Ontario Review Board

Re: Francesc Ransford

ORB File No: 5648/7529

Hearing held on: Wednesday, January 14, 2026

Place of Hearing: Brockville Mental Health Centre

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

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. P Capelle

Members: Dr. Y. Alatishe

Dr. P. Wright

Mr. K. McKenna

Ms. R. MacIntyre

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Francesc Ransford

Counsel: Mr. M. Bird

The person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. J. Gray

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. C. Breault

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated February 25, 2026)

Introduction

1. On June 25^th, 2010, Francesc Ransford, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on two charges of utter a threat to cause death or bodily harm, one charge each of mischief not exceeding $5,000, carrying a concealed weapon, and possession of weapon for a dangerous purpose, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“the Criminal Code”). On April 17^th, 2019, Mr. Ransford, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on a charge of utter a threat to cause death or bodily harm, contrary to the Criminal Code.

2. Mr. Ransford is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated February 4^th, 2025, detaining him within the Forensic Program of the Brockville Mental Health Centre (“BMHC”) with privileges up to and including to live in the community, including Ottawa, in accommodation approved by the person in charge of the hospital.

3. On January 14, 2026, the Ontario Review Board (“the ORB” or “the Board”) convened a hearing at the BMHC pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. The annual review for Mr. Ransford was held in person. The hospital was represented by Dr. Gray, the Attorney General by Ms. Breault and Mr. Ransford by Mr. Bird.

Without Prejudice Position of the Parties

4. At the outset of the hearing, Dr. Gray, on behalf of the Hospital, recommended a continuation of the current detention disposition with no changes. That recommendation was supported by Ms. Breault for the Attorney General and by Mr. Bird for Mr. Ransford. The hearing therefore proceeded by way of a joint position that was maintained in closing submissions.

Index Offences

5. The nature of the allegations giving rise to the charges on the index offences is described in last year’s Reasons for Disposition as follows:

“File No. 5648

According to the police report, on April 11, 2010, the police were dispatched to the Cornwall Community Hospital (McConnell site), in regard to a patient who was threatening a doctor and was out of control. On arrival, the police officer was advised that the situation had calmed down and the male was under control. The officer advised that the male had made threats to harm and kill hospital staff. As the officer approached the male, the latter reportedly stated to the officer, ‘I have a weapon,’ and slowly lifted the left side of his shirt to reveal a black handle approximately 4 to 6 inches long sticking out of the waistband of his pants. The male began pulling out the item revealing a long sort of blade approximately 5 to 7 inches long which the officer observed to be a knife. As the officer took a few steps back and placed his hand on his gun, which remained in the holster, while directing the male to drop the knife, the male complied immediately dropping the knife and backing up to sit on the bed. While being handcuffed, he began crying and then kept repeating, ‘Just shoot me in the head.’ He was searched and a Swiss Army knife was found in his right pants pocket. He began talking about possibly killing nurses and doctors. He was observed to be jumping sporadically between subjects ranging from hearing voices from God, to who he planned on killing. The officer was of the opinion that Mr. Ransford wished to end his life because of his statements indicating that he would not be around for his 29^th birthday and that he wanted to kill himself the right way so he would be quick. The officer observed a scrape and some dried blood on the back of Mr. Ransford’s heel and on questioning, Mr. Ransford indicated he had broken Dr. Manigat’s front window. Mr. Ransford, in response to a question as to why he had attended at Dr. Manigat’s residence, stated that he was trying to find Mrs. Manigat who he believed was responsible for harassing him and his now deceased mother when they lived in Montreal. When asked why he was carrying a knife with him, he responded that he did not want the enemy to see it until the last minute when it was too late. He identified the enemy as ‘Dr. Manigat.’ The police subsequently contacted Dr. Manigat who at the time was in Montreal. It was discovered that a window had indeed been broken, but the house had not been entered. Mr. Ransford was detained at the Cornwall Community Hospital and sent on a Form 1 under the Mental Health Act of Montreal to Brockville for a Psychiatric Assessment.

File No. 7529:

On December 19 (2018), Cornwall police were contacted by the Cornwall Community Hospital in regards to a man with a knife. Hospital staff reported that he was unruly in the Emergency Department, smoking a cigarette. When approached by staff, the accused told them he had a knife on him. When police arrived at the Emergency Room, the accused was laughing “hysterically” and was making quick movements. In his seat Dr. Heseltine was also trying to calm him down. The accused spoke about his army experience and violence. He threatened the doctor that he was going to stab or kill somebody.

Constable Wheeler withdrew his firearm and Constable Menard withdrew his taser and pointed it at the accused and gave him clear instructions to stand up and show his hands. He was arrested under the Mental Health Act.

When Dr. Heseltine was later questioned by police, he reported that the accused had stated he was going to eventually kill somebody and might possibly kill Dr. Neseltine. He then asked him if he had a wife and children. The accused told Dr. Heseltine that his family would be sad when he kills him.”

Current Diagnoses

• Schizoaffective disorder, Bipolar type

• Alcohol use disorder, mild

• Antisocial Personality disorder

• Cannabis use disorder, moderate

Evidence at Hearing

6. The Board admitted into evidence the Hospital Report dated December 17^th, 2025, as Exhibit No. 1. That document provides a great deal of information concerning Mr. Ransford’s personal history, mental health history as well as his course in hospital and in the community both prior to and subsequent to the index offences. As the Hospital Report was made an Exhibit, it’s unnecessary to reproduce the information contained therein in these Reasons.

7. In addition to the documentary evidence the Board heard from Dr. Jonathan Gray. Dr. Gray advised that Mr. Ransford has had another year without physical or verbal aggression. Mr. Ransford’s insight is categorized as relatively good as he appreciates that medication assists his mental health. Olanzapine was added to treat residual manic symptoms with good effect. He now sleeps better, and impulsivity has diminished.

8. Responding to questions from Ms. Breault, Dr. Gray confirmed that in April of 2025, upon his return to hospital, Mr. Ransford admitted to staff that he had consumed beer while at a local eatery, purchased some cannabis edibles and then shoplifted “gummy bears” from Walmart.

9. On January 2^nd, upon his return to hospital, Mr. Ransford advised staff that he had had a Bailey’s Irish Cream in a pub. As a result, he was confined to hospital until his next status review which occurs every 21 days.

10. Dr. Gray does not perceive the aforementioned April 2025 or January 2026 incidents as self-sabotaging, noting that the two occurrences in the community took place during the 20 to 30 passes that Mr. Ransford exercised in the past year. Dr. Gray described Mr. Ransford as passive with regard to a future transition to the community.

11. A week prior to this hearing a female member of the cleaning staff was touched on the shoulder by Mr. Ransford. He told her that he was renting a hotel room which made her feel uncomfortable.

12. The incidents identified in the preceding paragraphs have made it difficult to consider transitioning Mr. Ransford to a group home at this time.

13. To his credit, Mr. Ransford has started participating in a number of groups as listed at page 106 of the Hospital Report:

“He was successful in completing the Controlling your Anger and Learning to Manage (CALM) group in March 2025 as well as the Stress Management group in August 2025.”

14. Responding to questions from Mr. Bird, Dr. Gray categorized his patient’s ingestion of alcohol in the community as impulsive, rather than a response to cravings. This is because the events appeared to be random. Dr. Gray confirmed that his patient is well aware that there is a prohibition against using alcohol in his disposition which is why he admits to it upon his return to hospital.

Closing Observations

15. All parties chose to rely on the evidence of Dr. Gray and had no further comments when given the opportunity to make closing submissions/observations.

Analysis and Decision

(a) Significant Threat

16. Ongoing significant threat to the safety of the public cannot be speculative. It must entail a real risk of serious physical or psychological harm arising from conduct that is both serious and criminal in nature.

17. In determining whether Mr. Ransford continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public the Board carefully analyzed the evidence as it relates to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Winko, 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625.

18. Notwithstanding Mr. Ransford’s excellent insight into his illness as well as the ongoing need for treatment he remains a significant threat. This determination relies upon the Risk Assessment Considerations outlined at page 107 of the Hospital Report and reproduced below for ease of reference:

Historical items of relevance on the HCR-20 Version 3 risk assessment instrument remain the same and include past violence, other antisocial behaviour, relationships, employment, substance use, major mental disorder, violent attitudes and treatment response.

19. Therefore, this panel of the Board unanimously finds that Mr. Ransford continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public. In arriving at this determination, the Board considered the joint position of the parties and accepted the uncontroverted evidence of Dr. Gray that Mr. Ransford continues to pose a significant threat.

20. The Board therefore accepts that absent an ORB Disposition, Mr. Ransford would likely become non-compliant with prescribed medications which would lead to decompensation, the use of substances and the re-emergence of behaviours similar to those seen at the time of the index offences. We are satisfied that absent an ORB Disposition, it is likely that Mr. Ransford will cause serious physical or psychological harm to members of the public and such conduct will likely be criminal in nature.

(b) Disposition

21. Flowing from the Board’s finding that Mr. Ransford continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public it must shape a Disposition for the year ahead. Its paramount consideration in doing so must be the safety of the public while also considering Mr. Ransford’s needs pursuant to s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

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

23. To his credit, Mr. Ransford has again demonstrated his ability to abstain from any sort of verbal or physical aggression. Likely as a result of the addition of Olanzapine his impulsivity has diminished and he reports better sleep.

24. In considering Mr. Ransford’s needs, the Board was attentive to the incident that occurred in April of 2025 as well as the two incidents from January 2026. Two of the three incidents involved the consumption of alcohol during the exercise of indirect community passes. All of the aforementioned incidents substantiate that Mr. Ransford remains subject to the appropriate disposition and confirms the continued need for forensic oversight subject to the terms and conditions of his existing Detention Order.

Conclusion

25. Therefore, the Board unanimously determines that the necessary and appropriate Disposition required to manage the threat Mr. Ransford poses to the safety of the public while still meeting his needs, is a Detention Disposition.

26. In making this Disposition, the Board carefully considered the positions and submissions of the parties and the evidence of Dr. Gray and is satisfied that this determination is both necessary and appropriate. The Board reviewed the provisions of s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code and carefully considered the need to protect the public from dangerous persons, Mr. Ransford’s mental condition, his reintegration into society and other needs.

DATED this 25^th day of February, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

Mr. P. Capelle Alternate Chairperson

__________________

Office of the Registrar

Ontario Review Board