Ontario Review Board
Re: Zachary Houle
ORB File No: 8601
Hearing held on: Thursday, January 8, 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. D. D’Intino
Ms. K. Brisson
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Zachary Houle
Counsel: Mr. M. Ertel
The person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. F. Wood
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. J. Wright
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated February 20, 2026)
Introduction
On July 31, 2024, Mr. Zachary Houle was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, on charges of assault causing bodily harm contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”).
Mr. Houle is subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”), dated January 7, 2025, which ordered that he be discharged from the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre (“ROMHC”) subject to several conditions.
On January 8, 2026, a panel of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB”) convened in person and a hearing was held at the ROMHC. The purposes of the hearing were to determine if Mr. Houle continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in the Criminal Code of Canada, and if so, the necessary and appropriate disposition.
For the reasons set out below, the Board unanimously finds that Mr. Houle no longer meets the threshold for significant threat to the safety of the public and that he is therefore entitled to an absolute discharge.
Current Psychiatric Diagnoses:
Schizophrenia
Autism Spectrum Disorder
Index Offences:
- The facts giving rise to the index offences were set out in last year’s Reasons for Disposition and are summarized as follows:
“The Crown Disclosure indicated that on August 10, 2022, Mr. Houle was taken by paramedics to the Emergency Department at The General Hospital and admitted under a Form 1. On August 11, 2022, the nurse entered the room to conduct a Covid-19 test on Mr. Houle. After the test, Mr. Houle stood up, grabbed the nurse by the neck and punched her in the head while he pushed her toward the wall. He then grabbed her from behind, pushed her face first into an adjacent wall, and continued to strike her in the back. The nurse’s head hits and bounces off the wall, and she falls to the floor. Security went into the room and restrained Mr. Houle until the police arrived.
The nurse received medical treatment and was told that she sustained a concussion. Once police arrived, they arrested Mr. Houle, and he was charged with one count of assault causing bodily harm.”
Without Prejudice Positions of the Parties:
At the commencement of the hearing, the parties were canvassed for their initial positions.
The Hospital took the position that Mr. Houle no longer meets the threshold for significant threat to the safety of the public and is therefore entitled to an absolute discharge.
Counsel for the Attorney General anticipated supporting the Hospital’s position.
Counsel for the accused also supported the Hospital’s position and thus the Board was presented with a joint submission.
Evidence at the Hearing:
The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence from Dr. F. Wood.
By way of update to the Hospital Report, Dr. Wood testified that Mr. Houle had a positive year. He continued to work with Dr. Mamane and engaged in therapeutic programming such as the “Feeling Safe” group. The team (and the patient) found noticeable gains from that group.
Mr. Houle experienced some significant stressors this past year, such as his father’s illness and being the victim of an attempted robbery and yet, he was able to tolerate them without any deterioration in his mental status or reemergence of psychotic symptoms.
Mr. Houle has maintained full-time employment with the government; he has continued with his other activities and maintained his social connections with peers and colleagues.
Dr. Wood further testified that Mr. Houle has not returned any positive urine drug screens (UDS), has been medication compliant and has not experienced any fluctuations in his mental stability. As such, Dr. Wood opined that Mr. Houle presents a “limited to no risk to public safety”.
Dr. Wood explained that Mr. Houle intends to continue working with Dr. Mamane in the schizophrenia clinic. He is described as possessing “good” insight into his mental illness and need for medication and treatment.
In response to questions from the Crown, Dr. Wood replied that while last year there was some concern about whether Mr. Houle’s medications would become ineffective over time, however, this has not been the case.
Dr. Wood further testified that the skills learned by Mr. Houle in the “Feeling Safe” group have been instrumental in dealing with some of his residual psychotic symptoms, which Dr. Wood explained will likely never full go away, even with medication. These residual auditory hallucinations are considered to be tolerable symptoms
In response to questions from the Panel, Dr. Wood stated that he was not concerned about any medication non-compliance on the part of Mr. Houle because his medications are all orally administered. Mr. Houle has a long-standing history of medication compliance, even prior to his NCR finding, and he recognizes the benefits of taking that medication for him. Dr. Wood does not believe that Mr. Houle would simply stop taking his medications on his own accord.
Dr. Wood further testified that while Mr. Houle has graduated from the “Feeling Safe” group, he will be a candidate for booster sessions going forward, which will keep his coping skills sharp through practice. Dr. Wood explained that Mr. Houle really enjoyed this group and was disappointed when it ended in the first place.
Dr. Wood opined that the main reason Mr. Houle’s risk assessment has changed drastically since last year is because of the skills he gained from the “Feeling Safe” group, which he has put into practice in this past year during stressful situations.
In response to a concern the Board raised about how quickly Mr. Houle has progressed through the forensic system and to a potential absolute discharge, Dr. Wood highlighted that Mr. Houle has not required any forensic interventions while under the Board and has done very well with the outpatient schizophrenia program, to the point where the team feels that any risk he poses to the public can be safely managed under the schizophrenia outpatient program and the provisions of the Mental Health Act.
Finally, Dr. Wood testified that Dr. Mamane has expressed a willingness to continue to see Mr. Houle on an outpatient basis through the schizophrenia program and continue to connect him with booster sessions through the “Feeling Safe” program.
He summarized his recommendation for an absolute discharge by highlighting the facts that Mr. Houle has not presented any management issues over the past year, has experienced no decompensation in his mental status and has excellent therapeutic relationships with community-based and outpatient services.
At the conclusion of the evidence, the parties maintained a joint submission with respect to the recommendation for an absolute discharge.
Analysis and Conclusions
Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence as well as the submissions from the parties, the Board finds that Mr. Houle no longer meets the threshold for significant threat to the safety of the public and finds that he is therefore entitled to an absolute discharge.
Beginning by addressing the issue of significant threat, a 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.
In determining whether Mr. Houle represents a significant threat to the safety of the public, the Board has 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 and the definition of the term in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code.
Mr. Houle suffers from schizophrenia, which appears to be well controlled by his antipsychotic medication and the coping skills he has learned and practiced in the “Feeling Safe” program. There have been no issues of medication non-compliance, verbal or physical aggression or other areas of concern in relation to Mr. Houle.
Mr. Houle has been residing in the community for at least two years without issues, has been working collaboratively with his treatment team, has been working full-time in the community, while also engaging in therapeutic programming.
Both the Hospital Report and the testimony of Dr. Wood were clear that Mr. Houle has benefitted greatly from the “Feeling Safe” program and has put his learned skills to use in order to cope with significant stressors in the past reporting year.
The Hospital Report further outlines how Mr. Houle has developed good insight into his mental illness and his symptoms, and in part due to the skills he learned in “Feeling Safe” he did not develop a reemergence of psychotic symptoms despite the significant stressor he faced this year.
It also discusses how Mr. Houle has been volunteering at his church doing IT work, attending Alcoholics Anonymous on a weekly basis and working full-time with the Federal Government at CATSA.
According to the Hospital Report, the most recent HCR-20 V.3 risk assessment assesses him as presenting a low risk of future violence.
In summary, the Panel independently finds that there was uncontradicted evidence on the record which supports the joint recommendation of the parties – that Mr. Houle no longer meets the threshold of presenting a significant threat to the safety of the public and therefore, he is entitled in law to an absolute discharge.
The Panel wishes to congratulate Mr. Houle on his remarkable progress over the past few years, and we hope for nothing but the best for him going forward.
DATED this 20th day of February 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. D. D’Intino
Legal Member
__________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board