Ontario Review Board
Re: Manon N. Guindon
ORB File No: 6987
Hearing held on: Tuesday, January 6, 2026
Place of Hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. M. Labrosse
Members: Dr. S. Lessard Dr. G. Boulais Mr. P. Hageraats Ms. K. Brisson
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Manon N. Guindon Counsel: Mr. J. Dubuisson
Person in Charge of Hospital: Representative: Dr. M. Strike
Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. M. Dufort
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated February 9, 2026)
Introduction
Ms. Manon N. Guindon appeared in Court facing charges of assault (x2), possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose (x2), uttering threats (x2) and breach of probation, offences contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. On June 23, 2016, based on expert psychiatric evidence accepted by the Court, Ms. Guindon was judged not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”).
Ms. Guindon is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB” or “the Board”), dated January 7, 2025, discharging her subject to conditions.
On January 6, 2026, the Board convened at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre (“ROMHC” or “the hospital”) to conduct an annual review. Ms. Guindon appeared in person. She was represented by counsel, Mr. Jean-Claude Dubuisson. Ms. Guindon’s hospital case manager, Ms. Sara Ferrante, was also present.
A hospital report, dated December 16, 2025, was filed in evidence.
The issues for the hearing are whether Ms. Guindon continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public, and, if so, to determine the disposition that is necessary and appropriate in the circumstances.
For the reasons set out below, the Board finds that Ms. Guindon continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public. The current disposition will continue to apply with a lessening of certain conditions.
Index Offences
- The circumstances are set out in the hospital report and last year’s Reasons for Disposition dated January 20, 2025. In summary:
On October 30, 2015, at 12:20, Ms. Guindon’s neighbour went to his basement apartment. He wanted to move a fridge. While he was leaving the building with the fridge in the middle of the street, Ms. Guindon suddenly appeared behind him. She jumped on his back, throwing him to the ground, and began kicking him. Ms. Guindon returned to her apartment. From there, she saw another neighbour watching her through the window. Ms. Guindon made a sign with her hand, as if she were cutting her neck. Shortly after, she ran toward the woman’s apartment and banged on the door. The female neighbour was frightened and called the police.
Ms. Guindon was already well known to police services over the past years due to her problems with Schizophrenia. She was also known for her history of being violent and difficult. In the previous six months, there had been several violent incidents. According to Ms. Guindon’s mother, she had not been taking her medication in the previous months.
On December 17, 2015, at 8:30 a.m., another neighbour walked towards Ms. Guindon’s apartment building. Ms. Guindon suddenly emerged with a knife in her hand. From her balcony, she started screaming, “I’m going to punch you out and kill you”.
At 11:30 a.m. the same day, she again came out of her apartment and got into an argument with another neighbour from a house down the street. This neighbour saw Ms. Guindon give him the finger. She called him several names as he was driving his vehicle to the back of his house to change tires.
The neighbour involved in the October 30 incident reported to police that he had witnessed this new incident. He saw Ms. Guindon that had a hammer in her hands and was using it to make threatening gestures.
Later, on December 17, 2015, another neighbour arrived to retrieve her mail at the shared apartment building. Arriving in the parking lot, she saw Ms. Guindon walk outside. Ms. Guindon began yelling at her to leave the property. Ms. Guindon approached the woman and grabbed her by the throat. The female victim suffered minor injuries.
Background History
Ms. Guindon is 57. She was born in Montreal and is an only child. Ms. Guindon was born prematurely and spent the first seven months of her life in hospital. At the age of three, she began to walk and talk. At about the same time, her parents separated. She has had no contact with her father since.
Ms. Guindon’s teen years were difficult. At age 15, she suffered sexual abuse by a maternal uncle. In the same year, she threatened her mother with a knife and was sent to live with her maternal grandparents. When Ms. Guindon was 18, her mother remarried. The stepfather was aggressive towards her.
Ms. Guindon presented no problems in school before Grade 11 when she started drinking alcohol. She would not tell her mother where she was going and stayed out late. After quitting school, she later obtained her high school equivalency in 1995. Registering in nursing studies at the Collège La Cité, she abandoned the program after the first semester while pregnant. She did not return to school.
Ms. Guindon has worked as a bartender and a secretary. Since the age of 38 she has received ODSP social benefits.
Ms. Guindon has been involved in four romantic relationships. Two children were born of the second relationship and one each from the third and fourth. She maintains positive relations with her adult children who now live independently.
Criminal History
- A police report noted that Ms. Guindon was found guilty of theft and a probation breach on September 15, 2015, resulting in a nine-month period of probation.
Psychiatric History
Ms. Guindon started to hear voices in her thirties. Her mother believed this could have been related to her substance use. She has presented with auditory hallucinations through the years since.
Ms. Guindon was first hospitalized in October 2010 at the Ottawa Hospital – Civic Campus following an intentional overdose of Seroquel. The mother reported that Manon Guindon has a long history of cocaine abuse going back to when she was 18. Urine tests were positive for amphetamines, cocaine, and benzodiazepines.
In November 2010 and January 2011, Ms. Guindon consulted the crisis service of the Hawkesbury General Hospital, complaining of auditory and visual hallucinations. At the end of January 2011, she was discharged with a diagnosis of Schizophrenia and Cluster “B” Personality Traits. She had several admissions to hospitals in 2012 and was diagnosed with drug-induced psychosis.
In 2013, Ms. Guindon was followed by the Crisis Mental Health Services of Prescott-Russell. She complained about people from gangs coming to her house to take things and about neighbours and the police. She expressed auditory and visual hallucinations and described having been sexually abused, including, she alleged, by local police officers. Mental Health staff noted that Ms. Guindon presented with several problematic behaviours at her apartment, including screaming on her balcony and having verbal altercations with neighbours.
Before the index offences arose in late 2015, Ms. Guindon had been hospitalized at the Hawksbury General Hospital in February 2015. This was a result of her having taken drugs and having stopped her psychiatric medications.
The ORB reporting year ending in December 2024 saw Ms. Guindon continue to live in her independent apartment in Hawkesbury. Ms. Guindon was described as maintaining stability without requiring hospital readmission during the year. She had more stability in her mood and behaviours but continued to show poor insight into her major mental illness and the need for medication. Despite this, Ms. Guindon was compliant throughout the 2024 reporting year. She faithfully attended to receive long-acting injectable medications at the local clinic in Hawkesbury. This was administered every three weeks by the clinic nurse who maintained contact with the hospital treatment team.
In 2024, Ms. Guindon was described as showing a better ability to work with the treatment team consisting of Dr. Strike and the case manager, Ms. Ferrante. Ms. Guindon did not demonstrate paranoid delusions toward the treatment team. This contrasted with the previous years.
At last year’s annual review hearing held on December 16, 2024, Dr. Strike noted that in 2023, Ms. Guindon had required two hospital admissions involving use of the Form 49 warrant. This was due to Ms. Guindon having disengaged from the treatment team. At one point, she had also threatened the case manager, Ms. Ferrante.
By December 2024, Dr. Strike was seeing some improvement in Ms. Guindon’s ability to cooperate and collaborate with the treatment team. By then, Ms. Guindon was staying in regular contact, although she consistently refused to travel to Ottawa to meet Dr. Strike in person at the hospital. Instead, Ms. Guindon and Dr. Strike would see each other virtually every month. Dr. Strike believed this permitted her to adequately evaluate Ms. Guindon’s mental condition.
In 2024, Ms. Guindon complied with her requirement to provide urine drug screens. All samples consistently tested positive for stimulants. Throughout the year, despite these positive urine drug screen results, Ms. Guindon persistently denied using any substances at all.
At last year’s hearing, the Board learned that the hospital could not elicit any degree of cooperation or progress on Ms. Guindon’s part regarding her need for treatment relating to her Substance Use Disorder. In addition, Ms. Guindon continued to exhibit symptoms of psychosis and paranoid delusions, even while she was consistently compliant with medication.
At the end of 2024, the Board learned that Ms. Guindon had not acted out on any paranoid delusions towards neighbours or others close to her as had been the case in previous years. Dr. Strike testified that Ms. Guindon’s paranoid delusions were likely related to historical trauma and a history of personality disorder, in addition to being exacerbated by stimulant use. Efforts to connect Ms. Guindon with local resources to deal with substance use issues or other forms of psychosocial treatment were met with Ms. Guindon’s continued refusal to meet anyone from the Canadian Mental Health Association (“CMHA”) or the Assertive Community Treatment Team (“ACTT”).
The hospital risk assessment provided in December 2024 expressed the view that Ms. Guindon would stop taking her injectable antipsychotic medication even though Ms. Guindon had recently stated she would continue receiving it. The following passage from the hospital report was included in the Board’s Reasons at para. 32:
Without her injectable antipsychotic, her chronic and treatment-resistant Schizophrenia would rapidly decompensate, particularly given her persistent use of stimulant drugs. She would likely incorporate neighbours, her landlord, and others in her environment into overt persecutory delusions and act out violently to protect herself of perceived threats, as she had done repeatedly in the past over many years.
Course in Treatment, December 2024 to January 2026
Ms. Guindon’s course has remained much the same. Hospitalization was not needed. Her mental state has remained stable without many obvious psychotic symptoms. Ms. Guindon receives the same form of psychiatric care, notably by attending at the local family medicine clinic every three weeks to receive long-acting injectable medication.
Ms. Guindon has not been the subject of any police interventions. She has shown a positive attitude interacting with the case manager and Dr. Strike. Video appointments continue with Dr. Strike but less frequently, at once every three months. Ms. Ferrante and Ms. Guindon continue to meet in person in her community.
Ms. Guindon manages her non-psychiatric medical needs independently. When the need arises, she arranges her own appointments at the family medicine clinic. Family clinic staff confirm that Ms. Guindon attends all appointments and appears to be in good mental health. They report she is showing their staff cooperation and respect.
Ms. Guindon enjoys the support of her adult children. They will often visit, including with her grandchildren. Ms. Guindon also sees her mother on a weekly basis. Ms. Guindon manages living alone in her apartment where she takes care of her cats and does her own shopping and personal errands.
Regarding substance use, Ms. Guindon provides urine samples for drug testing every three weeks. This is done each time she goes to the Hawkesbury clinic for her scheduled long-acting injection. Samples are not obtained on a random basis.
Throughout the current reporting year, as in 2024, each test comes up positive for various stimulants, in particular, amphetamine and methamphetamine.
In the Fall of 2024, Ms. Guindon admitted to a CMHA health professional that she was using stimulants monthly. However, in all discussions with the hospital treatment team, Ms. Guindon insists she does not consume drugs at all. She continues to refuse to meet with any addictions therapist. She has no interest in exploring various forms of support available for persons who are addicted.
The case manager, Ms. Ferrante, reports that Ms. Guindon has shown improvement in her mental health. In addition to receiving regular long-acting injections, she has proactively contacted the treatment team when prescription renewals were needed.
A referral to CMHA services was made in early Fall, 2025. Ms. Guindon did attend a few monthly meetings with the assigned worker. The CMHA worker reported that despite the presence of persistent delusional thought content, including beliefs that her mother is the Queen and her father is Elvis, Ms. Guindon appears to have stable mental health status.
Ms. Guindon told the CMHA worker she intends to continue working with CMHA services only until such time as she receives an absolute discharge. Ms. Guindon would not identify any personal goals she wished to work on with the CMHA. Following assessment, the CMHA determined that due to her clinical stability and lack of expressed recovery goals, they will close her file.
Current Psychiatric Diagnoses, Hospital Report p. 94
Schizophrenia, Multiple Episodes, in partial remission.
Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome.
Substance Use Disorder, amphetamines and cocaine-severity unknown.
Alcohol Use Disorder – severity and remission status unknown.
Ms. Guindon is treated with psychiatric medication, Invega Sustenna, by injection 150mg every three weeks.
As in previous years, Ms. Guindon remains incapable to consent to treatment. The Public Guardian & Trustee has assumed responsibility for treatment decisions.
Current Violence Risk Assessment
Dr. Strike made recent use of the HCR-20v3 structured clinical judgment tool. Having regard to the listed criteria, including historical, clinical and future risk, Dr. Strike is of the opinion that Ms. Guindon presents a moderate risk of future violence. Ms. Guindon’s overall risk of violence has not changed in recent years.
The risk assessment notes that Ms. Guindon has a long history of non-observance to treatment with medication. This is linked to her lack of awareness of her Schizophrenia diagnosis and of her need for antipsychotics. She continues to regularly use substances, including amphetamines and/or methamphetamines, while categorically denying any consumption of substances.
The risk assessment further notes that if Ms. Guindon were to miss a dose of her injectable antipsychotic, her treatment resistant Schizophrenia would rapidly worsen, even more so were she to use stimulants. This would probably lead her to quickly develop paranoia about those in her environment. She would be more likely to react violently to protect herself from the threats she perceives in her community.
Evidence at the Hearing
The Board also received direct testimony from Ms. Guindon’s treating forensic psychiatrist, Dr. Melanie Strike. Dr. Strike has been involved as the most responsible physician for the last years and is the author of the hospital report filed in evidence. Dr. Strike provided explanations before responding to questions.
Ms. Guindon has been meeting with the assigned CMHA worker. CMHA is ending their involvement and closing the file because Ms. Guindon does not wish to identify or work with them on any treatment goals.
Ms. Guindon attends at the Hawkesbury family medicine clinic to receive injectable long-acting psychiatric medication. At the same time, she is required to submit urine drug screening samples to monitor ongoing consumption of alcohol and substances. As these are scheduled routinely and not obtained randomly, Ms. Guindon always knows when she will be subject to drug testing. Without exception through the reporting year, every test sample has produced a positive result for stimulants.
As noted in her report, Dr. Strike testified that Ms. Guindon does not accept the results. She denies consuming any substances at all despite consistent positive test results showing use of amphetamines and stimulants. Ms. Guindon further denies having any form of substance use disorder. She refuses to consider or participate in any program that would address substance use disorder or concurrent disorders.
Dr. Strike confirmed that Ms. Guindon continues to present a significant threat to the safety of the public. She continues to have grandiose delusions which she hides from Dr. Strike and will deny to both Dr. Strike and the case manager, Ms. Ferrante. Dr. Strike noted that Ms. Guindon has been describing her delusional beliefs to the CMHA worker. Dr. Strike testified that Ms. Guindon’s risk involves acting out with aggression and violence to members of the public, including neighbours and her landlord, much as was seen in the past, motivated by Ms. Guindon’s fears of being targeted.
Dr. Strike would like to see Ms. Guindon eventually move toward receiving an absolute discharge. The hospital treatment team does not see her that often. Ms. Guindon will continue being seen at the family medicine clinic in Hawkesbury, where she is able to keep receiving injections of long-acting psychiatric medication.
Dr. Strike would like to eventually propose a model of shared care with the family doctor who has been involved with Ms. Guindon for several years. In such a scenario, Dr. Strike and Ms. Ferrante would continue their involvement which, over time, might see Ms. Guindon move forward toward an absolute discharge. Dr. Strike suggested that the Board could revise the disposition by removing the requirement to abstain from alcohol and substances. Dr. Strike further proposed that Ms. Guindon’s reporting frequency be reduced from once weekly to once monthly.
Responding to questions posed by counsel for the Attorney-General, Ms. Dufort, Dr. Strike advised as follows:
a) Regarding ongoing active symptoms, and whether these are now attenuated, Dr. Strike replied that symptoms of psychosis are still present.
b) Dr. Strike agreed there is a direct link between Ms. Guindon’s consumption of stimulants and her psychosis.
c) It is difficult to know how much and how often Ms. Guindon is consuming substances. In the past, Ms. Guindon has required hospitalization due to similar drug use.
d) Ms. Guindon complies with the requirement to provide urine drug screen samples for analysis. She has not displayed any signs of aggression in the current reporting year. Dr. Strike seemed content to not insist that drug screening be done randomly.
e) As for removing the requirement to abstain from substances, Dr. Strike would like to see how Ms. Guindon will do at “managing her consumption”. Dr. Strike wants to assess ongoing risk without having the condition in place and to see how she does.
f) Dr. Strike agreed that Ms. Guindon’s history indicates a problematic use of alcohol although, Dr. Strike added, this now appears to have lessened.
g) Ms. Guindon attributes her positive drug screen results to ‘‘errors at the lab’’. Dr. Strike advised that the hospital went on to use a different testing facility. Despite the change of testing facility, Ms. Guindon’s positive test results have remained consistent.
h) Dr. Strike conceded, she does not see Ms. Guindon very often, and only on screen, once every three months. The case manager, Ms. Ferrante, sees Ms. Guindon in-person in Hawkesbury every month. In addition, they have weekly phone contact.
i) When concerns arose in late 2023, Ms. Guindon twice refused to attend the ROMHC for assessment. Dr. Strike was only able to meet Ms. Guindon on those two occasions by resorting to the Form 49 warrant to bring her into hospital. During the same reporting period, Ms. Guindon uttered threats to the case manager.
j) Dr. Strike stated that other eyes in the community could be relied on to observe Ms. Guindon. She referred to the local OPP detachment and workers at the family medicine clinic. Dr. Strike seemed to say, this would depend on arranging some new form of collaboration - which has yet to be done - with the hospital treatment team.
k) Dr. Strike stated it is too soon to consider an absolute discharge. Ms. Guindon has not deteriorated this year. For the last 15 months, she has been saying that she will continue with her long-acting injectable medication.
- Counsel acting for Ms. Guindon, Mr. Dubuisson, elicited further responses from Dr. Strike:
a) Ms. Guindon has made a number of positive changes. There have been no incidents with neighbours or the police. She engages well with her family.
b) Asked about Ms. Guindon’s chances to regress, Dr. Strike advised that ongoing consumption of stimulants continues to present an acute risk of provoking further psychosis, particularly persecutory delusions.
c) Additional resources to deal with ongoing substance abuse remain available. The hospital can provide referrals to the CMHA and to addictions counselling services. Alcoholics Anonymous and online services are available. That said, for as long as Ms. Guindon continues to deny any use of substances, hospital-based referrals will not function effectively.
d) The key triggering risk factors for Ms. Guindon consist of her use of substances, combined with Schizophrenia and lack of insight into her mental illness.
- Questions were asked by ORB members:
a) Regarding the diagnosis, Substance Use Disorder of “unknown severity”, Dr. Strike conceded, it is probably severe. Ms. Guindon meets every single item of the evaluation criteria.
b) Ms. Guindon is highly motivated to obtain an absolute discharge.
c) Dr. Strike does not really know whether Ms. Guindon has stopped consuming alcohol. Scheduled urine drug screening samples tested for alcohol have been negative for some years. However, since samples are not obtained on a random basis, Dr. Strike conceded, her alcohol use disorder is probably not in remission.
d) Ms. Guindon is not engaged in any form of psycho-social treatment. Historically, she has had problems with other mental health professionals, and it remains difficult to have her link up with resources.
e) Any involvement by Ms. Guindon with the CMHA can only take place on a voluntary basis. The CMHA worker is about to withdraw services because Ms. Guindon will not identify any therapeutic goals for them to work on.
f) Ms. Guindon suffered an acute deterioration in October 2024 but has not experienced anything of the same degree in 2025.
g) Ms. Guindon receives support from the local Victim Services Office aligned with the Attorney- General in the Hawkesbury region. Her former intimate partner, Mr. Ghislain Lauzon, is the subject of an ongoing prosecution involving offences of domestic violence and probation breach. A trial date has been set at the nearby court in L’Orignal. It appears Ms. Guindon will be called upon to testify at the March 2026 trial. This could be destabilizing.
h) Ms. Guindon addressed the panel to confirm these details. She added, she now has a restraining order which prohibits Mr. Lauzon from contacting her.
i) Dr. Strike agreed that Ms. Guindon’s previous relationships with others in the community expose her to real risk of harm and destabilization. Dr. Strike agreed this comprises a further risk factor relating to her own potential for aggression and violence.
- The parties presented no further evidence.
Submissions of the Parties
Speaking for the hospital, Dr. Strike recommended that removal of Condition 2(b) - the abstention condition - would not change much. While formally prohibited from consuming substances, such a condition, up to now, has had little effect on Ms. Guindon’s behaviour. Removing the condition could provide the hospital with “an important test” to see how she does on her own.
On behalf of the Attorney-General, Ms. Dufort agreed that Ms. Guindon may continue to be discharged, subject to conditions. However, counsel submitted, it is inadvisable to remove the abstention requirement and, at the same time, to reduce the patient’s reporting obligations. Ms. Dufort expressed concern that while drug screens are being provided, this is not done on a random basis. Ms. Guindon continues to deny using substances, even after the hospital took steps to enlist a different testing agency. Ms. Guindon’s cooperation is simply not present. No one has succeeded in otherwise engaging her on her need for treatment.
Speaking for his client, Mr. Dubuisson submitted that Ms. Guindon has made real progress in the current year. He recommended removal of the prohibition from substance use. This would grant Ms. Guindon the freedom of being capable to act on her own. Mr. Dubuisson did not otherwise express formal objection to having Ms. Guindon remain subject to conditions while discharged.
Conclusions and Disposition
Based on the evidence, the Board had no difficulty concluding that Ms. Manon Guindon continues to present a significant threat to the safety of the public. This is clear given the history of repeated serious violence to others following her having discontinued essential treatment with psychiatric medication for her severe schizophrenia.
While Ms. Guindon has been kept clinically stable with medication for the current reporting year, her longstanding severe schizophrenia is aggravated by ongoing use of illicit substances including stimulants, and, quite possibly, alcohol. The Board finds there is a well-demonstrated link between Ms. Guindon’s ongoing use of substances and her potential to quickly experience renewed psychosis leading to decompensation, and from there, to violence, just as was seen with the index offences.
Ms. Guindon has no insight into the harm and risk presented by her use of substances. In fact, for the past several years, she vigorously denies even using substances. The mainstay of her presently stable lifestyle is founded on a resigned adherence to injectable medication while being continuously monitored by the hospital team and the family medicine clinic. If Ms. Guindon were to miss a dose of her anti-psychotic injection, her use of dangerous stimulant drugs would most likely increase, leading very quickly to an inevitable return of psychotic and deeper paranoid thinking.
It is encouraging to see that Ms. Guindon has more recently achieved a certain level of community reintegration. However, we are very concerned that she has assumed only a very limited degree of responsibility or accountability in addressing her treatment needs. If left to her own devices, Ms. Guindon would quickly withdraw from all involvement with the hospital treatment team. This in turn, as described above, would expose the public to the unacceptable risk of serious violence causing significant harm.
The Board is asked to remove the abstention requirement, condition 2(b). We agree. To date, the condition appears to have had no positive effect on Ms. Guindon’s behaviours much less to having her consider abstaining or seeking treatment for substance abuse. Without the requirement to abstain, the hospital might become better able determine how Ms. Guindon will fare at controlling her use and at coming closer to consider addressing her addiction.
For the past two years, Ms. Guindon has not been involved in any threats, aggression or violence. She has not had any police occurrences. The Board is prepared to remove the formal weapons’ prohibition, condition 2(d).
Ms. Guindon is still required to submit urine and breath samples to monitor her use of drugs, alcohol or other intoxicants.
The Board is concerned that the hospital appears to be taking too casual an approach by only requiring non-random samples. Currently, these are provided at the family medicine clinic. Ms. Guindon needs to be ‘put on the spot’ by requiring her to also provide random samples. It is not satisfactory that the hospital has allowed her to accurately anticipate the timing of samples. This continued hospital practice only enhances her ability to calibrate the frequency and dosage of her ongoing substance abuse and, potentially, to consume at a higher level than is being measured.
Counsel for Ms. Guindon has requested that the formal minimal frequency of reporting be reduced from weekly to monthly. Considering the gains Ms. Guindon has otherwise achieved in 2024 and 2025, the minimal frequency will now read, ‘‘not less than once every two weeks’’.
That said, the Board would encourage the hospital to maintain a vigilant eye. In our view, for the attending psychiatrist to be seeing the patient only once every three months - and not even in person - is not satisfactory.
The hospital should also consider closely following and supporting Ms. Guindon in the leadup to and during her experience as a witness being called upon to testify at the trial of her alleged domestic abuser. To this end, they may wish to initiate close liaison with the local Victim Services Office.
For these reasons, having regard to the primary need to protect the public, and balancing the patient’s mental condition, her reintegration and other needs, Ms. Guindon is discharged, subject to conditions which are set out in the revised disposition.
DATED this 9th day of February 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. P. Hageraats Legal Member
__________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board