Re: Eric Angeconeb
ORB File No: 7797
Hearing held on: Monday, January 19, 2026
Place of hearing: Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre
Pursuant to: Section 672.48(1) and 672.81(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: Eric Angeconeb Counsel: Mr. U. Agostino
The Person in charge of Hospital: Representative: Dr. E. Leinonen
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. P. Pasloski
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated February 18, 2026)
Introduction:
[1]. On October 27, 2020, Eric Angeconeb was found unfit to stand trial on account of mental disorder, on charges of sexual assault and forcible confinement, both contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”). He was similarly found unfit at all subsequent annual hearings.
[2]. Mr. Angeconeb is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”) dated January 29, 2025, detaining him at the Secure Forensic Unit of the Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre (“TBRHSC”). This Disposition contains several prohibitions and certain privileges, including living in the community in supervised accommodations.
[3]. On January 19, 2026, the Board convened a hearing at TBRHSC to conduct the annual review of the current disposition.
[4]. Mr. Angeconeb was represented by his counsel, Mr. Agostino, who advised that his client did not wish to attend this hearing and that he had instructions to proceed in his absence. An order was made, allowing Mr. Angeconeb to be absent from this hearing, pursuant to s. 672.5(10)(a).
[5]. A Hospital Report, dated January 8, 2026 (the “Hospital Report”), was entered as Exhibit 1.
[6]. In accordance with s. 672.48(1) of the Criminal Code, the Board must decide whether Mr. Angeconeb is unfit to stand trial on the day of the hearing, within the meaning of s. 2 of the Criminal Code. Specifically, is Mr. Angeconeb unable, on account of mental disorder, to understand the nature, and the possible consequences of the proceedings and to communicate with counsel? The other issues before the Board were whether Mr. Angeconeb is permanently unfit, and if so, whether he remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.
[7]. If Mr. Angeconeb is found fit, he must be sent back to court. If he is found unfit, but not permanently so, the Board must make a Disposition that is necessary and appropriate, considering the criteria set forth in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code. Similarly, if he is found to be both permanently unfit and a significant threat, the Board must determine the appropriate Disposition. If he is not found to pose a significant threat to public safety, he must be returned to court.
[8]. For the reasons set out below, and based on the evidence before us, the Board concluded that Mr. Angeconeb is unfit to stand trial. The Board further found that Mr. Angeconeb is both permanently unfit and a significant threat to the safety of the public.
[9]. The Board also found that the necessary and appropriate Disposition required to manage the threat Mr. Angeconeb poses to the public is a continuation of the existing Detention Order.
Current Psychiatric Diagnoses:
a) Schizophrenia
b) Major Neurocognitive Disorder, Multiple Etiologies
c) Acquired Brain Injury (past history)
d) Polysubstance Abuse (past history)
Background Information Regarding the Accused:
[10]. The circumstances giving rise to the outstanding charges are extracted from last year’s Board reasons as follows:
“History: Both accused persons and the victim are community band members of Pic Mobert First Nation and all three reside in the community. All three are known by police to be abusers of alcohol consumption. Milton McWatch has a history of sexual assault charges with previous convictions and is presently on the Ontario Sex Offence Registry.
Synopsis: On Wednesday October 9, 2019, at 4:33 PM OPP communications received a call from the victims common-law partner reporting that she had been sexually assaulted (raped) by two males Milton McWatch and Eric Angeconeb. At 5:51 PM Sr. Cst. Hanson from the Anishinabek Police attended the victim’s house located in Pic Mobert and obtained a digital recorded interview from her, which provided the following details:
In the early afternoon hours, the victim was at Eric Angeconeb’s house located at Pic Mobert first Nation consuming alcohol with Eric when Milton McWatch came to join the party. Both males then took the victim to the back bedroom in the house and she was forcibly held down by Eric while Milton sexually assaulted her vaginally and ejaculated inside her vagina then flipped the victim over onto her stomach holding her down forcibly when Eric sexually assaulted her anally and also ejaculated inside her anus. While Eric was doing this to the victim, Milton was licking her neck and legs. Milton told the victim not to say anything because he had done this to three other woman which he got off on the charges for. The victim ran out of the house, went to her brothers at the end of the street, and told her friend what had happened to her before going home to tell her common-law partner.
At 6:04PM ambulance attended and transported the victim to the Marathon hospital where a sexual assault kit was done by Dr. Sarah Newberry.”
Course Since Last Disposition:
[11]. Mr. Angeconeb’s course since his last Disposition is detailed in the Hospital Report. The following extracted paragraphs are relevant to this hearing:
“Mr. Angeconeb continues to present with significant cognitive impairment. He presents as confused, disoriented, and with impaired memory. He engages in repetitive speech. Although he generally seems calm and content, he can become agitated and aggressive at times. This is mostly when the nursing staff have to provide him with personal care, or when he needs to have bloodwork done.
Mr. Angeconeb exhibits anxiety at times, when he makes anxious statements and appears distressed. The nursing staff offer him as-needed medications, which are variably effective. He continues to be intermittently resistive to taking his medications, especially in the morning. It often takes the nursing staff several hours to convince him to take his medications. For this reason, we have attempted to minimize his oral medications and have shifted the majority of his medications to the evening, when he is generally more cooperative. Mr. Angeconeb is also generally resistant to bathing.
Mr. Angeconeb continues to have rare periods of remarkable lucidity, relative to his overall presentation of cognitive impairment. During these lucid periods he is much more coherent and conversational. During one such episode in December of 2025, Mr. Angeconeb was able to articulate the alleged criminal offences that he would be facing if he returns to court, as well as his account of the alleged offences. He was able to have a reality-based conversation about his legal options if he were to return to court. Unfortunately, this lucid period only lasted approximately two days before he returned to his usual presentation of cognitive impairment. For a majority of the time, Mr. Angeconeb is not able to articulate why he is in hospital, and states that he does not know if he has any criminal charges.
Regarding Mr. Angeconeb’s housing options, he continues to be on the waitlist for support housing through the Brain Injury Services of Northern Ontario (BISNO). There are currently no vacancies. The waitlist is likely to be long. Mr. Angeconeb has previously been referred to JDOT, who felt that his behavioural needs were too high to be safely managed in long-term care. Mr. Angeconeb remains in hospital due to a lack of alternative accommodations.”
Position of the Parties:
[12]. Dr. Leinonen (on behalf of the Hospital and as the most responsible physician) and counsel for the Attorney General stated their position that Mr. Angeconeb is permanently unfit and remains a significant threat to public safety; the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a continuation of the existing Detention Order.
[13]. Counsel for Mr. Angeconeb agreed that his client was unfit to stand trial. However, he had not received any instructions about the issue of permanent unfitness or about the appropriate and necessary Disposition. He advised that Mr. Angeconeb’s last prima facie hearing was in October 2024, and that his next prima facie hearing is scheduled for August 2026.
Evidence at the Hearing:
[14]. 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 and testified as follows:
a) Mr. Angeconeb is cognitively impaired for much of the time. He experiences only brief, unpredictable periods of lucidity, which last a day or two and are becoming increasingly rare.
b) During these episodes of lucidity, Mr. Angeconeb can discuss legal matters coherently, but he quickly reverts to an impaired state.
c) Attempts to engage Mr. Angeconeb in fitness assessments are mostly unsuccessful, except during his brief lucid periods.
d) Mr. Angeconeb often refuses to participate in assessments or fitness coaching.
e) There is no clear pattern or trigger for these lucid periods, and medication changes have not produced consistent improvements.
f) Previous neurological and internal medicine assessments did not reveal any treatable conditions.
g) Mr. Angeconeb requires significant support for daily living and could be described as having a progressive decline in functioning. This decline was likely due to a combination of factors, including: a history of solvent abuse, multiple traumatic brain injuries, and at least two accidental overdoses, which may have caused anoxic brain injury. There is also a separate psychotic disorder, which contributes to Mr. Angeconeb’s cognitive symptoms.
h) Mr. Angeconeb’s aggressive incidents are mostly reactive, occurring during personal care (e.g., hygiene, feeding, bloodwork), when Mr. Angeconeb does not understand what is happening.
i) There have been 34 documented incidents of aggression in the past reporting year, primarily directed at staff during care, or at other patients during conflicts over food or drinks.
j) Mr. Angeconeb is considered permanently unfit to stand trial.
k) Mr. Angeconeb requires a high degree of supervision and support to ensure the safety of the public and himself. Placement in a long-term care facility has been considered and attempted, but behavioural concerns, including agitation and aggression, have led to rejection by such facilities.
[15]. In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Leinonen testified:
a) As Mr. Angeconeb’s last internal and neurological examinations were back in 2021, it would be advisable to repeat them to understand whether any other medical condition could be contributing to a decline in his cognitive condition.
b) His attention was then drawn to the following paragraph, on page 7 of the Hospital Report:
“A more recent neuropsychological assessment completed in the year of 2013 following an unintentional Methadone overdose had indicated that the overall impressions of the cognitive tests were in the Low Average to Average range. The main difficulties were with speeded tests, executive functioning tests involving mental switching between different ideas and a problem-solving test.”
He would no longer place Mr. Angeconeb in the Low-Average-to-Average range for his age bracket, but in a much lower bracket. Mr. Angeconeb requires support from nursing staff for hygiene and his daily living activities.
c) Mr. Angeconeb’s agitation and aggression is not just directed at hospital staff, but at co-patients as well, causing them to get angry, and potentially lash out, at him.
d) Mr. Angeconeb is unable to understand the nature and object of the proceedings or their possible consequences, nor can he communicate meaningfully with counsel. He would be unable to meaningfully participate and instruct counsel in any criminal proceedings. His mental health disorder interferes with his ability to conduct a defence, and to make, and communicate to his counsel, reality-based decisions, in his defence. His mental health disorder cannot be described as transient.
[16]. No other evidence was called.
Analysis and Conclusions:
Fitness to Stand Trial
[17]. The first issue for the Board to decide is whether Mr. Bruder remains unfit to stand trial.
Applicable Law
[18]. 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 his or her 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.”1
b. The accused is fit to stand trial if (s)he can: “make and communicate reality-based decisions in the conduct of their defence or instruct counsel to do so”2 and can: “intelligibly communicate these decisions to counsel or the court.”3
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.”4
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.”5
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.”6
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.”7
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 in Bharwani:
“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
[19]. Having heard and considered all the evidence and submissions from the parties, the Board agrees with their joint submissions, that Mr. Angeconeb is unfit to stand trial. Mr. Angeconeb is unable to: understand the nature and object of the proceedings; understand the possible consequences of the proceedings; communicate meaningfully with counsel; or meaningfully participate, and instruct counsel, in a criminal proceeding. Mr. Angeconeb’s mental health symptoms cannot be described as transient.
[20]. Mr. Angeconeb’s mental health disorder does compromise his ability to conduct a defence, and it would impair his understanding of reality when making or communicating decisions in his defense.
[21]. In particular, the Board relies on the following extracted paragraphs, set out in the Hospital Report:
“As indicated above, Mr. Angeconeb’s cognitive deficits are severe. He is generally confused and disoriented. When questioned, he is not able to articulate the alleged offences, the roles and procedures of the Court, or the potential outcomes. It seems apparent that Mr. Angeconeb would not be able to communicate adequately with counsel, nor could he meaningfully participate in Court proceedings. He does continue to occasionally have periods of remarkable lucidity, during which he may be considered fit to stand trial. Unfortunately, this lucid periods only las a day or two, and occur rarely, in an unpredictable pattern.”
[22]. As set out in the Hospital Report, there have been 30 documented aggressive incidents in this reporting year. In some of these instances, Mr. Angeconeb attempted to strike out at the nursing staff with a closed fist. He has behaved similarly when laboratory staff came to do his bloodwork.
Necessary and Appropriate Disposition:
Determination of Permanent Unfitness
[23]. The Board finds that Mr. Angeconeb is permanently unfit, based on the doctor’s uncontroverted evidence and the Hospital Report.
[24]. According to Dr. Leinonen, Mr. Angeconeb could be described as cognitively impaired almost all the time. Any periods of lucidity last only a day or two and are becoming increasingly rare.
[25]. Mr. Angeconeb’s overall clinical condition can be described as deteriorating, with no expectation of improvement.
[26]. Any attempts to engage Mr. Angeconeb in fitness assessments or coaching are largely unsuccessful. Even with medication adjustments and support, there has been no sustained improvement in his cognitive function.
[27]. The Board finds that Mr. Angeconeb does present a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances is a Detention Order. In particular, the Board relies on the following extracted paragraphs from the Hospital Report:
“The necessary and appropriate disposition, in the opinion of the treatment team and the hospital, remains an order detaining Mr. Angeconeb in hospital. He is severely impaired on account of chronic residual psychosis and cognitive impairment of multiple etiologies, and requires detention in a safe and secure setting where his needs can be met, and his potential for aggression reduced.
The hospital remains of the view that placement in a secure community facility, such as a long-term care home, might theoretically be possible. The obstacle at the moment is Mr. Angeconeb’s regular episodes of agitation and aggression directed towards nursing staff, which are felt to be beyond the ability of most long-term care facilities to manage. Attempts will continue to be made to explore alternatives, both in terms of further reduction in Mr. Angeconeb’s aggression, and the identification of possible community facilities capable of meeting his needs and managing his risk. It is expected that he will be a difficult long-term placement problem and, in the interim, he requires detention in a secure hospital setting for the reasons stated above.”
[28]. The Hospital needs to retain the ability to approve of Mr. Angeconeb’s housing for both his safety and that of the public. The Hospital continues to recommend, and the Board agrees, that Mr. Angeconeb needs to live in supervised accommodation.
[29]. 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. Angeconeb, his reintegration into society and his other needs, the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Detention Order.
DATED this 18th 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