Re S. (R. R.), 2026 CanLII 15127

Ontario Review Board

Re: S. (R. R.)

ORB File No: 8432

Hearing held on: Wednesday, February 4, 2026

Place of hearing: Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care 401 Sunset Drive, St. Thomas

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

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Weinstein

Members: Dr. S. Bouskill Dr. L.O. Lightfoot Ms. C. Murray Mr. A. Mete

Parties Appearing:

Accused: S. (R. R.) Counsel: Mr. R. Cunningham

The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Zamprogna

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. K. Dalrymple

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated February 27, 2026)

Introduction:

1. On June 19, 2018, Ms. S. (R. R.) was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, on charges of forcible confinement, failure to provide necessaries of life, utter a threat to cause death or bodily harm, aggravated assault, and assault with a weapon, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”).

2. Ms. S. (R. R.) is subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”), dated November 19, 2024, which ordered that she be detained at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care, St. Joseph's Health Care London (“Southwest”).

3. On February 4, 2026, the Board convened a hearing at Southwest to conduct the annual review of the current Disposition.

4. Ms. S. (R. R.) was present at the hearing and was represented by counsel, Mr. R. Cunningham.

5. A Nuer interpreter provided consecutive translation throughout the hearing.

6. A Hospital Report, dated August 26, 2025 (the "Hospital Report"), was entered as Exhibit 1.

7. An Update to the Hospital Report, dated January 19, 2026 (the "Update"), was entered as Exhibit 2.

8. The issues at this hearing were whether Ms. S. (R. R.) is a significant threat to public safety, as defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code, and, if so, the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances must be determined, bearing in mind the factors enunciated in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

9. For the reasons set out below and based on the expert evidence and opinions before us, the Board concluded that Ms. S. (R. R.) continues to represent a significant threat to public safety. The Board found that the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances is the continuation of the existing Detention Order, with the amendments recommended by the hospital as well as the deletion of the following requirements that Ms. S. (R. R.) refrain from:

a) having in her possession any firearm, ammunition or other offensive weapon

b) being in the company of any person possessing a firearm other than a peace officer

c) having in her possession any incendiary device or materials.

The Board also orders a publication ban pursuant to s. 672.501(3) of the Code.

Current Psychiatric Diagnoses:

10. Schizophrenia

Background and Index Offences:

11. Ms. S. (R. R.)’s background is outlined in the Hospital Report and is accurately summarized in last year’s Reasons:

“Ms. S. (R. R.)’s personal and psychiatric history, including the details of her mental disorder and treatment since being found NCR, are described in detail in the hospital report prepared by Alberta Health Services dated May 22, 2024, and summarized in the hospital report, exhibit 1. Briefly, Ms. S. (R. R.) is a 38-year-old, unemployed, separated mother of five children, with a well-established psychiatric history, but no criminal history. Ms. S. (R. R.) is a native of Sudan. She fled that country’s civil war to Ethiopia, and immigrated to Canada in 2005

Ms. S. (R. R.)’s main responsibility has been caring for her children. However, since arriving in Canada she has acquired basic computer skills and completed training in hotel housekeeping and waitressing. She has also acquired basic proficiency in English.

The index offences are fully described in the hospital report. These offences stemmed from an incident that occurred on February 4, 2016 when Ms. S. (R. R.) was floridly psychotic. The victim was her eldest son, then 13 years old.

Ms. S. (R. R.) was granted a conditional discharge in August 2023, which was continued at her recent annual review. At that time, she was living independently in approved accommodation in Calgary. She was supported financially through AISH (Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped).”

12. The Index Offences are set out in last year’s Reasons. They are summarized as follows, with the deletion of the names of the children, including the victim of the Index Offences:

“On February 4, 2016, the victim was sleeping in his bedroom. At approximately 3 AM, Ms. S. (R. R.) entered his room, woke him and asked if he had touched her in the genitals. The victim denied that he had done so. His denials were not believed and the questioning continued.

Ms. S. (R. R.) took the victim to the living room. Using a broken skateboard, she struck the victim’s legs and arms numerous times. She would bring the skateboard to approximately her head height before striking him. While assaulting him she repeatedly asked if he had come into her room. The victim defended himself with his hands and eventually took the skateboard away from his mother. Ms. S. (R. R.) told the victim she would kill him and obtained a snow shovel and, while the victim was on the ground struck him numerous times in the body and head. One time she struck him hard in the head causing his vision to become wobbly and him to move slower. Ms. S. (R. R.) continued to accuse him of entering her room and telling him she was going to kill him. Fearing for his life, the victim eventually agreed that he had gone to her room. While he was lying down, Ms. S. (R. R.) started choking him with two hands. He did not lose consciousness but had to gasp to breathe.

Ms. S. (R. R.) told the victim to go outside. He left the house and walked around, wearing shorts and a T-shirt. After approximately 20 minutes, Ms. S. (R. R.) called him back inside and informed him that she had called the police who advised her to tie the victim up. Using a television cord, she tied up his arms and legs. He was on his bed at the time. She again struck him with the snow shovel, numerous times causing the shovel to crack. The victim told her how he had lied to her earlier about going to her room and she continued to strike him.

Ms. S. (R. R.) eventually left the room. The victim was still bound by the cords. Sometime after, she returned to his room and told him he was not going to school that day, the victim fell asleep. He was still bound by the cords.

The victim awoke around noon. Ms. S. (R. R.) entered the room. She returned carrying [I]. She asked the victim if he had any drugs to which the victim replied “no” and told her to look. She did not find anything. She sat beside him. Referring to the allegation of genital touching, she told him he should not have done so because she was his mother, she asked him whether he had drugs and whether he had magic. She told him that she did not see, here, or feel him but knows he touched her. She asked if he touched his sisters inappropriately and he denied such.

At approximately 4 PM Ms. S. (R. R.) untied the victim. His sisters had come home from school.

The victim stayed home from school until February 19th, 2016. School administrators contacted authorities when they observed the victim having difficulty using his arm. The victim was interviewed by members of the Calgary police service (CPS) and photographs were taken of his injuries.

During the assault, the other children were in the house, in their rooms. [N] was interviewed by CPS and advised that during the assault, she could hear the victim screaming and the sound of things breaking. The next day, she observed the broken shovel and the victim's injuries. CPS members obtained a search warrant allowing them to enter the S. (R. R.) residence. They photographed the broken skateboard and cracked shovel used in the assault. CPS members also photographed one of the [cords] used to bind the victim.

As a result, the victim suffered multiple lacerations and bruises, including under his left eye, on his forearms and fingers, neck, on his left clavicle and legs and a fractured right olecranon or elbow bone. On February 19, he was taken to the hospital and surgery was immediately performed on his arm. By the time of the surgery, a callous had begun to form on the break. Hospital staff placed a small fragment plate and screws in his arm.

After the surgery, he was required to attend physical therapy from March to May 2016.

All the above occurred in Calgary, Alberta.”

Position of the Parties:

13. Counsel for the hospital recommended a continuation of the existing Detention Order, with the amendments set out on pages 49 and 50 of the Hospital Report. These amendments:

a) increased the geographical area that Ms. S. (R. R.) can enter

b) recommended that she no longer be required to abstain from the non-medical use of alcohol or drugs or any other intoxicant

c) removed the requirement to submit samples of her urine or breath.

d) deleted paragraphs that were deemed to be redundant

14. Counsel for the Attorney General joined the hospital in its recommendations.

15. Counsel for Ms. S. (R. R.) requested a Conditional Discharge. In his recommended conditions:

a) He indicated that his client consented to

i. reside at the Clarke Centre

ii. report to the person in charge not less than four times per month (as in her current Disposition)

iii. take treatment and medication as prescribed, pursuant to s. 672.55(1) of the Criminal Code.

iv. the addition of what is known as a Young clause, with the additional provision that Ms. S. (R. R.) would agree to remain in hospital if requested to do so by the person in charge or his or her designate.

b) He recommended the deletion of:

i. the weapons prohibition

ii. the requirement that she refrain from having in her possession any incendiary device or materials

c) He recommended other provisions that mirrored those set out in the hospital recommendation, where appropriate

d) If the Board were to find that a Detention Order was the necessary and appropriate Disposition, he would join the hospital in their recommendations, except that he would still request the deletion of the two prohibitions listed above

16. For the purposes of this hearing, counsel for Ms. S. (R. R.) advised that the issue of significant threat was not in dispute.

Course Since Last Disposition:

17. Ms. S. (R. R.)’s course since her last Disposition is set out in detail in the Hospital Report and the Update. The following extracted paragraphs are relevant to this hearing:

“Ms. S. (R. R.) continued to reside on the Rehabilitation Unit B1 under the care of Dr. Amir Rezaei Ardani until March 31, 2025, when she relocated to a community placement at C.K. Clarke Centre Transitional Rehabilitation residence (through St. Leonard’s community services) and her care was subsequently transferred to Dr. Ajay Prakash and the Outreach team.

She has worked collaboratively with the team regarding assessments and expectations.

Overall, in this reporting period, Ms. S. (R. R.)’s mental status has appeared stable. She consistently denied experiencing positive symptoms of her illness and there has been no evidence to suggest otherwise; her psychotic symptoms appeared well controlled with her medication regime, and her thought process has been clear, intact and goal directed.

She received her PR card in July.

She completed this assessment on May 5, 2025, and was subsequently able to start ESL classes which she engaged in from May-late June 2025, when the course ended for the summer.

At Clarke Centre, Ms. S. (R. R.) takes her medications independently but requires reminders at times to ensure she takes them at the proper times.

Ms. S. (R. R.) continues to reside at Clarke Centre Transitional Rehabilitation residence through St. Leonard’s Community Services. She is doing well in this environment and denies any interpersonal difficulties with other residents, stating that she gets along with them without issue. Ms. S. (R. R.) remains psychiatrically stable, with no evidence of active psychotic symptoms. She reports consistent adherence to her clozapine regimen with minimal side effects and presents with organized thinking, appropriate affect, and intact daily functioning.

On December 16, 2025, the Outreach team met with members of Ms. S. (R. R.)’s family. In attendance were her sister Mary, who currently has all of her children living with her (including the son who was the victim), her sister Martha, with whom Ms. S. (R. R.) stays during visits, and Martha’s adult son, Ron. During the meeting, it became apparent that Martha and Ron demonstrated little to no insight into Ms. S. (R. R.)’s mental illness, her need for ongoing treatment, or her associated violence risk. In contrast, Mary showed a better understanding of these concerns. Both sisters expressed that they would be unable to have Ms. S. (R. R.) live with them; however, they agreed that it would be beneficial for her to reside closer to the family, such as in the Windsor area.

She was deemed eligible for DSO on September 9, 2025, and an application to the Passport program was submitted the same day. Ms. S. (R. R.) has since been onboarded to Passport services and has received orientation on making purchases and submitting receipts for reimbursement. Ms. S. (R. R.) and the FDDSW are currently in the process of requesting the involvement of a Transfer Payment Agency, which is an organization that can assist by managing Passport funds and making purchases on her behalf.”

Evidence at the Hearing:

18. The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence from Dr. Ajay Prakash. Dr. Prakash co-authored the Hospital Report, and he is Ms. S. (R. R.)’s treating psychiatrist. He testified as follows:

a) Ms. S. (R. R.)’s Index Offences were her first psychotic episode. Since then, she has had further episodes.

b) Based on her history, Ms. S. (R. R.) would likely not be able to recognize early signs of decompensation.

c) Ms. S. (R. R.) qualified for a diagnosis of developmental disorder and was found eligible for DSO Services in September 2025. The treatment team is working to secure extra funding and a support worker for her.

d) Ms. S. (R. R.) receives oral medications, which are provided to her rather than self-managed. She requires assistance with organization to maintain adherence to her medication regimen, but she has shown that she can take her medications independently, for short periods.

e) Stress is identified as a significant risk factor that could impact her mental stability, even if she is adherent to treatment. Stressors include new tasks, complicated undertakings, unknowns, and family-related issues. A housing transition would be particularly stressful.

f) Ms. S. (R. R.) currently resides at the Clarke Centre, a 24/7 supervised accommodation. Ms. S. (R. R.) wishes to move closer to her family in Windsor. The treatment team is considering the possibility of moving her to a group home in that city. While she is not currently on a Windsor waitlist, steps are being taken to arrange a tour and a referral to a group home in Windsor.

g) If Ms. S. (R. R.) were to move to Windsor, the Mental Health Act (“MHA”) could not be used proactively to intervene, especially given the distance from Windsor to the hospital. In particular, Ms. S. (R. R.) would not qualify under the Box B criteria of the MHA, and the hospital would not be able to use stress as a factor to employ the MHA proactively, before she became a risk to public safety. Even a proposed Young clause, which might allow the hospital to require her to return for assessment or admission, would not be sufficient to address her risk.

h) Ms. S. (R. R.) has breached her condition not to associate with her son, the victim of the Index Offences, as set out in her Disposition. Her family has not helped mitigate her risk. A move to Windsor would increase the likelihood of further breaches of her Disposition and her risk to public safety.

i) Ms. S. (R. R.)’s risk of deterioration is high in response to stressful situations, and close supervision is key to management of this risk. Therefore, a Detention Order is necessary and appropriate.

j) Substance use is not of concern to the treatment team, so the hospital is recommending the removal of what are known as “abstain and submit” clauses.

k) On January 19, 2026, the treatment team received a message from a group home in Windsor, to arrange a tour. After this tour, the treatment team will be able to submit a referral for Ms. S. (R. R.).

l) The treatment team requires the ability to approve Ms. S. (R. R.)’s accommodation.

m) Pages 47 and 48 of the Hospital Report explains why the treatment team requires the ability to approve Ms. S. (R. R.)’s housing. It is his experience that police response is very poor to a breach of a condition of a Conditional Discharge Disposition, such as failing to return to hospital for assessment or remain in hospital. This is one of the reasons a Conditional Discharge would be inappropriate, as only a Detention order would allow the hospital to act quickly enough to protect public safety.

19. In response to questions from counsel for the Attorney General, Dr. Prakash testified:

a) Not only did Ms. S. (R. R.) breach the no contact condition with her son, the victim of the Index Offences, but her family allowed this breach. Their lack of help in mitigating her risk is a concern because the victim wants no contact with her.

b) The victim now is advised when Ms. S. (R. R.) will be visiting the residence, and he leaves the home during her visits. Should Ms. S. (R. R.) move to Windsor, the risk to the victim would be heightened.

c) A move would be highly stressful for Ms. S. (R. R.), even though she says she wants it, because of her diagnosis. Given her vulnerability to stress, the move could increase the likelihood, and frequency, of her breaching the no contact provision of her Disposition.

d) The current residence at Clarke Centre is transitional housing with 24/7 supervision, and Ms. S. (R. R.) can stay there until March of 2027.

e) The proposed group home in Windsor would not provide the same level of protection and supervision as she is currently receiving at the Clarke Centre, which is another reason the hospital is recommending a Detention Order, rather than a Conditional Discharge.

f) Ms. S. (R. R.)’s medication regimen is being supervised at the Clarke Centre. If she were to stop her medication, her mental state would likely decompensate within days to weeks. Ms. S. (R. R.) would start showing signs of paranoia and disorganized behaviour, which could escalate to aggressive actions, requiring hospitalization.

g) Poor police response in Windsor to breaches of conditions of Conditional Discharge Dispositions is also very concerning.

h) As set out on page 22 of the Hospital Report, Ms. S. (R. R.) reported to the treatment team that her eldest son, the victim, lives independently. However, the team later discovered that he, in fact, lives with her sister and the other siblings in Windsor, which presents a risk factor when considering community passes.

i) Should Ms. S. (R. R.) be granted a Conditional Discharge, the hospital’s ability to control her passes, and her travel to Windsor, would not be sufficient to protect the safety of the victim or to manage her stress.

20. In response to questions from counsel for Ms. S. (R. R.), Dr. Prakash testified:

a) Ms. S. (R. R.) is currently supervised to make sure she is adherent to her antipsychotic medication at the Clarke Centre. The hospital would be aware fairly early if she stopped taking her medication.

b) If Ms. S. (R. R.) were to stop her medication and decompensate, she would be certifiable under the MHA. If she remained at the Clarke Centre in London, where her stressors are known, and the hospital is geographically close, the MHA would be sufficient. However, it would be insufficient if Ms. S. (R. R.) lived in Windsor.

c) The weapons used in the commission of the Index Offences were a shovel and a broken skateboard. Since the Index Offences, Ms. S. (R. R.) has not used any weapons.

d) He agreed that the proposed terms by Ms. S. (R. R.) for a Conditional Discharge are appropriate if she remains at Clarke Centre.

e) Many group homes require that a client respond, and be eligible to move in, within 30 days of acceptance, or they could lose their placement.

f) If Ms. S. (R. R.) were on a conditional discharge with Clarke Centre specified as the address she must live, then the treatment team could request an early hearing to allow her to move to Windsor if she received an offer from a group home in that city. However, Dr. Prakash could not predict how quickly an early hearing could take place.

g) Ms. S. (R. R.) does have the funding to travel from the Clarke Centre to Windsor. Travel condition restrictions could be placed in any Conditional Discharge.

h) While the Disposition from Alberta does indicate that Ms. S. (R. R.) had been on a Conditional Discharge, it is his understanding that Alberta allows housing approval to be included in a Conditional Discharge, but Ontario does not.

i) He took no position with respect to the necessity of a prohibition against possessing incendiary devices.

21. In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Prakash testified:

a) Specifying the address would address the hospital’s concerns about appropriate accommodation.

b) While Ms. S. (R. R.) is at the Clarke Centre, the risk of medication non-adherence and potential decompensation is manageable. However, if she were moved to a less supervised environment, such as the proposed group home in Windsor, the risk of undetected non-adherence and subsequent decompensation would increase.

c) He does have concerns that the scheduling of an early hearing could compromise Ms. S. (R. R.)’s placement at an appropriate home in the Windsor area.

d) The Conditional Discharge proposed by Ms. S. (R. R.)’s counsel is more onerous than the proposed Detention Order that the hospital is recommending.

e) If the group home were ready to accept Ms. S. (R. R.) today, the treatment team would approve such a move, but only under a Detention Order, for the reasons he has already stated.

22. No other evidence was called.

Analysis and Conclusions:

23. Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence, as well as submissions from the parties, the Board agrees with the joint submission: Ms. S. (R. R.) remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.

24. In Winko, the Supreme Court outlined that, in coming to the conclusion on the issue of significant risk, a Review Board should closely examine a range of evidence, including: the circumstances of the original offence; the past and expected course of the accused’s treatment; the present state of the NCR accused’s medical condition; the NCR accused’s own plans for the future; the support existing for the NCR accused in the community; and most importantly, the recommendations provided by experts who examined the NCR accused. In coming to our conclusion in this matter, the Board relies on the uncontroverted expert evidence of Dr. Prakash, in addition to the documentary evidence before us.

25. Ms. S. (R. R.) has a diagnosis of schizophrenia, which, while currently in remission, poses a risk of relapse under stress or without proper treatment and support.

26. Ms. S. (R. R.) has significant cognitive impairments, including disorganization, poor memory and limited executive functioning. These challenges affect her ability to manage daily life independently and increase her risk of decompensation. Her disorganization has led to a history of treatment non-adherence and missed appointments, either of which could lead to a relapse of her mental illness and increase her risk of violent behaviour. Ms. S. (R. R.) struggles to anticipate and manage psychosocial stressors, such as family dynamics, financial instability, and changes in her living environment. These stressors have contributed to her mental health deterioration.

27. Ms. S. (R. R.) requires structured and supervised housing to manage her risk effectively.

28. While her family is supportive, they lack an understanding of her illness and are unlikely to recognize signs of decompensation or alert the treatment team to potential risk.

29. In particular, the Board relies on the Re-Offence Scenario and Overall Clinical Assessment of Risk set out in the Hospital Report:

“Re-Offence Scenario

In the absence of significant professional support, Ms. S. (R. R.) would likely experience heightened stress, including the presence of social stressors (unemployment, unsecured housing and lack of provincial financial assistance), and interpersonal stressors (strained relationship with her children and her family), which would put her at a greater risk of decompensation as she is not able to anticipate stressors or challenges until she experiences them and relies on staff support. Due to her disorganization, Ms. S. (R. R.) would likely become nonadherent with treatment and follow up appointments, which in turn, would likely result in psychotic symptoms, diminished insight, and increase her risk of reoffending.

Overall Clinical Assessment of Risk

It is the opinion of the treatment team that Ms. S. (R. R.) continues to pose a risk of serious physical or psychological harm to members of the public. The following evidence supports this opinion:

1. Ms. S. (R. R.) has a major mental illness, namely schizophrenia. Although her symptoms have appeared well controlled with her treatment regime, stress can exacerbate her mental condition. Therefore, careful planning and support is recommended for the subsequent review period;

2. Ms. S. (R. R.) continues to suffer from symptoms of disorganization and cognitive impairment. She requires regular support from staff to manage her day-to-day life;

3. Although Ms. S. (R. R.) has good insight into her need for treatment, she has a history of nonadherence with treatment and missing appointments due to her disorganization;

4. Although Ms. S. (R. R.) has good support from her family, they would not be helpful in mitigating risk. They require further education to enhance their understanding of her illness and needs going forward;

5. Ms. S. (R. R.)’s future living situation is uncertain at this time. There is potential she may relocate to Windsor, and changes to her environment have been a stressor for her in the past;

6. Ms. S. (R. R.) experiences several stressors that impact her emotional wellbeing and she does not fully understand how psychosocial stressors impact her mental stability. She cannot anticipate stressors or challenges until she experiences them and relies on staff support;

7. Ms. S. (R. R.) has inadequate community-based professional mental health supports to manage her level of risk absent the forensic system and would not be able to organize these services on her own.

Ms. S. (R. R.) is not being considered for an alternative disposition, such as a conditional discharge at this time as it would be inadequate to manage the risks. Her transition into the community is fairly recent and there is potential for another transition in the upcoming reporting period. Historically, she experienced increased stress related to changes in her living environment. She has also expressed a desire to reside independently, which the team is not supportive of currently; they would like to test her in Windsor in a supported environment prior to living independently. It will be necessary for the hospital to maintain the ability to approve her accommodation to ensure appropriate structure, supervision and support to manage her risk. They also require the ability to bring Ms. S. (R. R.) back to the hospital expediently in the event of decompensation, using the Warrant of Committal. As a result, a detention disposition remains necessary and appropriate.”

30. In light of the Board's finding of significant threat, it is charged with shaping a Disposition for the coming year.

31. The parties were unanimous in agreeing that the treatment team needs to retain the ability to approve Ms. S. (R. R.)’s accommodation. Maintaining this ability can be accomplished either by a specified residence in a Conditional Discharge or by including the authority to approve of her housing under a Detention Order.

32. Ms. S. (R. R.) wishes to move to Windsor to be closer to her family.

33. As emphasized in Winko, and as confirmed in Ramos (Re) 2025 ONCA 820 at paragraph 20, the Board must consider the reasonable wishes of people found NCR, which deserves thoughtful and serious consideration. Ms. S. (R. R.) has clear insight into her needs. Unfortunately, this desire to reside in Windsor and to reconnect with her children has resulted in numerous breaches of the condition in her Disposition to have no contact with the victim of the Index Offences, who resides in Windsor.

34. The Board must consider a Disposition that not only protects the safety of the public, but is also the least onerous and least restrictive option, taking into consideration the needs of Ms. S. (R. R.), as well as her reintegration into society. The treatment team has proposed a very liberal and least restrictive, least onerous Detention Order that would allow Ms. S. (R. R.) to live in in the Windsor area. The proposed Conditional Discharge is more restrictive and onerous than the proposed Detention Order, and it also does not allow Ms. S. (R. R.) to accomplish her primary goal, to reside in Windsor.

35. The evidence before us is that a breach of any potential Conditional Discharge would not be remedied quickly enough to protect public safety. Moreover, the MHA would not be able to respond proactively, not quickly enough, to Ms. S. (R. R.)’s biggest risk factor, her reaction to stressors. The Board also notes that the police do not respond as quickly to breaches of a Conditional Discharge as they do with a Warrant of Committal on a Detention Order.

36. Counsel for Ms. S. (R. R.) indicated that one of the reasons he requested a Conditional Discharge is to indicate to Ms. S. (R. R.) that she is progressing through the forensic system. The Board notes that Ms. S. (R. R.) is not on a pathway to an Absolute Discharge in the coming reporting year. The loosening of the conditions of her Disposition, including the increased geographic area and the deletion of clauses recommended by the hospital and requested by counsel for Ms. S. (R. R.), does represent progress within the forensic system.

37. The Board notes that, as set out in the Hospital Report, Ms. S. (R. R.) misinformed the Hospital about where the victim lives. She also has a history of visiting where the victim lives when she visits Windsor, despite the no-contact order. This behaviour clearly indicates that Ms. S. (R. R.) is not as cooperative with her legal obligations as one would hope.

38. As further evidence of her deceptiveness and lack of cooperation, as set out on pages 25 and 26 of the Hospital Report, Ms. S. (R. R.) initially refused to download her bank statements to obtain ODSP, as she knew that she had too much money to qualify.

39. The doctor’s uncontroverted evidence is that the scheduling of an early hearing may not be sufficiently timely to allow Ms. S. (R. R.) to move within the time limits required by many group homes, and she could lose an available bed.

40. The Board also notes that Ms. S. (R. R.) and her family require extensive psychoeducation to prevent the ongoing breaches of her no-contact provision. It is very disturbing and inappropriate that the onus is on the victim of the Index Offences to leave the residence when Ms. S. (R. R.) visits. It does not require a big stretch of imagination to conclude that the reason he leaves when she visits is that her presence triggers in him the trauma he experienced during the Index Offences. The treatment team, the staff at the Clarke Centre, and staff at any future accommodation must be made aware of the seriousness of any breaches of the no-contact provision and take steps to prevent them.

41. As stated in Kipusi (Re) 2024 ONCA 795, at par 8: "There is clearly a need for the Hospital to approve what accommodation is appropriate for Mr. Kipusi as his needs, treatment and his outlook progresses."

42. Ms. S. (R. R.)’s needs and wishes are to reside in Windsor. The treatment team agrees that such a move is necessary for her reintegration into society and her other needs.

43. The breaches of her no-contact prohibition can only be safely monitored and enforced under a Detention Disposition. Neither the MHA, nor the request for the police to enforce a breach under a Conditional Discharge, would be sufficient to protect public safety. A visit to the family home can happen quickly and without any warning.

44. In conclusion, the reality of the situation is that the least onerous and least restrictive Disposition is as set out in our formal Disposition.

45. The Board hopes that intensive and continuing psychoeducation of both Ms. S. (R. R.) and her family will prevent any further breaches of the no-contact prohibition. It also hopes that staff at any accommodation will be made aware of this issue and take the appropriate steps to ensure full compliance of this very liberal Detention Order. We recognize the importance of maintaining a parent-child relationship whenever circumstances are safe to do so.

46. For the reasons set out above, the Board finds that the necessary and appropriate, least onerous and least restrictive Disposition is in these circumstances is a Detention Order, upon the terms set out in our formal

47. In consideration of all the evidence, submissions of the parties and criteria set forth in s. 672.54, the paramount consideration being the safety of the public, in addition to the mental condition of Ms. S. (R. R.), her reintegration into society and her other needs, the necessary and appropriate Disposition is to continue with a Detention Order, with the amendments set out in our formal Disposition.

DATED this 27th day of February 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.

Mr. J. Weinstein Alternate Chairperson Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board