14 were similar to those on the previous day.
- In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Leinonen testified:
a) A neurosurgery consultation was offered because of Mr. Whitehead’s complex medical history, including a ventral peritoneal shunt that is not functioning, as well as enlarged brain ventricles (hydrocephalus).
b) He agreed that a further neurological assessment would be prudent, as untreated hydrocephalus could potentially affect cognitive function. However, he also noted that imaging showed stability over time, with no significant worsening.
c) While organic causes could contribute to Mr. Whitehead’s presentation, there have been observable improvements in fitness, likely to be due to psychiatric treatment, rather than to any neurological change.
d) Mr. Whitehead still presents with some latency in responses, occasionally requiring nursing staff to prompt him, but overall, there has been a gradual improvement in engagement and verbal interaction. Mr. Whitehead’s ability to communicate with counsel is not perfect; he would benefit from extra time to meet with counsel and some repetition of some of the information, to help him process the material and understand the concepts of a trial. However, Mr. Whitehead’s fitness is adequate for the purpose of instructing counsel.
e) There is, however, evidence of intellectual cognitive impairment, especially given early concerns about low baseline function and possible developmental disorder.
f) Jail staff reported that Mr. Whitehead was more engaged in comparison to earlier periods, supporting the impression of improvement in Mr. Whitehead’s ability to communicate.
g) In response to being questioned about whether Mr. Whitehead could adequately participate in his defence and communicate with counsel, especially given the need for prompts and possibility of cognitive impairment. He maintained that, despite these challenges, Mr. Whitehead met the minimum requirements for fitness to stand trial, as demonstrated by his ability to answer the Taylor test questions. He felt Mr. Whitehead was able to engage in reality-based discussions about his legal situations.
h) He could only speculate as to the cause of Mr. Whitehead taking five seconds to answer questions. It could be because Mr. Whitehead was processing information. It could be because he did not hear the question.
i) He described Mr. Whitehead’s verbal interactions and engagement with staff as more of a gradual improvement than as fluctuating.
j) His attention was drawn to the following passage from the Hospital Report:
“Initially, Mr. Whitehead said he did not know why he had been arrested. When the alleged offences were read out to him, he acknowledged them.” When asked to clarify what he meant by the term “acknowledged them,” he explained that he read out the charges to Mr. Whitehead and said something like, “Does that sound familiar?” He recollects Mr. Whitehead responding, “Yes.”
k) Mr. Whitehead could not remember what led to the Index Offences. He was unable to identify the specific behaviour that was linked to the specific charges.
l) He did not recall whether Mr. Whitehead demonstrated knowledge of what the charges of “indecent acts” meant, but he did acknowledge the outstanding charges themselves.
m)In his previous two meetings, in the summer and fall of 2025, Mr. Whitehead only responded with one or two words, whereas this month his responses were fuller sentences.
n) When Mr. Whitehead was asked by him what it means to be found not guilty, Mr. Whitehead said that, if he were acquitted or found not guilty, he could be released.
o) He did not remember whether the questions he posed to Mr. Whitehead were closed-ended or open-ended.
p) The only fitness education that Mr. Whitehead has experienced was the two sessions in January. At that time, he was able to express the concepts in his own words, in more simplified terms; he did not merely parrot what he had been told.
q) He has not spoken with the treating psychiatrist at the jail to corroborate whether he has engaged Mr. Whitehead in further fitness training, nor to ask if that psychiatrist also believes that Mr. Whitehead is fit for trial.
r) He did not have sufficient knowledge to opine whether Mr. Whitehead’s spina bifida problems affect his cognitive abilities.
s) He acknowledged that counsel for Mr. Whitehead asserted, after an interview in the first week of January, that Mr. Whitehead was unfit to stand trial. Counsel advised him that during that meeting, Mr. Whitehead could not meaningfully communicate with him or have a productive conversation with him. Despite that opinion, he still believes that Mr. Whitehead was fit for trial. He suggested that Mr. Whitehead may not yet have developed a rapport with his counsel, and this lack of familiarity could have impeded his ability to communicate meaningfully with him.
- No other evidence was called.
Analysis and Conclusion:
Fitness to Stand Trial
- The first issue for the Board to decide is whether Mr. Whitehead 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:
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.”
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” and “intelligibly communicate these decisions to counsel or the court.”
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.”
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.”
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.”
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.”
g) The same test for fitness to stand trial applies to all accused, whether they are represented by counsel or not.
h) The Court further stated, at paragraph 67:
i) “The text of the statutory definition of “unfit to stand trial” provides some guidance on the requisite capacity threshold that an accused must possess. The definition notes “in particular” that an accused is unfit if they are unable to (1) understand the nature or object of the proceedings, (2) understand the possible consequences of the proceedings, or (3) communicate with counsel. The use of “or” between these requirements suggests that if the court is satisfied that the accused is unable to meet one of them, they are unfit to stand trial, as they lack the capacity to “conduct” a defence.”
Determination of Fitness
The Board carefully considered the viva voce evidence of Dr. Leinonen at this hearing and the Hospital Report. Having heard and considered all the evidence and submissions from the parties, the Board unanimously finds that Mr. Whitehead is unfit to stand trial. The Board notes that, once a person is found unfit, the burden of proof requires that, on a balance of probabilities, he is more fit than unfit. For the reasons set out below, we do not believe that the hospital has met that burden.
At best, one could conclude that the evidence shows that Mr. Whitehead passes the limited cognitive capacity test set out in R. v. Taylor. However, in our assessment of Dr. Leinonen’s testimony, we are not satisfied that Mr. Whitehead can communicate meaningfully with his counsel, a requirement set out in R. v. Bharwani. In particular, Dr. Leinonen acknowledged that Mr. Whitehead’s counsel met with Mr. Whitehead a week or so before Dr. Leinonen; after that meeting, Dr. Leinonen acknowledged that counsel concluded that he could not meaningfully communicate with his client. This evidence is much more persuasive than the doctor’s opinion, based on two meetings in January (the one on January 14 being very brief); at those meetings, Mr. Whitehead received limited fitness education and required prompting by nursing staff. Furthermore, the doctor was unable to remember whether the questions he asked Mr. Whitehead were open- or closed-ended. The Board finds that the questions put to Mr. Whitehead appeared to suggest the responses that was sought. Mr. Whitehead could not independently demonstrate the ability to provide a synopsis of why he was facing trial, but rather, responded “yes” to a synopsis of the offences put to him by the doctor. This does not provide the Board with confidence that Mr. Whitehead has a full understanding of his legal situation, which would be a necessary component in instructing counsel and participating in his defense. The evidence before us suggests that Mr. Whitehead could possess the rote knowledge of some basic legal concepts; however, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that Mr. Whitehead has the ability to apply this knowledge to his particular circumstances A single assessment of an accused, in a matter as serious as this, in the manner it was conducted, is not sufficient to meet the requirement, on a balance of probabilities. that Mr. Whitehead is fit for trial. The Board also has a hard time accepting Dr. Leinonen’s conclusion that Mr. Whitehead was more lucid in his January 13th meeting with Dr. Leinonen, based on familiarity or rapport as his previous meetings were exceptionally brief and non-productive. Additionally, given the strong history of neurological conditions and mentions of non-specific cognitive deficits, the Board has concerns that the impact of these issues on the fitness has not been fully explored by the hospital to date.
It is the Board’s respectful opinion that Mr. Whitehead needs a much more detailed and in-depth assessment than that provided by Dr. Leinonen. On the evidence we find that the assessments of Mr. Whitehead on January 13 and 14 are inadequate to meet the burden on the hospital to find Mr. Whitehead fit at this time.
Necessary And Appropriate Disposition:
Having found that Mr. Whitehead remains unfit to stand trial, the Board must determine a disposition for the coming year. The Board finds that the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances is a Detention Order at TBRHSC. The Board is aware of the long waitlist for appropriate housing. Therefore, it is appropriate to put in Mr. Whitehead’s current disposition the ability to live in the community, in accommodation approved by the person in charge. This will facilitate housing investigations and allow Mr. Whitehead to be placed on waitlist, without increasing the risk to the public. The hospital has indicated that it will proceed in a stepwise and cautious manner, once they have had a chance to fully assess Mr. Whitehead in a more controlled and structured setting, such as the hospital.
The Board is prepared to allow passes to northern Ontario, but not indirectly supervised ones; the evidence before us suggests that such passes would be premature and that they are not necessary for Mr. Whitehead’s reintegration into society at this early stage of his treatment.
Mr. Whitehead has a substance use history, including opioids, cocaine, and cannabis. His diagnostic picture is complex and has yet to be clarified. Mr. Whitehead still needs to undergo a comprehensive neuropsychological assessment to clarify his cognitive profile. It would also be beneficial in determining how best to engage Mr. Whitehead in fitness assessment and education.
As set out in the Hospital Report, Mr. Whitehead exhibits only partial insight into his mental health. His treatment is in the early stages. He requires ongoing professional support, in a controlled environment, so that his mental illness, insight, coping, and independent living skills can be assessed. The hospital also needs to retain the ability to approve Mr. Whitehead’s future accommodations, to ensure it is appropriate to his needs and sufficient for public safety.
The hospital requested that our Disposition Order specify that Mr. Whitehead be detained at any forensic hospital in the province of Ontario, as there is an acute bed shortage at TBRHSC. This type of Disposition is not available to us. The Board does recognize the importance of having Mr. Whitehead released from jail and into a forensic institution as soon as possible. The hospital was informed that there are ministerial procedures for tracking bed availability through the forensic hospital system. Should a bed be available at another hospital, TBRHSC can call an early hearing, requesting a Rule 13 transfer to that hospital.
In consideration of all the evidence, submissions of the parties and criteria set forth in s. 672.54, the paramount consideration being the safety of the public, in addition to the mental condition of Mr. Whitehead, his reintegration into society and his other needs, the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Detention Order.
DATED this 10th day of February 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. J. Weinstein
Alternate Chairperson
__________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board