Re Kenneth D. Brown, 2026 CanLII 15133

Ontario Review Board

Re: Kenneth D. Brown

File No: 8883

Hearing held on: Wednesday, November 26, 2025

Place of Hearing: Brockville Mental Health Centre

Pursuant to: Sections 672.47(1) and 672.48(1) of the Criminal Code

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. P. Capelle

Members: Dr. P. Darby

Dr. A. Gibas

Ms. M. Chamberlain

Ms. R. Chopra

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Kenneth D. Brown

Counsel: Ms. N. Bedar

The person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. R. Linthorst

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. K. Schultz

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated February 24, 2026)

Introduction

1. On October 2, 2025, the accused, Kenneth Brown, was found unfit to stand trial on account of mental disorder on charges of Uttering Threats - Cause death or Bodily Harm, and Mischief over $5,000, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”). At the time of the finding of unfit, the Honourable Court did not make a Disposition and referred the matter to the Ontario Review Board.

2. On November 26th, 2025, the Board convened at the Brockville Mental Health Centre, hereinafter referred to as the Hospital, to conduct Mr. Brown’s initial hearing. Mr. Brown attended via Zoom and was represented by counsel, Ms. Nemee Bedar. Also in attendance was Mr. Brown’s mother, Christina Brown who was supported by a support worker from Victim Services and Dr. Allison Leeming.

3. The purpose of the hearing was to determine if Mr. Brown remains unfit to stand trial and is a significant threat to the safety of the public, and if so, the necessary and appropriate disposition having regard to the criteria set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code. A Hospital Report dated November 9th, 2025, was entered as Exhibit No. 1.

Preliminary Matters

4. Mr. Brown attended the hearing by zoom, however, left partway through the hearing. Ms. Bedar, counsel for Mr. Brown, advised the panel that she was comfortable proceeding with the hearing. Mr. Brown’s presence was therefore excused per s. 672.5 (10) (a) of the Criminal Code.

Positions of the Parties

5. Dr. Linthorst appeared as the Hospital’s representative and stated the Hospital’s position that Mr. Brown remains unfit to stand trial. Further, Dr. Linthorst stated that if the Board finds Mr. Brown unfit, the Hospital is requesting a Detention Order with certain privileges and prohibitions. This position was supported by Mr. Schultz, on behalf of the Attorney General. Ms. Bedar stated that Mr. Brown was also in agreement with the Hospital’s position.

6. The Board noted that the condition requiring Mr. Brown to remain within 200 km of the Hospital would allow him to travel outside the province of Ontario and questioned whether the conditions should state that Mr. Brown be required to remain within Ontario when in the community. All parties agreed with this addition to the recommended conditions.

Index Offences

7. The circumstances surrounding the charges on the index offences is set out in the hospital report and summarized as follows:

“The accused Kenneth Brown resides at 9 Sunset Boulevard with his mother, Christina Brown. Police have previous reports of Kenneth being violent towards Christina. This includes an incident where Kenneth was observed putting Christina into a headlock in a Tim Horton's drive through. Christina has never elected to lay charges against Kenneth. Neighbors have previously called police fearful for Christina's safety due to Kenneth's behavior. Kenneth is reported to suffer from significant mental health concerns and has previously been apprehended in an apparent psychotic. Kenneth is reported not to have taken any medication for nine months.

On June 13, 2025, at about 4:00 pm Kenneth returned home with Christina. For an unknown reason Kenneth became upset and broke the front bay window of the residence and the glass on the front door. Kenneth then proceeded to break numerous items in the living room, including flipping over couches, breaking cabinets, and pictures frames. Items were strewn all over the floor. Kenneth proceeded to the basement where he broke more picture frames, scattering the glass on the floor.

Police attended and located Kenneth in a downstairs bathroom. Kenneth refused to exit and negotiations were needed, but Kenneth would not speak with police. At 5:15pm Kenneth exited the bathroom and was arrested without issue. Kenneth would not answer police questions. Kenneth was placed in the back of a police vehicle.

At about 5: 19pm opened the door of the police vehicle to read Kenneth his charter rights and standard caution. Police observed Kenneth looking out the window at other police officers stating, "you're all dead". When police asked Kenneth what he was talking about he stated he was going to kill all the police officers and their families. Police then read Kenneth his standard caution and charter rights, but he refused to answer any questions. Kenneth was transported to the Brockville police station. On the way to the police station Kenneth could be heard speaking to an unknown person asking them to save him. Kenneth would not answer any police questions but mostly followed police direction. Once in his cells Kenneth apologized to police stating that he no longer wanted to hurt anyone and that he didn't know he was in a world war.

Christina did not assist with the police investigation, however due to Kenneth's behavior and history of violence towards Christina police believed there was a significant safety risk to Christina. Kenneth appeared to be suffering a psychotic episode: he was responding on unseen or unheard stimuli, he had delusional beliefs, he had a lack of self­care, and had a recent withdrawal from his usual activities. Police therefore request that Kenneth be held in custody for the purposes of a mental health assessment and that this matter be referred to mental health court.”

Current Diagnoses

• Schizophrenia, Continuous

• Autism Spectrum Disorder

• Obsessive Compulsive Disorder - By History Generalized

• Anxiety Disorder - By History

Evidence at the Hearing

8. The Board admitted into evidence a number of documents, most of which had been filed in the criminal proceeding. The Board also admitted into evidence the Hospital Report dated November 9, 2025. The Hospital Report provides a great deal of information concerning Mr. Brown, his personal history, his mental health history, details of many prior admissions to mental health hospitals, details of many prior criminal convictions and Mr. Brown’s course in hospital subsequent to the date of the finding of unfitness. As the Hospital Report was made an exhibit in this hearing it is not necessary to reproduce the information in the Hospital Report in these Reasons.

9. The Board also received direct testimony from Dr. Rhys Linthorst, Mr. Brown’s treating psychiatrist. He is the author of the Hospital Report. At the hearing, Dr. Linthorst adopted the content of the Hospital Report and updated the Board that, in his opinion, Mr. Brown remained unfit. He noted that Mr. Brown had presented over the previous two months with severe symptoms of psychosis and catatonia. He had had very few interviews with very limited communication with Mr. Brown. Dr. Linthorst felt that Mr. Brown would not be able to communicate with counsel.

10. Dr. Linthorst informed the Board that Mr. Brown has remained an inpatient at the Hospital with very marked psychoses. He has continued to have delusions that there are nefarious forces acting against him. He jumps from one idea to the next when speaking with staff but also continues to experience catatonia. Mr. Brown has required prolonged seclusion due to some sexually inappropriate behaviour.

11. Dr. Linthorst stated that Mr. Brown’s risk under secure Hospital conditions would be low to moderate however, if he were to be released into the community, his risk would be elevated.

12. It remained unclear to Dr. Linthorst whether Mr. Brown would be able to understand the nature of court proceedings. Mr. Brown has asked the doctor and Hospital staff where he was and had been told that he was in the hospital. Mr. Brown has been unable to remember this basic information so it is unlikely that he would be able to retain information about the court process.

13. Mr. Brown has improved slightly during his time in hospital. Initially, Mr. Brown would not even acknowledge questions about what food he would like to eat. He was now able to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ when offered food.

14. Dr. Linthorst felt that it was possible that Mr. Brown would return to fitness in the coming year. Mr. Brown has been compliant with oral medications as long as it is crushed into other food items. The Hospital was hoping to transition him to a long-acting injection and add Clozapine. The doctor noted that Mr. Brown’s mother was his substitute decision maker and was supportive of the Hospital’s treatment recommendations.

15. Dr. Linthorst stated that the Hospital hoped that, with time and with treatment, Mr. Brown would become even more communicative. The treatment team would like to try him on Clozapine and hopefully Mr. Brown’s symptoms could be more well managed. Mr. Brown could then go back to pro-social activities and groups. The doctor felt that community living was a possibility in the coming year if Mr. Brown engaged well with the treatment team and benefited from medication.

16. In response to questions from Ms. Bedar, Dr. Linthorst explained that Mr. Brown had only recently begun to speak and be responsive to what the doctor was saying at times. He was able to communicate around food for example, but these interactions got derailed very quickly. He could have very short periods where he could have organized conversation but would then shout at Hospital staff or tell them to be careful. He did not recognize Dr. Linthorst as his doctor and had very limited ability to think about why he was in the Hospital. The doctor had provided education to Mr. Brown about this, but he had not been able to recall this education at subsequent visits.

17. In response to questions from the Board, Dr. Linthorst explained that he had not been able to ask Mr. Brown all of the Taylor test questions due to his significant thought disorder. The doctor noted that Mr. Brown did not understand that he was in the Hospital or in Brockville and therefore would not be able to understand the Taylor test questions. During some meetings with Mr. Brown, he would not answer any questions from Dr. Linthorst but would just stare at the wall. Mr. Brown did not have any reality-based understanding of the court process or any day-to-day practices occurring around him.

18. The parties presented no further evidence.

Submissions of the Parties

19. At the conclusion of the hearing Dr. Linthorst elected not to make any closing submissions. Mr. Schultz submitted that the Crown continued to join with the Hospital in the position that Mr. Brown remained unfit and that the appropriate disposition was a detention order.

20. Counsel for Mr. Brown also remained in agreement with the Hospital’s position. Counsel noted that Mr. Brown had made improvements since arriving at the Hospital and was now able to say yes or no when offered foods. Ms. Bedar expressed hope that her client would continue to improve in the coming year.

Conclusions and Disposition

1. The Board accepts the evidence of Dr. Linthorst, and the evidence contained in the Hospital Report. In particular, we accept Dr. Linthorst’s evidence that Mr. Brown is unfit to stand trial. We note that the doctor has not been able to successfully interview Mr. Brown with respect to the Taylor test questions. Mr. Brown has only recently begun to be responsive to Dr. Linthorst, but his thinking becomes disorganized very quickly and he does not understand that Dr. Linthorst is his doctor, or that he is in a hospital.

2. We also accept Dr. Linthorst’s evidence that detention at Brockville Mental Health Centre is both necessary and warranted. We also note Dr. Linthorst’s evidence that there has been a slight improvement since Mr. Brown’s admission to the Hospital. We accept the possibility that with ongoing treatment and education Mr. Brown may become fit to stand trial within the next reporting period. We note, however, that at the present time Mr. Brown represents a significant threat to public safety, thus detention at the Hospital is both necessary and appropriate. The panel is in agreement with the following prohibitions and conditions as recommended in the Hospital Report:

(a) to attend within or outside of the hospital for necessary medical, dental, legal, or compassionate purposes;

(b) hospital and grounds privileges, escorted by staff;

(c) hospital and grounds privileges, accompanied by staff or a person approved by the person in charge;

(d) hospital and grounds privileges, indirectly supervised;

(e) to enter the community of Ottawa and Brockville, escorted by staff;

(f) to enter the community of Ottawa and Brockville, accompanied by staff or a person approved by the person in charge;

(g) to enter the community of Ottawa and Brockville, indirectly supervised;

(h) to enter the community of Ottawa and Brockville, within 200 kilometres of the hospital, escorted by staff;

(i) to enter the community of Ottawa and Brockville, within 200 kilometres of the hospital, accompanied by staff or a person approved by the person in charge;

(j) to enter the community of Ottawa and Brockville, within 200 kilometres of

the hospital, indirectly supervised, within Ontario;

(k) passes for up to 7 days to enter the community of Ontario, escorted by staff;

(l) passes for up to 7 days to enter the community of Ontario, accompanied by staff or a person approved by the person in charge;

(m) passes for up to 7 days to enter the community of Ontario indirectly supervised, itinerary approved;

(n) travel passes for up to 7 days, upon first obtaining approval of his itinerary by the person in charge, or his or her designate, to travel to Ottawa and Brockville, escorted by staff;

(o) travel passes for up to 7 days, upon first obtaining approval of his itinerary by the person in charge, or his or her designate, to travel to Ottawa and Brockville, accompanied by staff or a person approved by the person in charge;

(p) travel passes for up to 7 days, upon first obtaining approval of his itinerary by the person in charge, or his or her designate, to travel to Ottawa and Brockville, indirectly supervised; and

(q) to live in accommodation approved by the person in charge.

2. That the person in charge of the Brockville Mental Health Centre:

(a) notify the local police at such times as he or she exercises his or her discretion to permit the accused to enter the community and to advise the local police of the terms and conditions under which he or she permitted the accused to do so pursuant to term 2 of this Disposition.

3. That the accused:

(a) abstain absolutely from the non-medical use of drugs or any other intoxicant (other than alcohol);

(b) submit samples of his urine and/or breath to the person in charge of the Brockville Mental Health Centre or his or her designate for the purpose of analyzing whether the accused has ingested drugs or any other intoxicant;

(c) refrain from having in his possession any firearm, ammunition or other offensive weapon, or being in the company of any person possessing a firearm other than a peace officer;

(d) when living in the community, report to the person in charge of the Brockville Mental Health Centre or his or her designate not less than once every 3 weeks;

(e) travel passes for up to 3 weeks, upon first obtaining approval of his itinerary by the person in charge, or his or her designate, to travel internationally, accompanied by staff or a person approved by the person in charge; and

(f) upon notice, attend before the Ontario Review Board as required.

4. In reaching our Disposition, the Board has taken into consideration public safety, Mr. Brown’s mental condition and his other needs, and Mr. Brown’s reintegration into society.

DATED this 24th day of February, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

Ms. M. Chamberlain

Legal Member

Office of the Registrar

Ontario Review Board