Re Brent S. Turk, 2026 CanLII 15113

Re: Brent S. Turk

ORB File No: 6998

Hearing held on: Tuesday, November 25, 2025

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. P. Darby Dr. A. Gibas Ms. M. Chamberlain Ms. R. Chopra

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Brent S. Turk Counsel: Mr. R. Barr

The person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. A. Adiele

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. A. Findlay

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated February 24, 2026)

Introduction

1. On August 8, 2016, the accused, Brent S. Turk, was found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder (“NCR”) on charges of assault with a weapon, two counts of failure to comply with probation order, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (the “Criminal Code”). Mr. Turk is currently subject to a disposition dated December 18^th^, 2024, which discharges him on certain terms and conditions.

2. On November 25^th^, 2025, a panel of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”) convened a hearing pursuant to section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Turk attended his hearing and was represented by his counsel, Mr. Robert Barr.

3. The following documents were entered as Exhibits at the hearing:

• Hospital Report dated November 7^th^, 2025
• Draft Appendix “B”
• Transcript from NCR hearing
• CPIC

Preliminary Issues

4. Dr. Adiele provided a completed Appendix “B” Conditional form, entered as Exhibit 2. This document is reflective of Mr. Turk’s previous disposition with the addition of the following:

• Accommodation approved by the P.I.C. (“person-in-charge”)
• To complete a 12-week residential addiction treatment program

5. Referencing the second clause noted above the panel advised Dr. Adiele that the Board is unable to order treatment. In response, Dr. Adiele responded that it would be a good idea to include a reference to residential treatment in the panel’s Reasons for Decision.

6. Mr. Findlay advised that a transcript from Mr. Turk’s NCR hearing, specifically highlighted portions of pages 8 and 9, would be submitted as an Exhibit in the course of the hearing.

Without Prejudice Position of the Parties

7. Dr. Adiele advised that a conditional discharge as referenced in the previous section of these Reasons for Disposition was recommended.

8. Mr. Findlay expressed concern that a specific address was not specified in the recommended conditional discharge disposition but would wait to hear evidence before providing a position on that issue.

9. Mr. Barr submitted that the issue of significant threat was not conceded and that his client would be requesting an absolute discharge.

Current Diagnosis

10. Mr. Turk’s current diagnoses are:

• Bipolar I Disorder
• Alcohol Use Disorder
• Stimulant Use Disorder

Background and Index Offence

11. The Hospital Report dated October 17^th^, 2025, provides a great deal of information concerning Mr. Turk’s personal history, mental health history as well as his course in hospital and in the community both prior to and subsequence to the index offences. As the Hospital Report was made an Exhibit, it is unnecessary to reproduce the information contained therein in these Reasons. Briefly:

12. Mr. Turk is now 47 years of age. Mental health issues began when he was 14. Mr. Turk has a criminal record that includes assaulting his mother. He started drinking alcohol as a teenager and was diagnosed with Substance Abuse at age 15. When he was 22, doctors diagnosed him with Bipolar Affective Disorder.

13. In 2001, he was charged with arson (intentionally setting a fire) but found NCR by the Court and received an absolute discharge from this Board in 2006.

14. On August 8, 2016, following his second finding of NCR, Mr. Turk was admitted to St. Joseph Healthcare in Hamilton. There, he began a pattern of discharge into the community, resumption of drinking and readmission to hospital. In October 2019, he was moved to the Royal Ottawa Hospital to be closer to his mother who lives in Deep River. He was discharged in March 2020 but relapsed and was readmitted in May 2020. He was subsequently discharged in August 2021 to live in 24-hour supervised housing until relapsing again November 2021.

15. In March 2022, Mr. Turk was transferred to Brockville, and his care was assigned to Dr. Adiele. On August 23, 2023, Mr. Turk was discharged into the community. Since then, he has remained compliant with his psychotropic medication although alcohol and stimulant use issues remain. He was granted a Conditional Discharge following his 2024 ORB hearing.

16. A summary of the index offence taken from last year’s Reasons for Disposition follows:

On Thursday the 12th of May 2016 at approximately 01:30 hours, Brent TURK was a patient in the Ottawa Hospital, Civic Campus Emergency Psychiatry Ward. The victim, [SM] is a Registered Nurse who was working the night shift on May 12, 2016. A visitor was walking through the hall at the same time as Mr. Turk was exiting his room. [SM] stepped between the visitor and Mr. Turk, gestured with her arm for the visitor to go back to the waiting area. Mr. Turk then confronted [SM] about her waving arm and his medication. Mr. Turk stared wide eyed at her for a couple of seconds, then suddenly punched her in the face and head several times causing her to fall to the ground. Mr. Turk continued to punch [SM] in the back of the head while she was down on the ground. Once the punching stopped [SM] got up and fled to the office where she called security. Mr. Turk was then placed into restraints and given sedation. Ottawa Police were called and attended the hospital. [SM] suffered the following injuries: several bruises to the right side of the face, top of the head, back of the head, to the back of her right hand, a chipped lower tooth, and a potential hairline fracture to her nose.

Evidence at the Hearing

17. Dr. Adiele advised he had no updates to the Hospital Report.

18. Questioned by Mr. Findlay whether a diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder (“ASPD") should be added, Dr. Adiele advised that this was a diagnosis to be included although there are currently no significant elements observable, but which may reappear if he decompensates.

19. Reference was made to page 58 of the Hospital Report which indicates, that in the absence of a prohibition, Mr. Turk would drink constantly. Dr. Adiele responded that he does not disbelieve those comments, but Mr. Turk’s recent actions have shown he is committed to abstinence. Nevertheless, absent the constraints of a disposition order, Mr. Turk would likely drink more than he should.

20. There is risk to public safety if Mr. Turk uses alcohol given that he suffers from a Bipolar Disorder. If impaired by alcohol, he would not remember to take his psychotropic medications, would become unwell and the risk to public safety would increase. This would impact the ability of medication to control his illness.

21. From July to September of 2025, it was reported by the nursing team that Mr. Turk was experiencing grandiose ideations.

22. Mr. Turk has been attending Narcotics Anonymous and recently taken on some vocational tasks. He is looking forward to being discharged back to MacKay Manor to restart a 12-week residential addiction treatment program and thereafter reconnecting with his family in the Hamilton area. MacKay Manor has reserved a bed for him and the plan is for discharge there in January 2026.

23. Dr. Adiele testified that MacKay Manor will assist in finding accommodation for Mr. Turk once he completes their program. Responding to a question from the panel, Dr. Adiele conceded that Mr. Turk is the first patient that he has directed to MacKay Manor and he is unsure if that facility can actually find a community placement for Mr. Turk. In the event MacKay Manor cannot, Mr. Turk could be asked to return to hospital.

24. At present, Mr. Turk could manage his own medications, but it is helpful for the treatment team to help him settle into a routine of medication compliance.

25. Dr. Adiele was questioned with regard to the appropriateness of stipulating that Mr. Turk should reside in accommodation approved by the person in charge within the terms and conditions of a Conditional Discharge Disposition. Dr. Adiele conceded that it may be best to simply leave the “Reside at” condition unfilled. Dr. Adiele added that if the disposition is silent as to residence, Mr. Turk would follow guidance from staff as to where to live.

26. Questioned by Mr. Barr, Dr. Adiele conceded that his patient attends Alcoholics Anonymous meetings five times per week in the “Brockville Entertainment District” and has never gone to a pub or eatery to consume alcohol.

27. Dr. Adiele was referred to previous incidents when Mr. Turk consumed alcohol but not to a level that impaired his functioning or led to a significant decompensation of his mental state. Dr. Adiele responded that this provided him with a level of comfort that Mr. Turk appreciates that alcohol consumption is not in his best interest. Dr. Adiele stated that it was because Mr. Turk violated the non-consumption of vaping and smoking materials at MacKay House that he was required to leave. He was nonetheless cooperative in returning to hospital. Dr. Adiele agreed that the only recent incident of aggression was verbal with staff at the MacKay group home. There have been no incidents of physical violence since Dr. Adiele has known Mr. Turk.

28. Dr. Adiele agreed that Mr. Turk has not engaged in any criminal activity since the commission of the 2016 index offences. Further, he has insight with regard to the need to abstain from alcohol, the need for psychotropic medications and has been medication compliant both in the community and in hospital.

29. In the event an absolute discharge was granted, the treatment team would take steps to connect him with supports wherever Mr. Turk may be. Dr. Adiele added that this would be complicated if he left for Hamilton. In the event Mr. Turk remained in the Brockville area, the treatment team would follow him for up to a year and assist in finding suitable accommodation. Further, he could stay on the ward for a period of time until a local placement was found for him. In the days prior to this hearing, Mr. Turk stated that he could manage financially with a room at the YMCA in Hamilton which costs $500 per month. Mr. Turk has additional non-forensic supports in Hamilton which include his family and a family physician. Dr. Adiele added that his patient is capable of managing his finances.

30. If discharged absolutely, Dr. Adiele has no clear evidence that Mr. Turk will go out and start harming people as this has not been his recent history. A conditional discharge is more of a cautionary recommendation. Asked specifically if following an absolute? discharge Mr. Turk would remain in hospital and look for appropriate accommodation in Hamilton, Dr. Adiele responded that his patient would be measured and would first meet with him and would then likely want to go to family in Hamilton and be followed by his family doctor there. Dr. Adiele added that Mr. Turk would not pack his bags and go the very same day that he received an absolute discharge. Dr. Adiele was unable to advise if Mr. Turk’s substance use connections would be reestablished upon a return to Hamilton.

31. Questioned with regard to Mr. Turk’s criminal record, Dr. Adiele referenced the first page of the hospital report as well as the patient’s CPIC entered as Exhibit 4.

32. Mr. Turk’s stressor coping mechanisms include going for a walk and making a concerted effort to cut down on his cigarette consumption which caused him to be removed from MacKay Manor.

33. Dr. Adiele was asked why, if he believes that Mr. Turk no longer represents a significant threat, that a conditional discharge is nevertheless recommended. Dr. Adiele responded that there is no clear evidence that Mr. Turk poses a significant threat, however, he would nevertheless benefit from support.

34. Mr. Findlay referenced pages eight and nine of Exhibit 3 that speaks to the index offence incident that occurred in the Emergency Department of the Ottawa Hospital. Mr. Findlay noted that the NCR transcript clarifies that Mr. Turk was in hospital for two days prior to assaulting the nurse and that he was not impaired with substances at the time of the assault. This was conceded by Dr. Adiele. The relevant excerpt is reproduced below for ease of reference:

MS. EASTWOOD: Initially, Your Honour, I could advise, I did have some concerns because, as mentioned, and I know Your Honour has read the report about some fairly extensive drinking and consumption of alcohol the evening before and of course, substance-induced psychosis does not lend itself to a Section 16 defence, but we’ve clarified through the nurse’s statement and the officer’s report that he was actually admitted two nights before, so he’d been in hospital for two days at the time of the incident so that clarified that issue for the Crown so therefore, based on Dr. Kunjukrishnan’s report and opinion that he does meet the threshold for a not criminally responsible defence, the Crown is prepared to consent to that.

Closing Observations

35. Dr. Adiele stated he had nothing to add.

36. Mr. Findlay submitted that significant threat continues to be present. He conceded that Mr. Turk is treatment-adherent, follows programming although he has breached the terms of his disposition by consuming alcohol on two occasions. Mr. Turk has advised staff that but for a disposition he would drink alcohol constantly.

37. The CPIC indicates that between 2015 and 2016 there were four violent offences. Mr. Turk also has multiple convictions for breaches of court orders. Dr. Adiele opined that Mr. Turk’s Antisocial Personality Disorder is substantiated by his criminal record.

38. Alcohol is disinhibitory for Mr. Turk. Dr. Adiele also stated that alcohol impacts the efficacy of Mr. Turk’s medications. The combination of his criminal record and his statement that he would return to drinking constitutes a risk to public safety.

39. Mr. Findlay reiterated that the index offence was a sudden unprovoked assault on a nurse. From July to September of 2025 staff have reported that despite medication compliance, Mr. Turk shows signs of paranoia, grandiose and bizarre behaviours which may be indicative of breakthrough symptoms. As a result, the threshold for significant threat continues to be met.

40. Mr. Findlay also expressed concerns as to the supports available to Mr. Turk following his 12-week program at MacKay House given that the Hospital Report speaks of stress that he experiences while changing residences resulting in his return to alcohol.

41. Mr. Barr submitted that Mr. Turk now has a long track record of good behaviour in the community. The requirement for an absolute discharge does not consider a patient’s best interests but rather focuses on whether there is positive evidence that an individual continues to pose a significant threat to public safety. Mr. Barr added that there is a difference between speculation and reasonable inference.

42. Mr. Barr submitted that his client is not the same patient that committed the index offence which is consistent with the opinion of Dr. Adiele who provided fair and measured testimony.

43. Mr. Barr conceded that his client may start drinking which could lead to medication non-compliance. However, there is no evidence of Mr. Turk decompensating and becoming violent since coming under the jurisdiction of the Board. Rather, the evidence is that when he relapses, he reaches out for assistance, comes to hospital voluntarily and cooperates fully with the treatment team. Further, there is no evidence that his bizarre behaviours equate to violence. Despite dips and struggles, there is no evidence of significant threat.

Analysis and Decision

(a) Significant Threat

44. In determining whether Mr. Turk continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public the Board has 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. Ongoing 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.

45. The Board unanimously finds that Mr. Turk continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public.

46. In arriving at this determination, the Board carefully considered the positions of the parties. Mr. Findlay submitted that the ongoing presence of significant threat remains for the reasons set out in his closing observations. These include:

• multiple convictions for breaching court orders
• history of disinhibition following consumption of alcohol
• history of alcohol consumption negatively impacting adherence with and effectiveness of prescribed psychotropic medications
• 2015-2016: commission of several violent offences including the index offence
• 2025/02 & 2025/06: breached terms of his disposition by drinking alcohol
• 2025/06: while being transported back to hospital following eviction from McKay Manor “stated that if alcohol consumption were not prohibited by his disposition, he would be drinking constantly and complained that “others ruin it for the rest of us.””
• 2025/07- 2025/09: the nursing team reported that Mr. Turk was experiencing grandiose ideations which could be indicative of breakthrough symptoms

47. This panel recognizes that to his credit, Mr. Turk:

• has not engaged in any criminal activity for the past 9 years
• has remained medication compliant both in hospital and in the community
• has insight vis-à-vis the need for treatment
• has insight vis-à-vis the need to abstain from alcohol

48. Dr. Adiele’s testimony acknowledged that there is a risk to public safety tied to Mr. Turk’s consumption of alcohol. Dr. Adiele stated that if impaired by alcohol Mr. Turk would forget to take his psychotropic medications and decompensate. Nevertheless, joined by Mr. Barr, Dr. Adiele put forward the position that Mr. Turk no longer represents a significant threat to public safety. The panel does not accept that this contention as supported by the evidence. The panel would add the following evidence to what was identified by Mr. Findlay in his closing submissions:

• Board oversight and forensic containment have managed Mr. Turk’s risk to public safety
• an absence of particulars vis-à-vis the circumstances surrounding the 2015/03/03 and 2015/06/16 assault convictions
• 2002/11/29 finding of Unfit to Stand Trial with regard to Arson Causing Damage to Property charges

49. Mr. Turk’s June 2025 consumption of alcohol and subsequent statement that he would resume drinking in the absence of Board oversight speak to the primary risk pathway that would engage were he to receive an absolute discharge at this time. Specifically:

• consumption of alcohol
• medication non-compliance
• decompensation
• reemergence of behaviours similar to those seen at the time of the index offences causing serious physical or psychological harm to members of the public and such conduct will likely be criminal in nature

50. Finally, the panel notes that a detailed discharge plan which identifies community supports and provides for protective measures to ensure a continuation of the mitigation of risk to public safety has not yet been formulated.

51. For these reasons, the panel rejects the propriety of an absolute discharge, and instead supports a conditional discharge, which would allow Mr. Turk to reside in the community, while still having the support of the hospital team.

(b) Disposition

52. Flowing from the Board’s finding that Mr. Turk 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. Turk’s needs pursuant to s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

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

54. Having determined that there is no clear evidence that his patient continues to represent a significant threat to public safety, Dr. Adiele nevertheless testified that his patient would benefit from ongoing support. This is the doctor’s rationale as to why a conditional discharge is recommended on a cautionary basis and indicative that this psychiatrist fails to appreciate that a conditional discharge cannot be ordered for a patient who no longer represents a significant threat to public safety. Dr. Adiele’s testimony also confirms that he fails to appreciate that this Board is unable to order treatment and that an imprecise residency specification (accommodation approved by the person in charge), cannot be included among the conditions of a conditional discharge disposition.

55. Therefore, the Board unanimously determines that the necessary and appropriate Disposition required to manage the threat Mr. Turk poses to the safety of the public while still meeting his needs, is a Conditional Discharge Disposition subject to the conditions set out in Exhibit 2, but without an address specification and without the condition that Mr. Turk complete a residential addiction treatment program.

Conclusion

56. In making this Disposition, the Board carefully considered the positions and submissions of the parties and the evidence of Dr. Adiele 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. Turk’s mental condition, his reintegration into society and other needs.

DATED this 24^th^ day of February, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

Mr. P. Capelle Alternate Chairperson

__________________

Office of the Registrar

Ontario Review Board