Ontario Review Board
Re: Bernard Durant
ORB File No: 6347
Hearing held on: Monday, January 26, 2026
Place of Hearing: Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(2.1) 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: Bernard Durant Counsel: Ms. J. Boissonneault
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Mr. K. Dow
Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. N. MacDonald
REASONS FOR DECISION AND DISPOSITION
(Dated February 27, 2026)
Introduction
On May 27, 2013, Bernard Durant was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCR) on charges of robbery with violence, robbery with a weapon, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, possession of property obtained by crime over $5000, fail to stop at the scene of an accident (2), dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, flight from police and mischief under $5000, all contrary to the Criminal Code. He is currently subject to a Decision and Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the Board) dated August 21, 2025, ordering his detention at the General Forensic Service of the Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (the Hospital) with privileges up to and including residence in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
By letter dated December 30, 2025, the Hospital advised the Board pursuant to section 672.56(2) of the Criminal Code that Mr. Durant had been moved from the Forensic Transitional Unit (FTU), a general forensic unit, to the Forensic Assessment Unit, which is a secure forensic unit, on December 17, 2025, and his transfer was more than seven days, thereby requiring that a restriction of liberty (ROL) hearing be scheduled. The Board responded and scheduled the restriction of liberty hearing for January 26, 2026.
On Monday, January 26, 2026, the Board convened a hearing to review Mr. Durant’s restriction of liberty pursuant to section 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Durant was present at the hearing and represented by counsel, Ms. Boissonneault. The issue to be determined at the hearing was to determine if both the initial and continuing restriction of Mr. Durant’s liberties commencing December 17, 2025, was necessary and appropriate and the least restrictive and least onerous option available.
Current Diagnosis
- Mr. Durant’s current diagnoses are:
Schizophrenia
Cocaine use disorder
Alcohol use disorder, in remission
Cannabis use disorder, in remission.
Initial Positions of the Parties
At the commencement of the hearing, the parties were requested to provide their initial without prejudice positions with respect to the issues before the Board. Counsel for the Hospital indicated that it was the Hospital’s position that the restriction of liberties of Mr. Durant was necessary and appropriate at the time his liberties were restricted on December 17, 2025 and continues to be necessary and appropriate and the least restrictive and least onerous option in the circumstances.
Counsel for the Attorney General supported the position of the Hospital. Ms. Boissoneault, on behalf of Mr. Durant, took the position that the restriction of liberty was necessary and appropriate when Mr. Durant was transferred initially to the secure forensic unit but that it is no longer the least restrictive, least onerous, most appropriate or necessary option and that Mr. Durant should be returned to a general forensic unit.
Counsel for Mr. Durant further submitted that the Board should amend the most recent Disposition to remove the word “General” from the location of Mr. Durant’s detention and leave in the Disposition wording indicating that Mr. Durant should be housed in the “Forensic Service” of the hospital, so that the determination as to which level of security is required from time to time is left to the discretion of the Hospital. Counsel for the Hospital and the Crown also agreed with the position of Ms. Boissoneault that the most recent Disposition dated August 21, 2025 should be amended to remove the word “General” from the place of detention and leave in its place “Forensic Service” without specifying the level of security. Ms. Boissoneault also asked the Board to leave the current annual NCR review hearing date for Mr. Durant at July 27, 2026.
Evidence at the hearing
The evidence at the hearing consisted of the Hospital Report dated January 14, 2026 and the oral evidence of Dr. Pytyck, one of Mr. Durant’s treating physicians.
Dr. Pytyck testified that, in her clinical opinion, the restriction of liberty of Mr. Durant which began December 17, 2025 was both necessary and appropriate and continues to be necessary and appropriate and the least restrictive and least onerous option available in the circumstances. Dr. Pytyck added that Mr. Durant needs more time in a secure forensic unit before going back into a general forensic unit.
Dr. Pytyck testified that she has been treating Mr. Durant off and on for the past 2 – 3 years and, in particular, since August 1, 2025, and that she has met with him on a number of occasions since the most recent restriction of his liberty.
Dr. Pytyck testified that the reason for the most recent restriction of liberty was due to events that occurred when he was out in the community visiting with his sister in December 2025. Mr. Durant eloped and took his sister’s car without her permission and, without having a driver’s licence, drove the car erratically in the GTA, endangering the general public by so doing.
Dr. Pytyck further testified that changes to Mr. Durant’s medications have been made and have been driven by Mr. Durant. Mr. Durant has stopped taking lithium and wants to switch back to Abilify which causes concerns for Dr. Pytyck who testified that Mr. Durant was not as stable on Abilify when he took it in the past. Dr. Pytyck testified that Dr. Wang, who is also involved in Mr. Durant’s treatment, would like Mr. Durant to add a mood stabilizer to his medication regimen.
Dr. Pytyck also testified that Mr. Durant continues to have breakthrough symptoms, suspiciousness towards the treatment team and other patients, and that most recently, during the weekend before last, Mr. Durant had suspicious thoughts about the staff talking about him and giving him the finger. Dr. Pytyck testified that Mr. Durant thought he was being set up to have patients provoke him to make him look bad. Dr. Pytyck testified that the treatment team needs to make sure Mr. Durant is stable on new medications before going back to a general forensic unit. Dr. Pytyck gave evidence that Mr. Durant struggles with impulsivity and elopement. Dr. Pytyck testified that Mr. Durant needs some months on a secure forensic unit while the team adjusts his medications, provides therapeutic intervention, and helps Mr. Durant develop coping mechanisms. Dr. Pytyck testified that Mr. Durant is working with a psychologist on the FAU and needs time before going to a general forensic unit and using indirectly supervised passes.
Dr. Pytyck opined that the Hospital was not seeking any change in the Disposition except the change in wording in order to keep Mr. Durant on a secure forensic unit without triggering another ROL.
In response to a question from Ms. MacDonald for the Crown, Dr. Pytyck confirmed that the risk of elopement by Mr. Durant was much less of a risk on a secure forensic unit than on a general forensic unit. Dr. Pytyck confirmed that during two recent elopements, including the December elopement, Mr. Durant used crack cocaine and other substances. Dr. Pytyck testified that the treatment team was surprised by the elopement in December as Mr. Durant presented as being ready to go on an outing and Dr. Pytyck believes the elopement was impulsive behaviour and not planned beforehand by Mr. Durant.
Dr. Pytyck also opined that Mr. Durant will need programming as appropriate, more therapy, and, if he will agree, possibly some changes to his medication regimen.
Dr. Pytyck testified that, if all goes well and Mr. Durant remains stable without breakthrough symptoms, Mr. Durant could be on a secure forensic unit for another 4 – 6 months, but it could be longer.
Dr. Pytyck testified that Mr. Durant has shown appropriate remorse for his actions during the December elopement, at which time he put the public at increased risk.
In response from a question from the Crown with respect to Mr. Durant’s insight, Dr. Pytyck gave evidence that Mr. Durant takes the position that he no longer remains at a level of risk requiring being housed in a secure forensic unit. Dr. Pytyck opined that this shows that he has limited insight and an unrealistically optimistic view of himself regarding the level of risk that remains as a result of his impulsive acts. Dr. Pytyck confirmed that she would be concerned about the increased access to substances if Mr. Durant was moved to a general forensic unit, which risk is lessened in a secure forensic unit.
In response to a question by Ms. Boissonneault, Dr. Pytyck confirmed that Mr. Durant is on the Forensic Assessment Unit (FAU) and has been for over a month. Dr. Pytyck gave evidence that on January 3, 2026, a psychosocial assessment was completed, which confirms that Mr. Durant has expressed remorse and has taken accountability for his actions during the December elopement and has appreciated the consequences of his actions. However, Dr. Pytyck opined that Mr. Durant still shows limited insight as evidenced by his eagerness to go back to the general forensic unit before his medication regimen becomes stable and without him doing further therapeutic work. Dr. Pytyck added that overall, aside from paranoia incidents, about which Mr. Durant has been forthcoming, Mr. Durant has expressed suspiciousness, but there have been no major incidents.
Dr. Pytyck testified that, in the FAU, there are difficult and unstable patients which can hinder Mr. Durant’s rehabilitation, but that they exist in the General Forensic Unit as well, and the benefits of the Secure Forensic Unit for Mr. Durant outweigh its challenges.
Dr. Pytyck testified that Dr. Wang is the more responsible psychiatrist for Mr. Durant while he resides in the FAU and that in the January 16, 2026 record from Dr. Wang, he was probably referring to other patients when he noted that Mr. Durant was having some difficulties with environmental factors in the unit.
Dr. Pytyck testified that, in the past, there was a situation which occurred while Mr. Durant was on the FTU, prior to his elopement, that came close to a physical altercation, but which fortunately didn’t end up becoming physical.
In response to a question about the risk of elopement in general, and whether that could be managed by a restriction of privileges, Dr. Pytyck testified that restrictions could be one way to manage that risk, but that it is hard to have patients on the general forensic unit without the usual privileges that other patients on the same unit enjoy, and that it puts pressure on staff who have to deal with an unhappy patient who sees others receiving privileges (s)he cannot exercise. Dr. Pytyck concluded that, for that reason, the treatment team prefers to keep Mr. Durant on a secure forensic unit until they are sure he can use his privileges appropriately. Dr. Pytyck added that Mr. Durant does have escorted privileges with staff members.
Dr. Pytyck commented on Dr. Wang’s notes which indicate that the changes to Mr. Durant’s medication regimen is going well and that Mr. Durant is tolerating Epival well. Dr. Pytyck testified that she has concerns about breakthrough symptoms but that it is too early to tell and that generally, Mr. Durant is not experiencing visual or auditory hallucinations, with the exception of symptoms experienced on a weekend which indicate that Mr. Durant’s symptoms rose to the level of psychosis. Dr. Pytyck opined that stress could have been a factor.
Dr. Pytyck testified that Mr. Durant is engaging positively with Dr. Marshall, a psychologist, is cooperating well with counselling and has asked for concurrent disorders therapy, which has a long wait list, but which he will receive when available.
In response to a question about whether there remain any outstanding legal issues for Mr. Durant, Dr. Pytyck testified that, to the best of her knowledge, Mr. Durant attended at court with respect to a possible charge of disobeying a lawful order and was told that there were no outstanding charges before the court. Dr. Pytyck confirmed that there is no legal requirement for Mr. Durant to be in a Secure Forensic Unit.
In response to a question from the Board, Dr. Pytyck testified that sometimes Mr. Durant misses taking his lithium as prescribed and that the team is working with him to tweak the dose.
In response to a question from the Board as to whether the treatment team was concerned about antisocial behavioural traits, Dr. Pytyck also testified that the team is concerned about Mr. Durant’s impulsivity. She is unsure where that comes from and confirmed that borderline and anti-social personality traits have been a concern and that the treatment team is still seeking to have a better understanding of these potential issues.
In response to a question from the Board as to whether clozapine was being considered for Mr. Durant, Dr. Pytyck testified that it is not being considered at this time as Mr. Durant is prone to side effects, but that ideally, Mr. Durant could be on an injectable, which the team could consider in the future, but that Mr. Durant has not reached treatment resistance, at which point clozapine use would outweigh its detriments.
In response to another question from the Board, Dr. Pytyck testified that she is not sure that Mr. Durant has a psychology referral for assessment but agreed it would be beneficial to Mr. Durant to be tested for cognitive and executive functioning deficits. Dr. Pytyck added that Mr. Durant is addressing a history of trauma and that understanding that better might assist the team in understanding Mr. Durant’s impulsivity. Dr. Pytyck also acknowledged that, in light of Mr. Durant's trauma history, a diagnosis of Other Specified Trauma and Stressor-Related Disorder could be considered.
No further evidence was led by any party.
Final Submissions
The Hospital maintained its initial position at the end of the hearing as did the Crown, both agreeing that the restriction of liberty in December and to today’s date was and remains necessary and appropriate and the least restrictive and least onerous possible option and both asked the Board to amend the current Disposition to remove the word “General” from the location of Mr. Durant’s Disposition.
Ms. Boissoneault maintained her position that the initial restriction of liberty in December 2025 was necessary and appropriate but that, although the protection of the public is the paramount concern of the Board, the Board must also treat the patient fairly and make the least onerous and least restrictive order as set out in the Campbell decision. Ms. Boissouneault pointed out that Mr. Durant hasn’t been violent in several years, has not been violent while on the FAU, has been cooperative with the treatment team, is taking Epival, which is a mood stabilizer, has been actively and positively engaging in therapeutic treatments, feels remorse for his actions during the December elopement and accepts that such actions have consequences, is subject to no outstanding criminal charges, and, in her submission, there is no reason he could not be returned to a General Forensic Unit. Ms. Boissoneault added that Mr. Durant finds that the FAU population is a more challenging population than that on a General Forensic Unit and creates difficulties for him and interfere with his emotional regulation. For those reasons, a General Forensic Unit is the more appropriate unit for Mr. Durant. Ms. Boissoneault added that, if the Board finds that Mr. Durant needs a Secure Forensic Unit, she agrees with the position of the Hospital and the Crown that the word “General” should be removed and that the place of detention should be shown as “Forensic Service” in the Disposition. Ms. Boissoneault also asked that the next NCR annual review should continue to be July 27, 2026.
Findings
For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that the restriction of liberty of Mr. Durant, caused by moving Mr. Durant from the Forensic Transitional Unit, a General Forensic Unit, to the Forensic Assessment Unit, a Secure Forensic Unit, and which restriction of liberty began in December 2025 and which continues to this day, was the most appropriate and necessary Disposition and the least restrictive and least onerous option in the circumstances, both in December 2025 and continuing to the date of the hearing.
The Board also finds that it is appropriate to amend the wording in the current Disposition of August 21, 2025 to delete the word “General” from the location of Mr. Durant’s detention and therefore show the location of detention as the “Forensic Service” of the hospital, thereby allowing the Hospital treatment team to exercise its discretion to move Mr. Durant to the appropriate level of security as the situation demands.
Analysis and Conclusion Restriction of Liberty
The Board finds that the elopements of Mr. Durant, and, in particular, the elopement of December 17, 2025 at which time Mr. Durant stole his sister’s car, and, without a driver’s licence, drove erratically in the GTA for several hours, was a very serious event, which could have, but which fortunately did not, result in serious injury to the public. In addition, Mr. Durant used illicit substances (crack cocaine) during his most recent elopement. Mr. Durant has continued to experience delusional symptoms of his major mental illness. Mr. Durant’s medication regimen has not been optimized and changes to it are ongoing in an effort to minimize both his symptoms and the side effects of medication, to which Mr. Durant has proven to be quite susceptible. In addition, other therapeutic interventions and assessments are recommended by the treatment team and are planned for the upcoming months. It is hoped that these will assist the team in both better understanding Mr. Durant’s mental status and how to optimally treat Mr. Durant.
Although Mr. Durant has not been violent for some time, his impulsivity is concerning to the treatment team. The causes of Mr. Durant’s impulsivity, which appears to have led to the December elopement, is still not well understood by the treatment team and elopement remains a serious concern with respect to the need to safeguard the public.
Change to Current Disposition
- All parties, including Mr. Durant’s counsel, Ms. Boissoneault, asked the Board to amend the wording of the current Disposition to remove the word “General” from the location of detention of Mr. Durant, which is currently shown as “General Forensic Unit”, thereby making the place of detention the Forensic Service of Ontario Shores. The Board finds that it has jurisdiction to make this change and that it is necessary and appropriate in the circumstances. The Board also finds that this amendment does not require the setting of a new hearing date for the annual NCR review and that review should proceed, as scheduled, on July 27, 2026.
DATED this 27th day of February 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Jane Ferguson
Legal Member
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board