Ontario Review Board
Re: Sarah J. Pickering
ORB File No: 7697
Hearing held on: Wednesday, January 28, 2026
Place of hearing: Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Goldenberg
Members: Dr. M. Attia
Dr. M. Kalia
Ms. J. Ferguson
Mr. J. Cyr
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Sarah J. Pickering
Counsel: Ms. J. Boissonneault
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Mr. K. Dow
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. N. MacDonald
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated February 24, 2026)
Introduction:
On February 13, 2020, Sarah Pickering was found not criminally responsible (NCR) on account of mental disorder in respect of two counts of assault with a weapon and one count of possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, all contrary to the Criminal Code. She is subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“Board” or “ORB”) dated February 5th, 2025. Pursuant to that Disposition, Ms. Pickering is discharged conditionally, able to live on her own in the community within the catchment area of Ontario Shores, and to report to hospital not less than every two weeks.
On January 28th, 2026, the Board convened in person at Ontario Shores to review Ms. Pickering’s Disposition and make a new Disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code, in accordance with the provisions of s. 672.54. Ms. Pickering attended the hearing and was represented by her counsel, Ms. J. Boissonneault. Ms. K. Dow represented the Hospital and Ms. N. MacDonald represented the Attorney General.
The issues at the hearing were whether Ms. Pickering represents a significant threat to the safety of the public within the meaning of s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code, and if so, what is the necessary and appropriate Disposition having regard to the evidence, considering the factors in s. 672.54.
Preliminary Positions:
At the outset of the hearing, when asked for their initial and tentative positions, the Hospital confirmed that it was seeking a continuation of the current Disposition, a Conditional Discharge ono the same terms and conditions as in the current Disposition. Counsel for the Attorney General supported the position of the Hospital.
Ms. Boissoneault, counsel for Ms. Pickering, conceded the issue of significant threat and joined in the hospital’s recommendation for the continuation of the current Disposition, a Conditional Discharge, on the same terms and conditions as are in the current Disposition.
The evidence at the hearing consisted of the viva voce testimony of, Dr. D. Pallandi, Ms. Pickering’s attending psychiatrist. In addition, the Hospital Report dated January 12, 2026, was filed as an Exhibit.
At the conclusion of its deliberations, the panel concluded that Ms. Pickering continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. The panel further found that in the circumstances, the least onerous and least restrictive Disposition is a Conditional Discharge. The panel found that no changes to the current Disposition were necessary or appropriate. The panel’s Reasons for our conclusions are outlined below.
Index Offence:
- The circumstances giving rise to the index offences are taken from the most recent Reasons for Disposition, dated February 23, 2023. They are reproduced as follows:
"On Wednesday, June 12, 2019, at W[…] Court, Whitby, at approximately 0042 hours, the accused, Ms. Sarah June Pickering, did commit the offence of Assault with a Weapon x2 and Possession of a Weapon for a Dangerous Person, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. She attempted to stab her mother, Debora Pickering, while she laid in her bed, with a large kitchen knife. The commotion awoke her father, Glen Pickering, who followed her to the stairs guarding himself with a four-foot rifle case using it as a barrier. At that time, Ms. Pickering lunged forward around the case and stabbed Mr. Pickering on the left side of his torso. Mr. Pickering followed her to the front door where Ms. Sarah June Pickering again charged him where she threw a knife at him and stabbed him again in the left torso."
Background Information
The details of Ms. Pickering’s family background, early life, educational and work history, and emotional/mental health challenges predating the index offences are contained in the Hospital Reports. As these documents both constitute evidence at the hearing, it is unnecessary to repeat these details in these Reasons. Some information is highlighted below for the purpose of providing context for understanding Ms. Pickering’s current diagnoses and the panel’s conclusions. The panel, however, has considered all the evidence before it.
The January 12, 2026, Hospital Report lists Ms. Pickering’s current diagnoses as follows:
Schizophrenia
Posttraumatic stress disorder
Personal history (past) of spouse/partner violence, sexual
Borderline Personality traits
Ms. Pickering was 28 at the hearing date. She had been conditionally discharged and was living in the community. She moved to several different accommodations during the reporting year and is currently sharing accommodation with two other women.
The background regarding Ms. Pickering’s mental health and other issues are well outlined in last year’s reasons. She has struggled with a number of interpersonal difficulties in relationships and with her peers, partners, and parents. Her parents have remained a steady source of support for Ms. Pickering.
Evidence at the Hearing:
Dr. Pallandi testified that he adopted the contents of the hospital report dated January 12, 2026.
The Hospital Report set out the events of the past reporting year as follows:
“January 2025—Seroquel XR 50mg added to her medication regime to assist with residual symptoms on January 8th, 2025.
“Ms. Pickering moved from Oshawa to a one-bedroom apartment in Picton, Ontario, where she remained until June 2025. During that time, she saw her FOS clinician weekly by OTN and inperson every two weeks at Ontario Shores. She met with her FOS psychiatrist Dr. Pallandi every 4 weeks.
“In January 2025, Ms. Pickering contacted CAS twice, once to report that her father was emotionally abusing her son by singing “nobody likes a whinny baby, stop being a whinny baby”, he then allegedly “dropped” her son into his crib. She also reported to CAS that ongoing arguments in the home created a stressful unsafe environment. Ms. Pickering was resentful because she believed her parents deliberately sabotaged her by refusing to allow her to move into their home with her son, leaving her homeless and allowing them to take custody of her son from her.
“February 2025—Ms. Pickering, along with her son, went to the family condo in Florida for 10 days to spend time with her mother, father and brother. She was seen by her clinician virtually every 3 days for check in.
“February 10, 2025, Ms. Pickering called her therapist in crisis and stated, “I’m having suicidal thoughts because my son is unsafe with them”. She also stated same to her FOS clinician; the following day she cancelled her appointment with her psychiatrist Dr. Pallandi and her clinician. She admitted that she was angry because neither her psychiatrist nor her clinician called CAS to report her fear regarding her son’s safety. Ms. Pickering was unaware that a call had been placed to CAS regarding same by a member of the treatment team and the team decided that one phone call was appropriate.
“Ms. Pickering was saddened because she believed her partner would not stop drinking and therefore would have to end their relationship. She also believed at the time that she was pregnant, creating additional stress.
“To her credit, Ms. Pickering started training online with a life insurance company for a sales position. This required completion of online training modules over a period of 6 months.
“Ms. Pickering and her partner asked CAS to transfer care of their son to her partners parents who lived in Nappanee, Ontario. That became a focal point for the months of February, March and April during CAS hearings. They were informed that such a move after having lived with her parents for a year could only happen with solid evidence demonstrating he was not safe because of the inevitable trauma another separation would have created. This placed a tremendous strain on her relationship with her family because of the various CAS investigations and the stress it caused.
“March 2025—March 4th, 2025, Ms. Pickering received notice that her monthly ODSP benefits were significantly decreased because her son was no longer in her care. She began experiencing an increase in auditory hallucinations, likely a result of the increased stress, which she found irritating however she declined an increase in her Seroquel XR.
“March 7th, 2025, Ms. Pickering called her FOS clinician requesting support stating, "I am having another episode". Ms. Pickering utilized appropriate coping strategies and understood the upcoming CAS hearing, completion of online modules and decrease in monthly finances caused her additional stress that impacted her ability to manage same.
“March 10th, 2025, Ms. Pickering attended her CAS hearing, however her partner did not, which proved to be very upsetting for her making her feel abandoned and alone. Additionally, while away with the family in Florida, her partner broke into the family home, stayed for days and drank their alcohol, her parents informed CAS of the incident. Ms. Pickering did not understand why her parents were so angry at her partner for breaking into their home because she felt he was "family” and should be entitled to do so.
“On March 12, 2025, Ms. Pickering posted a negative message on social media about the alleged abuse she had suffered at the hands of her parents from a very young age. Unfortunately, the post was visible to the public, including to the customers of her father’s business. This placed significant strain on her relationship with her family due to the possible impact it would have on the family business. Ms. Pickering’s family disconnected for several months as a result.
“April 2025—Ms. Pickering began receiving her Abilify injection from her family doctor in the community, making her responsible for arranging appointments and ensuring her pharmacy had a prescription for same. Due to the limited hours of her physician’s office the treatment team injection within the allotted time frame when necessary.
“May 2025—May 27th, 2025, Ms. Pickering began receiving threatening emails from an unknown person in the community, so decided to move back to Durham Region.
“June 2025—Ms. Pickering secured a room with another woman she met online who was also
looking for a shared space. She stayed at this residence until October 2025.
“July 2025—Ms. Pickering missed her injection with her physician; she attended Ontario Shores the following day for her injection.
“August 2025—On August 23rd Ms. Pickering drove with her parents and her son to the family cottage where an argument occurred over the care of her son. She was very angry with her mother and when she returned to Oshawa, she texted her ex-partner and mother to say goodbye and then consumed 8 Tylenol cold and flu tablets. She instantly regretted same and promptly called an ambulance. She was transported to Lakeridge health Oshawa, no intervention was necessary, and she was sent home.
“August 25th, 2025, during a visit with her clinician Ms. Pickering asked to restart oral Abilify to help with auditory hallucinations. She reportedly disconnected herself from her parents, and her brother assisted with CAS visits with her son at their home or virtually. On August 27th she contacted her clinician to request Seroquel XR instead of oral Abilify as she found it more effective. Her psychiatrist agreed to same. Of note, it was at this point that she had relapsed on cocaine and may have been experiencing a slight increase in auditory hallucinations as a result. August 28th, 2025, Ms. Pickering provided water instead of a urine sample, she later admitted on September 6th, 2025, via text message that she had begun using cocaine with an ex-patient.
“September 2025—Ms. Pickering missed her injection on September 3rd, 2025; however, she also attended a celebration of life for her grandmother who had passed away recently. Ms. Pickering reported “cutting” her arm on the day of the celebration. On September 4th she attended another CAS hearing which proved stressful for her. Ms. Pickering had superficially cut her arm on the 8th and 20th of September reportedly to manage stressors. September 9th, 2025—Ms. Pickering required a prescription for her injection because she missed her September 3rd injection with her physician. She was assessed by the on-call psychiatrist who admitted her to FCRU due to the recent overdose in August, self-harm, interpersonal stressors and cocaine use. During this time, we discovered she was being evicted because the owner was moving back into the home. She would be homeless as of October 15th, 2025, with no current finances to secure another room at this time. Ms. Pickering was discharged from hospital with
repeats on her Seroquel XR 50mg and Abilify on September 12th, 2025. Visits were increased to daily at this time to provide support and monitor her safety in the community. Visits with her psychiatrist were increased to weekly. Ms. Pickering missed 3 of her scheduled visits with her psychiatrist.
“October 2025—Missed appointment with FOS clinician but did receive her injection. Ms. Pickering reportedly spent several days with an ex-partner who had allegedly sex trafficked her years earlier. She also reported experiencing repressed memories about being involved with CAS as a young child. Ms. Pickering believed her parents had abandoned both her and her brother, which triggered CAS involvement. It was suggested she request the existing records from CAS to confirm possible past involvement; however, she declined same because she agreed it could be a delusion. She denied any significant increase in auditory hallucinations while using cocaine. Ms. Pickering’s FOS clinician noted the negative impact cocaine was having on her mental health, specifically her inability to use appropriate coping strategies. Ms. Pickering agreed she was having trouble with impulsivity and thinking about options before acting which prevented her from utilizing healthier coping strategies. She agreed to consider outside support to stop using cocaine.
“October 10th, 2025, Ms. Pickering was on a virtual visit with her son who was in the care of her brother. During the visit she reported that her brother physically assaulted her son by allowing him to fall and hit his head on the coffee table and then aggressively dragged him to the bathroom by the arm. She contacted the police, paramedics and CAS to report this assault. Her son was carefully examined by paramedics, no marks were visible, and no bumps were noted where he allegedly hit his head. No charges were laid, and CAS did not investigate further. Several days prior to her calling police Ms. Pickering had shared with her FOS clinician that she believed her father, mother and brother injected her with heroin when she was 14 or 15 years old, then her brother raped her before being trafficked by her parents to the fashion mogul Peter Nygard. Ms. Pickering has not made reference to same since that report and has not made any further calls to CAS or the police.
“October 15th Ms. Pickering’s mother and brother packed her belongings and moved them into storage until she secured a room in the community. Ms. Pickering moved in with an ex-patient who also used cocaine. She was trying to set money aside to secure a room, however a prepayment plan loan took the bulk of her money, leaving her with $60 in her account. Ms. Pickering’s ex-partner had his parental visitation rights revoked because he was not following through on scheduled visits and continued to consume alcohol. This saddened Ms. Pickering because “my dream of becoming a family is over.” She also discovered she was not pregnant. It was noted that her mood was low, however she denied any significant increase in auditory hallucinations or delusions. She was being seen daily at this time and still using cocaine almost daily as per her self-report and as indicated by urine screens.
“October 23rd, 2025, Ms. Pickering requested admission to hospital as she had yet to secure a suitable shared space. She informed her clinician she would like to “stop using cocaine” and felt being in hospital may help facilitate same. She was initially admitted voluntarily to FTU where she remained until November 3rd, 2025. Ms. Pickering continued to use cocaine while in hospital. Her cannabis use had decreased significantly.
“November 2025—Discharged from FCRU November 3rd to a shared main floor in Oshawa she secured with two other women. Ms. Pickering’s personal relationships continued to be a source of stress as she was seeing her ex-partner and dating another gentleman. Visits were decreased to 3 visits weekly with her FOS clinician and every 4 weeks with her psychiatrist.
“December 2025—Missed her injection on December 4, 2025, attended following day to receive injection. Ms. Pickering enjoyed her Christmas with her family and son. On December 9th she informed her clinician of a positive home pregnancy test. She felt she could not have another child and acted quickly to see a specialist who provided her with medication to terminate. Ms. Pickering’s mental health remained stable throughout this time. She began utilizing her “as needed” medications when necessary and reportedly began cutting back on her cocaine use. Ms. Pickering independently located and connected with the “Starfish” program who offer support to individuals looking to regain custody of their children. The agency recommended Ms. Pickering self-refer to the Pinewood treatment center for substance abuse treatment. Ms. Pickering was seen by her clinician twice weekly with more visits available to her should she require them.
Dr. D. Pallandi gave oral evidence that he has been Ms. Pickering’s psychiatrist for several years. Dr. Pallandi updated the Hospital Report by testifying that Ms. Pickering suffered an overdose of her anti-psychotic medication just a few days prior to the hearing and that such overdose was, in his view, a small overdose and deliberate on the part of Ms. Pickering. This overdose resulted in Ms. Pickering obtaining emergency care and being medically cleared and psychiatrically stabilized.
Dr. Pallandi gave evidence that the reporting year has been a difficult and stressful one for Ms. Pickering, who has added cocaine to what Dr. Pallandi described as Ms. Pickering’s “repertoire of substances.”
Dr. Pallandi testified that Ms. Pickering has had many residences changes this year and that she is now living with two other women in Oshawa, which housing has not been entirely free of conflict, but which appears stable and Ms. Pickering appropriately housed, as f the date of the hearing.
Dr. Pallandi opined that Ms. Pickering remains a significant threat to the safety of the public, and that her risk factors are outlined in the Hospital Report. Dr. Pallandi stated his opinion that Ms. Pickering’s risk could be managed under the conditions of the current Disposition, despite the fact that such risk has increased by Ms. Pickering’s use of cocaine. Dr. Pallandi added that the comprehensive management of Ms. Pickering by the hospital, the Children’s Aid Society (“CAS”) her parents, an Adult Services Worker and others, have enabled Ms. Pickering to remain in the community.
Dr. Pallandi testified that Ms. Pickering has moved from the contemplative stage to the active stage, as evidenced by her use of cocaine, and that this is highly problematic, as evidenced by lots of relapses and remissions, but, in his opinion, she’s moving into action to deal with that.
Dr. Pallandi testified that the treatment team continues to support and educate Ms. Pickering and to work well with the CAS and her parents, who are her main support. In terms of her medication regimen, Dr. Pallandi testified that the treatment team may fine-tune her medications, but he doesn’t expect any drastic changes to it.
In response to a question from Ms. Boissoneault, Dr. Pallandi confirmed that Ms. Pickering had two readmissions during the reporting year, including one from September 9-12, 2025, and that the Mental Health Act had been sufficient to have her readmitted on that occasion, and that on discharge, she was stable.
Dr. Pallandi opined that Ms. Pickering is more a risk to harm herself rather than there being a risk of her engaging in violent behaviour directed at others.
With respect to the second admission in October, Dr. Pallandi confirmed that it was Ms. Pickering who sought the readmission and was voluntarily admitted. Dr. Pallandi testified that, during both admissions, Ms. Pickering was calm, cooperative and compliant with taking her medications. Dr. Pallandi added that Ms. Pickering also initiated voluntary admissions on two occasions in 2022 and once in 2023 and that help-seeking is part of Ms. Pickering’s repertoire.
Dr. Pallandi confirmed the evidence at page 52 of the Hospital Report which indicated that the periods of elevated risk have been to Ms. Pickering and addressed with temporary hospitalization.
Dr. Pallandi gave his clinical opinion that, because of Ms. Pickering’s help-seeking history, a Detention Order was unnecessary and the hospital was not recommending one as Ms. Pickering’s risk to the public could be safely managed with a Conditional Discharge.
With respect to Ms. Pickering’s individual psychotherapy, Dr. Pallandi testified that her former psychotherapist has gone on leave, and Ms. Pickering is beginning to engage with her new therapist. However, Dr. Pallandi noted that sustaining engagement has been one of Ms. Pickering’s issues, and that her new therapist is available to her and ready to work with her.
Dr. Pallandi testified that he is hopeful that Ms. Pickering will have a good year this reporting year given her past dedication to her wellness and her hard work in therapy.
Dr. Pallandi testified that Ms. Pickering is starting to take steps with respect to her cocaine use and that she has good insight that cocaine could destabilize her. However, Dr. Pallandi added that insight is an ongoing problem for Ms. Pickering and that, if her insight was better developed, she would have acted sooner in terms of dealing with her cocaine use. Dr. Pallandi acknowledged that, at page 45 of the Hospital Report it sets out that Ms. Pickering reported being keenly aware that if she continued to use cocaine it would negatively impact her mental health. Dr. Pallandi testified that active steps take time, and that Ms. Pickering has signed up at Pinewood Center for a substance abuse program, and has been deleting phone numbers from her phone, and that these are all positive steps.
Dr. Pallandi confirmed that Ms. Pickering has not engaged in an aggressive or violent behaviour since the index offence.
In response to a question from the Board as to what were Ms. Pickering’s triggers, Dr. Pallandi testified that Ms. Pickering has a long-standing conflictual and sometimes very antagonistic relationship with her parents who are nonetheless her primary support and are currently looking after her son. Dr. Pallandi opined that this situation has increased Ms. Pickering’s stress and this has led to substance use. In addition, Dr. Pallandi testified that her frequent changes in housing and other stressors have pushed her to substance use.
Dr. Pallandi gave evidence that Ms. Pickering has regular urine testing and that she disclosed which substances she uses and that her self-report is usually quite accurate.
In response to a question from the Board about whether her medication regimen has been reviewed, Dr. Pallandi testified that this is a dynamic situation which is constantly being monitored and fine-tuned by the treatment team. Dr. Pallandi confirmed that Ms. Pickering is now off lithium.
Dr. Pallandi gave evidence that Ms. Pickering has quite a brittle personality construct, that when faced with an intensity of distress, she acts impulsively before thinking things through and seeking help.
In response to a question from the Board as to whether a Detention Order might be helpful in that, given Ms. Pickering’s precarious housing situation during the reporting year, it would give the hospital the ability to approve Ms. Pickering’s housing, Dr. Pallandi testified that this was not necessarily the case and that while the moves haven’t been ideal and have been stressful, Dr. Pallandi could not connect them in any way to the safety of the public. Dr. Pallandi added that, while Ms. Pickering has made some bad choices, they haven’t increased the risk to the public, and that there is no benefit to the public safety to make a Detention Order.
With respect to Ms. Pickering’s young son, Dr. Pallandi confirmed that Ms. Pickering’s parents are looking after him and give her very liberal access to her son and that, sometimes Ms. Pickering sees him regularly and at other times she sees him once per week.
No further evidence was led at the conclusion of Dr. Pallandi’s testimony.
Submissions of Counsel:
- At the conclusion of the evidence, all three parties maintained their initial positions. Ms. Boissoneault reminded the panel that Ms. Pickering has not engaged in any violent conduct since the index offence six and a half years ago, and that an NCR accused such as Ms. Pickering, is entitled to the “utmost liberty” consistent with the circumstances and the need to safeguard the public, and submitted that the most appropriate, least restrictive and least onerous disposition is a continuation of the current Conditional Discharge.
Analysis and Conclusions:
The panel finds, first, that Ms. Pickering continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. This threshold question was not in dispute at the hearing.
Ms. Pickering suffers from schizophrenia and her mental condition is exacerbated by a history of alleged trauma and abuse by past partners and her parents. Ms. Pickering had a difficult year, but to her credit, sought readmission on two occasions when she was unable to cope in the community. Ms. Pickering has the benefit of a supportive family, the Children’s Aid Society, an Adult Services Worker and her hospital treatment team. Dr. Pallandi and the hospital remained supportive of her and felt that she could be adequately managed by the terms of the current Conditional Discharge.
However, Ms. Pickering’s level of instability, especially with respect to her housing choices and multiple moves, which situation would be ameliorated if the hospital had the ability to approve her housing in the context of a Detention Order, is a cause for concern for the Board. In addition, and, in particular, her continued use of substances, and especially the addition of cocaine use during the reporting year, is particularly troubling to the Board. Her conflictual relationship with her parents, who are her main support and the caregivers for her young son, and her lack of a well-developed insight are also of concern. In addition, despite approximately seven years of therapy, Ms. Pickering seems to have benefitted little by it. However, the Board also takes into consideration the evidence that Ms. Pickering now has stable housing, has multiple supports, and has shown a willingness to readmit herself when she becomes overwhelmed. Furthermore, in the expert opinion of her treatment team, Ms. Pickering poses more of a risk to herself than the public, and any such risk can be safely managed by her remaining on a Conditional Discharge.
The panel is satisfied that Ms. Pickering will return to hospital voluntarily, or if asked, and will continue taking her medication. It is the hope of this panel that Ms. Pickering can make more progress over the next reporting year, become more stable and substance abstinent and make therapeutic progress, all of which will assist her in reintegrating into the community.
The panel is satisfied, on the evidence, that a continuation of the current Conditional Discharge is the least onerous and least restrictive Disposition and is appropriate in all the circumstances and meets the “twin goals” of Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code, namely the safety of the public and the reintegration of the NCR accused into the community.
For all the above reasons, the panel concluded that the least onerous and least restrictive Disposition, and the necessary and appropriate one considering the factors in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, is a continuation of the current Conditional Discharge on the same terms and conditions.
DATED this 24th day of February 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. J. Ferguson
Legal Member
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board