Re Jason Derochie, 2026 CanLII 15109

Ontario Review Board

Re: Jason Derochie

ORB File No: 7883

Hearing held on: Tuesday, January 13, 2026

Place of Hearing: Brockville Mental Health Centre

Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code

Before: Alternate Chairperson: Mr. P. Capelle Members: Dr. Y. Alatishe Dr. P. Wright Mr. K. McKenna Ms. R. MacIntyre

Parties Appearing: Accused: Jason Derochie Counsel: Mr. A. Sheivari The person in charge of hospital: Representative Dr. R. Linthorst Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. K. Schultz

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated February 25, 2026)

Introduction

1On May 5, 2021, Jason Derochie, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of arson, endangering safety and property, taking a motor vehicle without consent, and uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“the Criminal Code”). Mr. Derochie is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated February 4th, 2025, which detains him at the Secure Forensic Unit of the hospital with privileges up to and including to live in the community, within 150 kilometres of the hospital.

2On January 13, 2026, the Ontario Review Board (“the ORB” or “the Board”) convened a hearing at the BMHC pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. The annual review for Mr. Derochie was held in person. The hospital was represented by Dr. R. Linthorst, the Attorney General by Mr. Schultz and Mr. Derochie by Mr. A. Sheivari.

Without Prejudice Position of the Parties

3At the outset of the hearing, Dr. Linthorst, on behalf of the hospital, indicated that a Detention Disposition with no changes was recommended. That position was joined by Mr. Schultz on behalf of the Attorney General.

4Mr. Sheivari advised that significant threat was not contested by Mr. Derochie. However, Mr. Derochie was requesting a conditional discharge disposition. That disposition would see Mr. Derochie’s home address specified and include a s. 672.55 Consent to Treatment provision.

5After considering the evidence and deliberating the Board accepted the joint recommendation of the parties that Mr. Derochie continues to represent a significant risk to the safety of the public and determined that the necessary and appropriate disposition in the circumstances is a renewal of Mr. Derochie’s February 4th, 2025, Detention Disposition, absent any changes.

Index Offences

6The circumstances of the index offences were extracted from the Hospital Report and are summarized as follows:

July 26, 2019

Mr. Derochie was involved in a head-on collision on Booth Street in Ottawa at about 21:15. Airbags in both vehicles deployed and accident reconstruction and witness statements indicated that Mr. Derochie crossed the solid yellow line separating the lanes. He was judged by the attending patrol officers to be perhaps intoxicated, with difficulty speaking, appearing tired, swaying back and forth while standing and rubbing his hands “constantly” on his pant legs. A field alcohol breathalyzer test was negative. A Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) was requested and administered a Field Sobriety Test, which Mr. Derochie performed poorly. The DRE’s opinion was that he was most likely under the influence of a Depressant. Mr. Derochie was then placed under arrest.

Mr. Derochie told the officers that he was “looking for my girlfriend who overdosed” and had gone to several hospitals trying to find her. His pockets were noted to contain $1050 dollars in cash, multiple lighters and a used crack pipe in a pack of cigarettes.

May 30, 2020

Mr. Derochie was observed attending his residence in the afternoon by video cameras at both his own residence and from a house across the street. Between 16:30 and 16:58, Mr. Derochie and an unknown female arrived at the house and made several trips into and out of the home. At one point, Mr. Derochie is seen carrying a large blue jug to the rear of the house and the windows are opened on the second floor. At 16:58, Mr. Derochie was inside the house for a final time while the female remained outside. He then exited and they drove away quickly from the residence. Within 90 seconds smoke was visible from the front windows on the second floor and neighbours called the fire department.

When police attended to conduct an origin and cause investigation, it was discovered that the smoke alarms had been removed, furniture was placed in the doorways to impede firefighter entry and there was a separate non-communicating fire on the stairwell landing. The motive for the fire was unknown as there did not appear to have been an insurance claim submitted. The police investigation determined that the fire was incendiary in nature and Mr. Derochie was charged with arson.

June 1, 2020

Mr. Derochie attended the home of his parents at approximately 20:15 in the evening. He walked into the home using the garage door entrance and then took the keys to his father’s handicapped-accessible van from their storage location. He went into the driveway and got into the vehicle, then drove it into the garage door. He reversed out of the garage and drove into it again, then reversed out of the garage and into it for a third time. The total damage to the vehicle was estimated to be $85,000. The total damage to the residence was estimated to be $31,000.

Mr. Derochie then got out of the vehicle, approached his father, and stated, “I’m gonna fucking kill all of you, wait and see.” Mr. Derochie then left the residence in his own vehicle and the police attended to take a statement from his father.

The following day, June 2, 2020, at approximately 20:35 hours, Mr. Derochie returned to his parents’ residence and asked where his car was. His father said that he did not know where Mr. Derochie’s car was located and the latter left. Mr. Derochie was arrested later that night.

January 30, 2021

Mr. Derochie’s father called the police and stated that his son was “in the driveway, smoking crack in his vehicle and speaking to an imaginary friend.” He indicated that he was concerned for his son’s safety and wanted the officers to check on him. When the officers arrived, Mr. Derochie exited the vehicle and “appeared to be nervous and jumpy.” Mr. Derochie became belligerent and confrontational when the officers asked if they could look inside his vehicle because he had release conditions requiring him to not be consuming or in possession of non-prescription drugs. He also had release conditions that he could not be in a motor vehicle. The officers attempted to detain Mr. Derochie and he became combative, actively resisting by tucking his arms underneath him. While leaning on the hood of his vehicle, Mr. Derochie kicked at the officers several times, striking one of them in the lower back. He was brought to the ground and continued to resist arrest, including grabbing at one officer’s vest repeatedly and breaking his sunglasses. Mr. Derochie was searched upon arrival at the central cells in the Police Station and three small white pills were found in his pocket. He informed officers that they were “speed.” Mr. Derochie was charged with four counts of failure to comply with release conditions: not to leave his parents’ property unless with his surety; not to operate or have care or control of a motor vehicle; not to possess any drug trafficking equipment or drug paraphernalia; and not to consume, possess or obtain any substance included in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. He was also charged with resisting a peace officer and assaulting a peace officer.

Current Diagnoses

Main diagnoses

• Unspecified Schizophrenia Spectrum and other Psychotic Disorder

Contributory diagnoses

• Cocaine Use Disorder
• Generalized Anxiety Disorder - by history
• ADHD - by history

Contributory personality features

• Antisocial Personality Disorder

Contributory psychosocial stressors

• Disruption of family by illness or death
• Problem related to employment/unemployment engagement

Evidence at Hearing

7The Board admitted into evidence the Hospital Report dated November 24th, 2025, as Exhibit No. 1. That document provides a great deal of information concerning Mr. Derochie’s personal history, mental health history as well as his course in hospital and in the community both prior to and subsequent to the index offences. As the Hospital Report was made an Exhibit, it’s unnecessary to reproduce the information contained therein in these Reasons.

8In addition to the documentary evidence the Board heard from Dr. Rhys Linthorst. He advised that because of five positive urine drug screens for cocaine metabolites between September 24th and October 28th, 2025, mass spectrometry testing was also undertaken (due to its high sensitivity and specificity), which confirmed findings indicative of multiple cocaine use. During this period, Dr. Linthorst met with Mr. Derochie on a bi-weekly basis and observed that his mental state remained unchanged. Dr. Linthorst could not identify the quantity of substance use that would trigger a decompensation for Mr. Derochie. There have been no subsequent positive screens reported.

9But for the above referenced positive cocaine screens, Mr. Derochie has done well over the past reporting year.

10Dr. Linthorst advised that the threshold to return a patient to hospital under a conditional discharge is higher, in that a patient can only be brought back to hospital after they have deteriorated rather than while they are deteriorating which is the case under a detention disposition.

11Responding to questions from Mr. Schultz, Dr. Linthorst confirmed that his patient continues to deny any prior use of cocaine. Further, Mr. Derochie does not identify any stressors associated with substance use. Dr. Linthorst added that Mr. Derochie carries a lot of responsibilities with few outlets for stress relief. He acts as a caregiver for both his mother and more recently his daughter, who has been living with him for the past year. Mr. Derochie receives assistance with his mother’s care twice daily.

12Mr. Derochie’s father passed away in 2025. Dr. Linthorst agreed that as a result, his patient’s mother faces an increased risk given her ongoing role as an approved person.

13Dr. Linthorst recommends increased daily structure for Mr. Derochie. He explained this could mean any activity that his patient feels moves him towards recovery, adding that employment is not a necessity. At present, Mr. Derochie has limited outlets for stress and substances appear to have been used as a form of coping. Mr. Derochie requires some activities that take him away from the caregiving Asked about Mr. Derochie’s commitment to abstinence, Dr. Linthorst responded that he remains concerned about available outlets to manage Mr. Derochie’s stressors.

14Dr. Linthorst would exercise caution in relying on Mr. Derochie’s self-report to identify decompensation. Forensic outpatient team contact and oversight are essential and occur no less than once every two weeks.

15A positive year for Mr. Derochie would see a combination of abstinence from substance use as well as developing a life worth living for him which includes greater structured activities.

16Responding to questions from Mr. Sheivari, Dr. Linthorst advised that rapid urine screening and testing is approximately 85 percent accurate, whereas the comprehensive screens obtained from mass spectrometry are approximately 99 percent accurate.

17Dr. Linthorst testified that following Mr. Derochie’s comments that the five positive cocaine test findings related to second-hand smoke he (Dr. Linthorst) called the laboratory and was advised that second-hand smoke is unlikely to cause a positive finding in either rapid or mass spectrometry screens.

18Responding to questions from a panelist, Dr. Linthorst testified he believes Mr. Derochie displays antisocial personality traits but does not actually meet criteria for this disorder. As a result of these traits, there is often denial which can further impact insight such as under reporting of symptoms and other challenges.

19Mr. Derochie’s primary risk scenario involves a gradual increasing risk of cocaine use followed by a threat to kill someone. In the past this would have been his parents. The most vulnerable individual at present is his mother. Nevertheless, Dr. Linthorst opined that the risk can be managed under the current detention disposition with a reporting requirement of not less than every two weeks. He added that with substance induced psychosis decompensation can be quite rapid, occurring within days.

20In the event Mr. Derochie was made subject to a conditional discharge and returned positive drug screens in the absence of a deterioration of his mental state, this would nonetheless be reported as a breach of that disposition.

21Finally, it was noted that Mr. Derochie’s insurance claim to obtain funds from the house fire he had set has been abandoned.

Closing Observations

22Dr. Linthorst simply stated that his patient remains agreeable and cooperative with the treatment team.

23Mr. Schultz noted that Mr. Derochie has taken on a full-time parenting role, dealt with the death of his father and remains the primary care group for his severely ill mother. In addition, he is dealing with an acrimonious estate distribution. Despite Mr. Derochie’s denials, he has used cocaine which was also the first step in the offence scenario that preceded the commission of the index offences. As a result, he may not be open with the treatment team with regard to self-reporting deterioration which would occur quickly in the presence of substance use. The primary adult who would be reporting a perceived decline of Mr. Derochie’s mental state is his mother who may be unable to report decompensation due to her compromised physical state and because she is a potential victim.

24Mr. Sheivari submitted that the level of support provided to Mr. Derochie would not change under a conditional discharge. Further, Mr. Derochie has not decompensated in quite some time despite concerns of positive drug screens in the fall of 2025. As Mr. Derochie’s living environment will not change and he has coped with his responsibilities over the past year, he is therefore suitable to transition to the conditional discharge. Mr. Sheivari added that his client will consent to a Consent to Treatment provision in the event a conditional discharge is ordered.

Analysis and Decision

(a) Significant Threat

25Ongoing significant threat to the safety of the public cannot be speculative. It must entail a real risk of serious physical or psychological harm arising from conduct that is both serious and criminal in nature.

26In determining whether Mr. Derochie continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public the Board carefully analyzed the evidence as it relates to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Winko, 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625.

27The Board unanimously finds that Mr. Derochie continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public. In arriving at this determination, the Board considered the joint position of the parties and accepted the uncontroverted evidence of Dr. Linthorst that Mr. Derochie continues to pose a significant threat. The Board also relies on the Hospital Report and the contents of the Risk Scenario(s) heading at page 76 of the Hospital Report which is reproduced below:

..the most likely scenario(s) involving risk of violence would be Mr. Derochie either A) Use substances and experience a relapse leading to psychosis; or B) Internalize stressful experiences and gradually develop a gradual deterioration of his mental health. Either of these could result in worsening of psychotic symptoms, similar in type, to those of his index offences.

28The Board therefore accepts that absent an ORB Disposition, Mr. Derochie would likely become non-compliant with prescribed medications which would lead to decompensation, the use of substances and the re-emergence of behaviours similar to those seen at the time of the index offences. We are satisfied that absent an ORB Disposition, it is likely that Mr. Derochie will cause serious physical or psychological harm to members of the public and such conduct will likely be criminal in nature.

(b) Disposition

29Flowing from the Board’s finding that Mr. Derochie continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public it must shape a Disposition for the year ahead. Its paramount consideration in doing so must be the safety of the public while also considering Mr. Derochie’s needs pursuant to s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

30The necessary and appropriate disposition for Mr. Derochie provides him as much freedom as possible without subjecting the community to a real risk of dangerous behaviour.

31Dr. Linthorst was questioned whether his patient suffers from Antisocial Personality Disorder because Mr. Derochie:

• appeared to be denying recent substance use despite evidence to the contrary;
• had a relatively extensive criminal record prior to the index offence;
• the Anti-Social Personality Disorder diagnosis was noted at page 75 of the Hospital Report, within the Risk Assessment analysis.

32The above noted symptoms speak to the ongoing need for close monitoring as well the necessity to quickly return Mr. Derochie to hospital when early signs of decompensation are noted. Mr. Derochie’s denies substance use in the face of highly reliable test results five years after his cocaine use preceded the commission of the index offences. Therefore, his suggestion that multiple positive screens are somehow attributable to second-hand smoke has no air of reality.

33As a result, Mr. Derochie cannot be relied upon, to self-report and/or present himself to hospital for assessment and/or admission in the event of a mental deterioration which, according to Dr. Lindhurst’s uncontroverted testimony, would occur quickly in the presence of substance use. Rapid decompensation is why inclusion of Consent to Treatment provision within a conditional discharge disposition is an inadequate safeguard. A Detention Disposition remains necessary and appropriate to protect Mr. Derochie’s mother, a victim of the index offences, with whom Mr. Derochie resides. This is because, as indicated at page 68 of the Hospital Report she is:

..currently not able to make any outgoing calls and has limited accessibility to contact the treatment team or emergency services if any concerns arise, as she is unable to effectively use a standard phone. She currently has a device that she keeps around her neck programmed to make 2 outgoing calls, one for her son and one for her deceased husband. It is important to note that it appears Mr. Jason Derochie's father, Mr. Vince Derochie, had been a protective factor in the home contacting the treatment team if he suspected any substance use or mental health decompensation.

34The panel noted that when asked about Mr. Derochie’s commitment to abstinence, Dr. Linthorst chose not to respond directly, rather expressing concern about an absence of available outlets to mitigate Mr. Derochie’s stressors. This panel finds that Mr. Derochie difficulties surrounding substance use and stress management are closely intertwined. As suggested during the course of this hearing, Mr. Derochie would be well served in his rehabilitation and community re-integration to actively pursue outlets to manage his day-to-day stressors other than resorting to substance use. While Mr. Derochie may be coping with his caregiver role at present, he may not appreciate that stress associated with this role and how it can build over time. We wish him well in the year ahead.

Conclusion

35Therefore, the Board unanimously determines that the necessary and appropriate Disposition required to manage the threat Mr. Derochie poses to the safety of the public while still meeting his needs, is a Detention Disposition.

36In making this Disposition, the Board carefully considered the positions and submissions of the parties and the evidence of Dr. Linthorst and is satisfied that this determination is both necessary and appropriate. The Board reviewed the provisions of s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code and carefully considered the need to protect the public from dangerous persons, Mr. Derochie’s mental condition, his reintegration into society and other needs.