Ontario Review Board
Re: Brock Brown
ORB File No: 7074
Hearing held on: Monday January 26, 2026
Place of Hearing: Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care
Pursuant to: Sections 672.48(1) and 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. R. Bigelow
Members: Dr. J. Bradford Dr. L. Lightfoot Ms. K. Tomaszewski Ms. B. Little
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Brock Brown Counsel: Ms. N. Circeli
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Zamprogna
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. K. Dalrymple
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated February 26, 2026)
Introduction
On December 21, 2016, Mr. Brock Brown was found unfit to stand trial on charges of sexual assault (x2), criminal harassment (x2), failure to comply with probation order (x2), utter a threat to cause death or bodily harm and assault, all contrary to the Criminal Code. Mr. Brown is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the Board) dated February 6, 2025 finding that he continued to be unfit to stand trial and ordering that he be detained at Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care (the Hospital or Southwest) with privileges up to and including residence in the community in supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge.
On Monday, January 26, 2026, the Board convened a hearing to review Mr. Brown’s disposition pursuant to sections 672.48(1) & 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Brown was present at the hearing and represented by counsel, Mr. Cunningham. Also present at the hearing were Mr. Brown’s aunt, his guardian, and his uncle.
The issues to be determined at the hearing were whether Mr. Brown continued to be unfit to stand trial and, if so, what was the necessary and appropriate disposition that was also the least onerous and least restrictive, taking into account the factors set out in 672.54 of the Criminal Code. In addition the Board is to determine whether the criteria are met for a referral to the court for consideration of a stay.
Initial Positions of the Parties
At the commencement of the hearing the parties were requested to provide their initial without prejudice positions with respect to the issues before the Board. Counsel for the Hospital submitted that Mr. Brown continued to be unfit to stand trial, was likely permanently unfit, no longer represented a significant threat to the safety of the public and the matter should be referred to the court for consideration of a stay.
Counsel for the Attorney General supported the Hospital’s position.
Counsel for Mr. Brown reserved her position pending hearing the evidence.
Evidence at the hearing
- The evidence at the hearing consisted of the Hospital Report dated November 21, 2025 and the oral evidence of Dr. J. Quinn, Mr. Brown’s most responsible physician.
Findings:
- For the Reasons that follow, the Board finds that Mr. Brown continues to be unfit to stand trial, is likely permanently unfit, no longer represents a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the matter should be referred to the court for consideration of a stay.
Index Offences:
- The circumstances surrounding the alleged index offences as summarized in the last year’s reasons for disposition are as follows:
Sexual Assault Sec. 271 CCC (Charge 1)
The accused Brock Brown (25 years) and the victim, L. S. (24 years) are not previously known to each other. L. S. is employed at the Canadian Tire located at N[…] Street East, in the City of London, and Brown attended as a customer. The Canadian Tire Store has video cameras throughout the store, including one at the store entrance and two covering the area of the cashier. All times are based on the time stamp on the video obtained from the Canadian Tire.
On June 13 2016 at 5:59 pm Brown enters the Canadian Tire with an adult male associate. At 6:09 pm Brown is standing at the cashier area with a bike lock and is seen speaking with the cashier, L. S.. Over the next 10 minutes Brown is seen hugging, kissing, grabbing, pulling, holding the hands, wrists, hips and shoulders of the victim, L. S., who became too fearful of Brown’s aggressive behaviour to tell him to stop. At one point Brown opened a gate to enter the cash area to continue to make physical contact with L. S. L. S. is seen attempting to distance herself, pull away and push Brown away. During this interaction Brown made several statements, including: he wanted to marry L. S., stating L. S. was pretty, he would beat up L. S.’ boyfriend, he just got out of jail, he was a mixed martial arts fighter, and that his name was Brock Brown. L. S. was not physically injured as a result of this incident.
Uttering Threats, Sec. 264.1(1)(a)
Scott Ashley is a Court Security officer (CSO) at the London courthouse. Brock Reynolds is a Cadet employed by the London Police Service currently working in the cells of the London courthouse.
On June 16, 2016, at approximately 11:20 am Brown was in custody at the London Courthouse located at 80 Dundas Street, in the City of London. CSO Ashley advised Brown of the new sexual assault charge, as noted above, and he stated ‘Once I get out, she’s getting it. I’m punching her face in.” Cadet Reynolds then heard Brown state, “When I get out of this fucking place I am going to Canadian Tire and am going to punch L. S,’s Face in.
Harassment, Sec. 264(3) (Count 1) and Assault, Sec. 266
The accused, Brock Kyle Anthony BROWN, age 25 years, and the victim, J. G., age 26 years, are not known to one another. J. G. is employed by a social agency who supports people in the community and at the time of the incident, was the Men’s Mission to assist an unrelated person. The accused was residing at the Men’s Mission.
On June 13, 2016, at approximately 8:45 pm, J. G. was at the Men’s Mission at 459 York Street, in the City of London, Ontario. J. G. was approached by the accused and asked if she worked at the men’s mission to which J. G. stated she did not but with another social agency. The accused reached his hand out and J. G. shook his hand. The handshake lingered and J. G. pull her hand away. The accused identified himself as “Brock” and asked J. G. for a hug to which she declined as it would be inappropriate. The accused then positioned himself between J. G. and her vehicle that she was attempting to enter. The accused opened his arms as if to hug J. G. and as she attempted to walk past, the accused grabbed her elbows. J. G. immediately removed the accused’s hands from her elbows and stated she had a ‘personal bubble” of space that he needed to respect. J. G. again attempted to walk past the accused and in doing so, the accused stated he wanted her to be his girlfriend. J. G. stated she had professional boundaries and his comment was inappropriate. The accused again grabbed J. G.’s elbows and she again removed his hands and stepped back to create distance. J. G. attempted to walk toward her vehicle and once she was able to reach it, the accused stood in front of the door and prevented her from entering the vehicle. J. G. asked the accused to move away from the door and the accused stated , “just looking at your face is getting me hard.” The accused then attempted to touch J. G. on the cheek with his finger on his left hand. J. G. attempted to move away so quickly that she nearly fell over. The accused eventually walked away, and J. G. was able to enter the vehicle and leave the area.
Harassment, Sec. 264(3) (Charge 2) & Sexual Assault, Sec. 271 (Charge 2)
The accused, Brock Kyle Anthony BROWN, age 25 years, and the victim, M. W., age 22 years, are strangers. On June 13, 2016, at approximately 6:30 pm, M. W. was leaving her place of employment in the area of King Street and Wellington Street in the City of London, Ontario when she was approached by the accused. The accused stated, “I need a minute of your time. I need to talk to you because you are so beautiful.” The accused introduced himself with a first and last name, but M. W. could only recall the first name, “Brock.” OSKO attempted to walk away but the accused followed her. M. W. walked to her vehicle that was parked a large ci ty block away and told the accused she needed to get to her car. The accused followed her and made numerous inappropriate comments such as, asking if her boyfriend ‘licked her pussy” that he was the “pussy king,” he had slept with about 120 girls, he likely had AIDS, and he wanted to marry M. W. The accused asked M. W. for a hug, and she again stated she needed to go home and continued to walk toward her vehicle. M. W. arrived at her vehicle, and the accused blocked her from entering. The accused then hugged and kissed M. W. on the cheek, touched and grabbed M. W., and remained in her personal space for an extended period of time. Eventually M. W. was able to get into her vehicle, lock the door, and eventually convince the accused to move out of the way so she could drive away. The accused’s behaviour caused M. W. To be very fearful for her personal safety.
- In addition, on June 14, 2016 Mr. Brown, while subject to two separate probation orders, was in violation of terms requiring that abide by a curfew and further that he reside at a residence approved by his probation officer.
Background Information Regarding the Accused:
As of the date of the hearing, Mr. Brown was 34 years of age. At the time of his birth the neurological condition Adrenoleukodystrophy (ALD) was identified. His parents divorced when he was four years of age and he resided with his father from the age of 6 to 14 then he lived with his mother for a year. From the time he was 15 until he was 20 he lived with his aunt and thereafter was of no fixed address and utilized the shelter systems but visited his aunt every month.
Mr. Brown dropped out of high school in grade 10 after he was expelled for “behavioural issues”.
Substance Use History
- Mr. Brown began using cannabis when he was 12 and at the age of 18 and began to drink heavily.
Legal History:
- Mr. Brown has a criminal record commencing in 2011 including convictions for robbery, possession of a dangerous weapon, theft under, uttering threats (x5), possession for the purpose of trafficking the schedule 1 substance, cannabis production and failing to comply with court orders(x10). He has also been charged with possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition, transporting a firearm or prohibited device in the careless matter as well as assault and forcible entry although all of those charges were withdrawn.
Psychiatric History
- Mr. Brown had no admissions to hospital with respect to mental health related issues prior to the index offences. However, a number of members of his family including his mother and some siblings have had admissions to hospital with respect to mental health related issues.
Current Diagnosis
- Mr. Brown’s current diagnosis is Major Neurocognitive Disorder Secondary to Adrenoleukodystrophy (ADL). ADL is:
a genetic, neurodegenerative metabolic disorder that involves adrenal insufficiency and progressive deterioration due to demyelination of the cerebral white matter, whereby brain function progressively declines. Symptoms include problems with speaking, listening and understanding verbal instructions. There are generally two pathways of disease progression; the first involves more physical involvement – blindness, seizures and gait problems; the second pathway includes an inability to follow verbal directions, physical aggression, and becoming disinhibited.
Evidence of Dr. Quinn
- Dr. Quinn indicated that:
- He was Mr. Brown’s most responsible physician and had reviewed and adopted the contents of the Hospital Report. Over the reporting year Mr. Brown’s mental and physical condition has continued to gradually decline. Over the summer his mental and physical condition had taken a steep decline and it was determined that the cause of this was his antiepileptic medication which had resulted in his being overly sedated and that medication has been reduced.
- Mr. Brown’s physical condition has declined and he is no longer mobile and requires the use of a specialized wheelchair and a specialized lift to transfer him from his bed to the wheelchair. He requires the assistance of staff with almost all activities of daily living and requires the presence of a staff member at all times. His mental condition has also continued to decline. He regularly parrots statements and repetitively utters nonsensical statements such as “why”.1
- In novel or unusual situations such as Board Hearings there is an increase in impulsivity and disinhibition. When on the unit he is usually quiet although there are occasional abusive remarks, racial slurs or sexual comments. There is also minor physical grabbing but that has markedly decreased over the last six months since the change in his medication. It is not uncommon for individuals with an inability to express themselves such as Mr. Brown to act out aggressively when they are experiencing pain or discomfort as they are unable to communicate those matters.
- With respect to fitness, the effects of his illness on his cognition, his distractibility and impulsivity result in his being unable to meaningfully instruct counsel or meaningfully participate in court proceedings. He is unable to understand legal issues surrounding his outstanding charges. Given the degenerative nature of his illness, there is no likelihood that his ability to meaningfully participate in legal proceedings or instruct counsel will change and his unfitness will not change.
- Last summer with the assistance of the unit behavioural analyst, a behavioural plan was put in place which has been effective in reducing his verbal aggression and irritability. This behaviour plan could be easily continued in other facilities.
- The staff at long-term care facilities are experienced with and well suited to manage the type of impulsive non-volitional behaviour of individuals such as Mr. Brown and in his opinion a long-term care facility would be better able than the Hospital of providing appropriate care for and a better quality of life to Mr. Brown. Mr. Brown had been accepted by three long-term care facilities and was on their lengthy waiting lists as well as the crisis bed waiting list.
- Mr. Brown substitute decision-maker has been consistent and adamant in her objection to Mr. Brown’s transfer to a long-term care facility although this is contrary to the position that was put forward before the court at the guardianship hearing where she agreed to a transfer to a long-term care facility when appropriate.
- If a stay of proceedings were entered by the court, Mr. Brown would remain at the Hospital until such time as an appropriate facility within the civil mental health system appropriate to his needs became available.
Final Positions of the Parties
Counsel for the Hospital and counsel for the Attorney General maintained their initial positions that Mr. Brown continues to be unfit, was likely permanently unfit, no longer represented a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the matter should be referred to the court for consideration of a stay. Should the Board make a finding of significant threat, the necessary and appropriate disposition would be a continuation of the current disposition without change.
Having heard the evidence, counsel for Mr. Brown indicated that in her submission, although the evidence established that Mr. Brown was unfit to stand trial and likely permanently unfit, the evidence did not establish on a balance of probabilities that Mr. Brown constituted a significant threat to the safety of the public and accordingly a referral to the court for consideration of a stay of proceedings was appropriate. Should the Board disagree, she noted that an absolute discharge was not available given the finding of unfitness, a conditional discharge would not be appropriate given that there was no residence or appropriate professional support within the community for Mr. Brown and therefore the only potential disposition would be a continuation of the detention order.
Analysis and Conclusion Fitness
- The evidence clearly establishes that as a result of the nature of his degenerative disease Mr. Brown would be unable to meaningfully participate in court proceedings or instruct counsel and that this will not change and accordingly he is permanently unfit to stand trial. This conclusion is clearly supported by Mr. Brown’s inability to meaningfully participate in the hearing.
Analysis and Conclusion, Significant Threat:
At the conclusion of the hearing all parties jointly took the position that Mr. Brown did not constitute a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board agrees with that position. Although due to his cognitive decline, Mr. Brown will occasionally act out verbally or grab at a caregiver, those incidents were all relatively minor with no injuries to staff and the actions were not voluntary. There has also been a substantial reduction in that type of behaviour since the introduction of the behavioural plan and change in medications.
Counsel for the Hospital referred the Board to the comments of the Supreme Court of Canada in Winko2 that neither a low risk of significant harm nor a significant risk of trivial harm was sufficient to meet the test of significant harm. Based on the evidence before the Board, we find that there is a risk of trivial harm but that clearly there is an extremely low risk of significant harm and accordingly the test for significant threat has not been met.
Referral to the Court for Consideration of a Stay
- Section 672.851 provides that the Board may make a recommendation to the court that has jurisdiction with respect to the offences charged against the accused found unfit to stand trial for consideration as to whether a stay of proceedings should be ordered if the Board is of the opinion that:
- The accused continues to be unfit to stand trial and is not likely to ever become fit to stand trial and
- The accused does not pose a significant threat to the safety of the public.
- As noted above we find that the conditions precedent to a referral to the court for consideration of a stay have been met and direct that the matter be referred to the court for consideration of a stay.
DATED this 26th day of February 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Robert Bigelow Alternate Chairperson
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board
Footnotes
- The repetitive utterance of "why" occurred constantly throughout the course of the hearing.
- Winko v British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute) 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S. C. R. 625