Re: David Whynot
ORB File No: 8846
Hearing held on: December 10, 2025
Place of hearing: Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care 401 Sunset Drive, St. Thomas
Pursuant to: Section 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. C. Finley (via Zoom)
Members: Dr. S. Bouskill Dr. L.O. Lightfoot Ms. C. Murray Ms. C. Plyley
Parties Appearing:
Accused: David Whynot Counsel: Ms. N. Circelli
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Zamprogna
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. D. Rows
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated January 2, 2026)
Introduction:
On July 30, 2025, David Whynot was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, on two charges of aggravated assault and one charge of assault with a weapon, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (Criminal Code”). That finding was supported by the Criminal Responsibility Assessment of Dr. G. Levin, dated June 22, 2025.
The Court did not make a Disposition and ordered, pursuant to s. 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code, that Mr. Whynot be released to live in the community pending a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”). On November 3, 2025, the Ontario Review Board (“ORB” or “the panel”), ordered an assessment of Mr. Whynot’s mental condition on an out-of-custody basis, for the purpose of determining an appropriate disposition under the ORB.
On December 10, 2025, the Board convened a hearing at Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care (“Southwest” or “the hospital”) to make an initial Disposition.
Mr. Whynot was present at the hearing and was represented by counsel, Ms. Nicola Circelli, throughout.
The Risk Assessment Report of Dr. Ajay Prakash dated December 8, 2025, was entered as Exhibit 1. The Criminal Responsibility Assessment Report of Dr. Levin dated June 22, 2025, was entered as Exhibit 2.
The issue at this hearing is whether Mr. Whynot is a significant threat to public safety, as defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code. If so, the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances must be determined, bearing in mind the factors enunciated in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
For the reasons set out below and based on the expert evidence and opinions before it, the Board concluded that Mr. Whynot continues to present a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board further concluded that his risk can be properly managed with a Conditional Discharge on the terms and conditions set out in our formal Disposition. The Board concluded that this is the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances.
Current Psychiatric Diagnoses:
- Schizophrenia, in remission;
Rule out Bipolar Disorder with psychotic features;
Rule out Cannabis Use Disorder; and
Rule out Cannabis induced psychotic disorder
Index Offences:
- The circumstances giving rise to the Index Offences are extracted from the London Police Charge Summary, which is summarized briefly as follows:
On March 13, 2022, Mr. Whynot and Victim 1 were in the apartment of Victim 1 in the City of London. Mr. Whynot entered the bedroom of Victim 1 where she was laying down. Mr. Whynot put both hands over the nose and mouth of Victim 1 and said he was rubbing alien blood on her. Victim 1 escaped to the hallway of the apartment building. Victim 1 ran into the apartment of Victim 2 and locked the door. Victim 2 became engaged in a physical altercation with Mr. Whynot in the hallway. Victim 2 ran downstairs to a hallway to phone 911.
Mr. Whynot returned to the doorway of Victim 2 and knocked. Victim 1 opened the door and Mr. Whynot told her she was an alien and stabbed her twice in the abdomen. Mr. Whynot then proceeded to the hallway downstairs where he accused Victim 2 of being a vampire. Victim 2 pushed Mr. Whynot backwards. Victim 3 heard this altercation and entered the hallway with a baseball bat. Mr. Whynot swung two knives in the direction of Victim 2, making contact with the torso of Victim 2.
Mr. Whynot then charged toward Victim 3 with the blade of both knives pointed toward Victim 3. Victim 3 ultimately used the baseball bat to strike Mr. Whynot on the arm. Mr. Whynot retreated back to the apartment.
The police arrived and commanded Mr. Whynot to drop the knives. Mr. Whynot proceeded toward the police officer with the knives still in his hands. The officer discharged his Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW) at Mr. Whynot to no effect. Mr. Whynot continued toward the police with both knives. An officer discharged six rounds of Blunt Impact Projectiles at Mr. Whynot, while the other officer discharged the CEW once more before successfully disarming Mr. Whynot.
Background Information:
The following information is summarized from the Exhibits, which need not be repeated here in detail.
Mr. Whynot is a 33-year-old father of one daughter from whom he is estranged. He has lived in a rented room in London, Ontario for over a year. He is financially supported by Ontario Works.
The London Police Service Local Criminal Record identifies several convictions prior to the index offences. His criminal record begins in 2009 and includes charges of mischief under $5000, uttering threats, possession of property obtained by crime, failing to comply with recognizance, taking a motor vehicle without consent, possession of a weapon, and resisting arrest.
Following the index offences, Mr. Whynot was released to live in the community on April 8, 2022. Mr. Whynot describes his surety as being aware of his psychiatric issues. He also states that his grandparents and older brother who live in Brampton are also aware of his mental health conditions.
Mr. Whynot reported that he attends the iCare Medical Walk-In Clinic in London on a monthly basis to receive his injection of Invega Sustenna.
The Risk Assessment Report notes that Mr. Whynot is aware that he has schizophrenia. He accepts that he has this condition and will require antipsychotic medication for the rest of his life. He is aware of the symptoms of his mental condition, stating “I was paranoid, I thought people were trying to kill me, I believed in co-incidences, it felt like I was living in the Truman show, I was having insomnia, I was going for weeks without sleep, it was hell.” He states that his injection keeps him sane, level-headed, able to socialize, controls his paranoia and thoughts that people are trying to kill him.
The Risk Assessment report states that when asked what would happen if he stopped his medication, Mr. Whynot responded, “no, it’s too important…I don’t want to go back to that. That is why I have taken these medications for the last five years. I know how crucial it is to my mental health.” Regarding the consequences of stopping his medication, he stated, “I have the potential to going back to being very paranoid and dangerous. That is the reality as shitty as it is to say.” Mr. Whynot also expressed insight into the index offences.
Mr. Whynot has not experienced any psychotic symptoms since the index offences.
Mr. Whynot acknowledges cannabis use of one to two joints per day containing 0.5 grams of cannabis in each joint. He believes that cannabis helps with his sleep, anxiety, ADHD, and it calms him down. He denies that cannabis negatively affected him at the time of the index offences.
Mr. Whynot’s first psychotic episode was November 2021. He was admitted to hospital and on the fourth day he accepted Haldol. On the day of discharge, it was noted the Mr. Whynot did not believe he had a mental condition. On December 17, 2021, during an outpatient meeting, Mr. Whynot reported he had been compliant with taking Haldol but was experiencing akathisia. A side effect medication was prescribed. He was also cautioned about the interplay between cannabis and his mental condition given his significant substance use. Mr. Whynot was noted to have missed his February 14, 2022, psychiatric outpatient appointment and the clinic was unable to contact Mr. Whynot or his mother despite multiple attempts. However, Mr. Whynot indicates that he attempted to contact the clinic days before Christmas 2021 because his Haldol was not working and he was getting paranoid again. He states he was given a new medication and was compliant.
The Risk Assessment Report opines at page 10 that Mr. Whynot is a low to moderate risk in the context of a Conditional Discharge. Dr. Prakash’s opinion is that Mr. Whynot continues to pose a risk of serious physical or psychological harm to members of the public and should be subject to a Conditional Discharge. The Risk Assessment Report notes that a Detention Disposition was considered by Dr. Prakash; however, Mr. Whynot has been living in the community successfully since April 8, 2022, despite not having adequate professional supports and engaging in daily cannabis use.
Oral Evidence at the Hearing:
Dr. Ajay Prakash, Mr. Whynot’s assessing psychiatrist, provided oral evidence at the hearing as follows.
Dr. Prakash contacted the pharmacy where Mr. Whynot fills his prescriptions. The pharmacy confirmed that Mr. Whynot has picked up his medications for the past six months.
Mr. Whynot’s risk factors are his mental condition and his cannabis use. Dr. Prakash confirmed that Mr. Whynot has lived in the community since April 8, 2022, without any professional psychiatric supports. Despite this, Mr. Whynot has seemingly done well. There have been no hospitalizations nor any criminal charges in the past four years.
Dr. Prakash testified that he supports the exclusion of a clause from Mr. Whynot’s Disposition requiring him to abstain from substances. Mr. Whynot carries a diagnosis of cannabis use disorder. He has been cautioned in the past regarding the interplay between substance use and his mental instability. There is conflicting information as to whether Mr. Whynot’s cannabis use increased in the weeks leading up to the index offence. Regardless of the conflicting information, substance use is a risk factor for Mr. Whynot. Mr. Whynot has regularly continued to use cannabis in the community without apparent mental health decompensation or offending behaviour. Dr. Prakash would like to test whether Mr. Whynot’s cannabis use increases in the community absent a clause preventing use in his Disposition.
There are three “Rule Out” diagnoses. Dr. Prakash stated that he needs time to rule out the diagnoses of bipolar disorder with psychotic features, cannabis use disorder, and cannabis induced psychotic disorder. Depending on the final diagnoses, Mr. Whynot may require medication changes. Mr. Whynot will require a community-based psychiatrist.
Mr. Whynot has health insurance coverage for the long-acting injectable medication.
Mr. Whynot would like to reconnect with his mother.
In response to questions of Mr. Rows, Dr. Prakash testified that Mr. Whynot is not a hunter. Based on the risk Mr. Whynot poses, a no weapons term in the Disposition is appropriate.
In response to questions of Ms. Circelli, Dr. Prakash testified that he is not aware of a change of Mr. Whynot’s mental state in the past four years. However, Dr. Prakash has not been able to determine if Mr. Whynot had an admission to hospital in Ottawa while he was living there after the index offence. Therefore, his response regarding changes in mental state of Mr. Whynot is limited by not having collateral information.
Mr. Whynot has been compliant with medications. Dr. Prakash testified that medication changes are not planned at this time.
Dr. Prakash testified that there is a good chance that Mr. Whynot will be connected, through the Forensic Team, to an outpatient psychiatrist within the next year. He will require community-based mental health supports.
In response to questions of the panel, Dr. Prakash testified that he has not yet had contact with Mr. Dupuis, the surety, nor Mr. Whynot’s mother. Therefore, there are no independent reports of Mr. Whynot’s cannabis use in the past four years. In the upcoming reporting year, Mr. Whynot will be provided education to help him learn options for coping other than cannabis use.
Dr. Prakash testified that the hospital is requesting that a clause requiring Mr. Whynot to submit random urine samples so that Dr. Prakash is able to monitor Mr. Whynot’s substance use in the absence of the clause requiring Mr. Whynot to abstain from substance use.
No other evidence was called.
Submissions:
Position of the Parties:
Counsel for the hospital confirmed her initial position and submitted that Mr. Whynot continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and recommended a Conditional Discharge Disposition on the following terms:
Reside in London, Ontario at the address specified in the Hospital Report;
When living in the community, report to the person in charge of the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care, St. Joseph's Health Care London, or his or her designate, not less than twice per month
On his consent, shall take such treatment as recommended by the Person in Charge of the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care, St. Joseph’s Health Care London, or his or her designate, pursuant to section 672.55(1) of the Criminal Code;
Notify, in writing, the Ontario Review Board and the person in charge of the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care, or her designate, within 24 hours of a change in phone number;
Notify the person in charge of the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care, or her designate, 24 hours in advance of any absence from his residence of 24 hours or more;
Upon request, submit samples of his urine to the Person in Charge of the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care, St. Joseph’s Health Care London, or his or her designate, for the purpose of analyzing whether he has ingested alcohol, drugs, or any other intoxicant;
No contact with Donald MacEachern, and Robert Smiley;
No contact with Colleen Whynot unless with her written revocable consent to be provided to the person in charge or designate;
Refrain from having in his possession any firearm, ammunition, or other offensive weapons, or being in the company of any person possessing a firearm other than a peace officer;
If the accused is arrested pursuant to section 672.91 of the Criminal Code for a breach or anticipated breach of the terms of this disposition, he may under section 672.92(1)(b) of the Criminal Code be delivered to the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care;
Upon notice, attend before the Ontario Review Board as required;
Keep the peace and be of good behaviour.
Ms. Zamprogna submitted that Mr. Whynot has a prior offence involving a weapon. Therefore, combined with the set of index offences, a weapons prohibition is necessary.
Counsel for the Attorney General, Mr. Rows, adopted the hospital’s position set out above.
Counsel for Mr. Whynot conceded the issued of significant threat and agreed with the hospital position.
Analysis and Conclusions:
Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence as well as the submissions from the parties, the Board finds Mr. Whynot remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.
In Winko, the Supreme Court outlined that, in coming to the conclusion on the issue of significant risk, a Review Board should closely examine a range of evidence, including: the circumstances of the original offence; the past and expected course of the accused’s treatment; the present state of the NCR accused’s medical condition; the NCR accused’s own plans for the future; the support existing for the NCR accused in the community; and most importantly, the recommendations provided by experts who examined the NCR accused. In coming to our conclusion in this matter, the Board relies on the uncontroverted expert evidence of Dr. Prakash, in addition to the documentary evidence before us.
Mr. Whynot’s risk arises from his diagnoses of schizophrenia and his substance use. Although he has insight into his index offence, illness and need for medication, he lacks full insight into the potential for cannabis to exacerbate or trigger psychosis. He continues to consume cannabis daily. Mr. Whynot has been historically cautioned regarding substance use in relation to mental status decompensation. However, Mr. Whynot denies cannabis negatively affecting him. He believes it calms him down, helps with his sleep, anxiety, and ADHD, and keeps him sane. It is clear that Mr. Whynot has not accepted the risks associated with cannabis use. Education regarding the interplay between substance use and mental status decompensation will be provided by the Forensic team. The coming year, without an abstain clause in the disposition, will appropriately test Mr. Whynot’s degree of cannabis use and allow for observation of any associated mental status decompensation.
Although Mr. Whynot has been living in the community, seemingly without incident since April 2022, he does not have adequate professional supports in the community. These will be arranged in the coming year.
Given the Board’s finding of significant threat, it is charged with shaping a Disposition for the coming year. The Board accepts the evidence of that the necessary and appropriate, least onerous and restrictive Disposition to mange Mr. Whynot’s risk to the public is a Conditional Discharge with terms as per the hospital’s recommendations.
The Board considered a Detention Disposition. However, Mr. Whynot has been able to live in the community since April 2022 without legal incident. The Board has concerns with Mr. Whynot living in the community while consuming cannabis with regular frequency, as it is a psychoactive substance. However, his insight in all domains, excepting the risks of cannabis use, is encouraging. Because Mr. Whynot has insight into his illness, need for medication, and risk to the public when his mental status decompensates, it is anticipated that the forensic team will be able to act quickly enough in the event of decompensation that his risk to the public would be minimized.
The Board finds that a weapons prohibition is necessary due to his use of weapons in the index offences and a historical offence.
Upon consideration of all the evidence, the submissions of the parties, and the criteria set forth in s. 672.54, the paramount consideration being the safety of the public, in addition to the mental condition of Mr. Whynot, his reintegration into society and his other needs, we conclude that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Conditional Discharge subject to the terms and conditions set out in our formal Disposition.
DATED this 2^nd^ day of January 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Christine Murray
Legal Member
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board