Ontario Review Board
Re: Chelsea Eileen Kemp
ORB File No: 8623
Hearing held on: Tuesday, January 27, 2026
Place of hearing: Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care 401 Sunset Drive, St. Thomas
Pursuant to: Sections 672.48(1) and 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. R. Bigelow
Members: Dr. J. M. Bradford Dr. L. O. Lightfoot Ms. K. Tomaszewski Ms. C. Plyley
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Chelsea E. Kemp Counsel: Mr. C.P. Dobson
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
On September 13, 2025, the accused, Chelsea Kemp, was found unfit to stand trial on account of mental disorder on Criminal Code of Canada charges of two counts of assault, fail to comply with probation order and resist arrest, all arising in connection with a series of events occurring on May 12, 2024.
Ms. Kemp is currently subject to the terms and conditions of a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”), dated February 5, 2026. Pursuant to this Disposition, she is detained at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care, St. Joseph's Health Care London (“Southwest” or the “hospital”). This Disposition provides her with various privileges, including to live in Southwestern Ontario or Southern Ontario, in 24-7 supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge of the Southwest Centre.
On January 27, 2026, the ORB convened a hearing at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care (“the Southwest Centre” or “the Hospital”) to review the issue of whether Ms. Kemp continued to be unfit to stand trial and, if so, determine the necessary and appropriate Disposition to manage her care over the coming year. Ms. Kemp was present at the hearing and represented by her lawyer, Mr. C. Dobson.
The Board received into evidence a Hospital Report dated November 10, 2025, and the oral evidence of Dr. A. Malka, Ms. Kemp’s attending psychiatrist.
Positions of the Parties
- At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as to their respective without prejudice recommendations to the Board. All parties recommended that Ms. Kemp be found permanently unfit to stand trial. Ms. Zamprogna for the Hospital and Ms. Dalrymple for the Attorney General recommended that Ms. Kemp be subject to a detention disposition with no change to the terms and conditions set out in the current Disposition. Mr. Dobson indicated that he raised no opposition with respect to issue of the necessary and appropriate disposition. All parties maintained their initial recommendations in submissions. The Board therefore had before it a joint position.
Alleged Index Offences
- The following edited synopsis of the alleged index offences is excerpted from the Hospital Report:
On February 20, 2024, the accused was convicted of Public Disturbance and Resist Peace Officer in the Ontario Court of Justice in Stratford, Ontario. The accused was subsequently placed on probation for a period of 18 months. As per his [her] probation order, the accused is to abide by the conditions to keep the peace and be of good behavior.
On Sunday May 12, 2024, both victims in this matter CV and AH were sitting out of 62 Cawston in the parking lot. The accused walked on to the property yelling and swearing at seemingly no one. The accused is trespassed from the property so AH said to her as she walked towards them “You're not allowed to be here.” The accused continued to yell and entered the front entryway of 62 Cawston. AH entered as well and told the accused “Chelsea you can't be here.” The accused turned towards AH and began punching her multiple times with her right hand, making contact with her left cheek and chin. AH raised her right arm to attempt to block the assaults, the accused continued to throw punches hitting AH in the upper right arm and face until CV opened the door to see what the commotion was. The accused then turned and punched CV on the left side of the face also hitting her upper right arm.
The accused then walked off their property and continued North bound down Forman Avenue still yelling and screaming.
The accused was located by the police and was told she was under arrest and to put her hands behind her back. The accused actively resisted by walking running away from the officer. A second officer was required to affect the arrest where the accused continued to actively pull away from the officers.
On May 13, 2024, Ms. Kemp was admitted to the Elgin Middlesex Detention Centre (EMDC). On June 6, 2024, an assessment order was made to assess her fitness to stand trial and she was found unfit to stand trial for the first time on June 27, 2024. On June 27, 2024, a treatment order was made effective as of July 2, 2024, for 60 days to provide treatment and to once again assess Ms. Kemp’s fitness to stand trial. Accordingly, Ms. Kemp was admitted to assessment unit A3 at the Southwest Centre on July 2, 2024. On September 13, 2024, Ms. Kemp returned to court and was found unfit to stand trial. The warrant of committal ordered her to remain at the Southwest Centre pending an initial hearing by the Board. At a hearing by the Board on January 27, 2025, Ms. Kemp was found unfit to stand trial and made subject to a detention order, as described above.
Ms. Kemp remained on the treatment unit, A2, for the entirety of the reporting period under the psychiatric care of Dr. Ashley Malka.
Background
The Hospital Report provides a great deal of information concerning Ms. Kemp’s personal, developmental and mental health history, details of the alleged index offences, and her course following her admission to Hospital on September 13, 2024. Given that the Hospital Report was made an exhibit in this hearing, it is not necessary to reproduce in detail the information contained within it in these Reasons. The following background information is excerpted from the Board’s latest Reasons for Disposition, dated March 31, 2025.
Ms. Kemp was born with neurological damage. At age 7, she was diagnosed with a seizure disorder as a result of which she has been taking medication throughout her life. Reportedly, Ms. Kemp presented with behavioural problems from her mid-to-late adolescent years.
The Hospital Report relates that in August 2008, at around 15 years of age, Ms. Kemp was taken into Children Aid’s Society (CAS) care. She had several placements due to her behaviour which was characterized as violent and defiant. Records indicate that she was admitted to Southlake Regional Hospital for a psychiatric crisis assessment. In 2009, she required a specialized group home being Hatts Off. Due to her aggressive behaviour, she required 1:1 support for sixteen hours each day. Ms. Kemp’s needs exceeded her parents’ and stepfather’s ability to meet them and she became a crown ward of the CAS in 2009.
In July 2009, a psychological assessment conducted by Dr. Olga Henderson found that Ms. Kemp had sub-average functioning in most areas. In July 2012, when she was 18, another psychological assessment was conducted. The results indicated that delays were evident in language processing and social-emotional functioning. Ms. Kemp’s overall level of cognitive functioning measured by her Full-Scale I.Q. fell in the Extremely Low range at 1st percentile.
The assessment further indicated that:
The cognitive profile which emerges indicates that Chelsea [Ms. Kemp] has modest learning potential. Significant delays are seen in all areas of language processing. Chelsea's word knowledge is well below that of most age peers. She has limited ability to engage in abstract verbal reasoning. Her general background knowledge is quite weak. She misses a great deal of information that is presented to her through verbal means. She is extremely limited in her ability to draw inferences or make generalizations from verbal information.
Both psychological assessments – in 2009 and 2012 – indicated that her scores were consistent with a diagnosis of a mild intellectual disability.
Ms. Kemp’s adult psychiatric history consists of multiple encounters with mental health professionals, including attendances to Grand River Hospital, the Emergency Department of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), Stratford General Hospital and London Health Sciences Centre (Victoria Hospital Campus). Common themes giving rise to her emergency room attendances and brief hospitalizations included problems with mood (suicidality), substance use (including alcohol, cocaine, cannabis, amphetamines, methamphetamine and benzodiazepines). She very often became agitated and violent, and required physical and chemical restraint to control her aggression. Her behaviour was bizarre and disorganized, and at times her speech was incomprehensible. Diagnoses included substance-induced mood disorder, substance-induced psychotic disorder, and Schizophrenia. The record reveals a significant history of failure to adhere to treatment and follow-up. On several occasions she discharged herself early from hospital or eloped.
Over the years, Ms. Kemp’s care involved placement in group home settings and more recently a “foster model” of care. As of August 2024, Ms. Kemp had been under the care of group home provider “Hatts Off” for 10 years, during which period of time she had moved between Stratford, Kitchener, and Hamilton. Currently, her tenure within the Hatts Off program remains in place, pending the outcome of her current involvement in the forensic system.
Mention is made of Ms. Kemp’s previous involvement with Regional Support Associates but she consistently refused recommended supports, including psychiatric care and programs offered through Community Living. For several years her symptoms of Schizophrenia have worsened alongside increasing legal troubles, vulnerability, negative peer connections, and suspected involvement in sex for drugs. Caregivers have expressed increasing fear for her life due to her behaviours, lifestyle, drug use and comorbid brain issues.
In terms of her legal history, Ms. Kemp has an extensive history of involvement with the legal system between 2015 and 2024. Her convictions occupy fully three and a half pages of the Hospital Report and are set out at pp 4-7. Convictions include multiple counts of assault, mischief under, break and enter with intent, possession of property obtained by crime under $5000, assault with a weapon, cause disturbance and resist arrest. Notably, there are many convictions for failure to comply with probation orders, recognizances, and failure to appear for court. She is currently subject to several mandatory and discretionary weapons prohibitions, the most recent of which was made on December 16, 2019, for 10 years.
Ms. Kemp has a long-standing history of neurological and medical issues.
Developmentally, Ms. Kemp has a history of Global Developmental Delay. At one point, she was able to communicate effectively, directing her care and treatment and self-advocating, but her functional abilities have declined over the last five years, most markedly within the last three.
During her school years, Ms. Kemp required special education support. The Hospital Report does not indicate the level of education she was able to attain.
In the year 2000, an MRI revealed a number of abnormalities in the structure of her brain. An EEG conducted in 2012 reinforced the diagnosis made in 2000 of focal seizures with secondary generalization. Over the years, Ms. Kemp has been treated for her seizures with various anticonvulsants. She has demonstrated poor adherence to her medication regimen.
Ms. Kemp suffers from migraine headaches without aura. She tested positive for Hepatitis C which is reflective of her ongoing struggle with substance abuse (via injection) and associated health complications. Ms. Kemp’s drug use has led to erratic behaviour including staying awake four or five days at a time followed by crashes.
Ms. Kemp has spent most of her life in group homes. Historical assessments indicate that Ms. Kemp has higher support needs and requires a 24-hour supervised group home setting with behavioural supports.
Ms. Kemp’s relationships with intimate partners have been both physically and verbally abusive.
Financially, Ms. Kemp receives support from the Canada Pension Plan and the Ontario Disability Support Program.
Ms. Kemp’s primary personal support consists of her stepfather, who lives in Belleville, Ontario. In terms of community-based professional supports, Ms. Kemp’s former community workers from Developmental Services Ontario and Hatts Off have continued to maintain contact with Ms. Kemp.
Ms. Kemp is not capable of making treatment decisions relating to her mental health, nor is she capable of making financial decisions. Her substitute decision maker for both treatment and finances is the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT).
Diagnoses
Dr. Malka testified that Ms. Kemp’s diagnoses were revised during the reporting period as a result of medication optimization, and psychological assessment.
Since the date of the Hospital Report, lithium has been tapered off and paliperidone is being reduced with the goal of eliminating it, if this does not cause any destabilization. Dr. Malka has observed no symptoms of psychosis during the past year. In Dr. Malka’s opinion there is no evidence to support a diagnosis of schizophrenia spectrum disorder or other psychotic disorder, and these were removed from Ms. Kemps’ diagnoses. Dr. Malka told the Board that the psychotic symptoms observed in the community were likely associated with substance use.
Since decreasing the antipsychotic medication Ms. Kemp’s functioning has improved. She is brighter and more responsive and less sedated. Dr. Malka indicated that the antipsychotic medications had been reducing the seizure threshold causing Ms. Kemp to stare blankly and not respond to questions. Dr. Malka believes that the medication caused Ms. Kemp to be delirious much of the time, with Ms. Kemp lashing out because of discomfort and confusion.
Dr. Malka changed Ms. Kemp’s diagnosis from Mild Intellectual Disability to Moderate Intellectual Disability. Ms. Kemp was reassessed during the reporting period. The assessment indicated that Ms. Kemp has lost skills over time. Her intellectual deficits are more pronounced now, although her level of functioning has improved with the medication adjustments described above.
Dr. Malka testified that cognitive assessment and clinical experience of the staff indicate that Ms. Kemp’s “development age” is approximately age six.
Ms. Kemp is currently diagnosed with the following conditions:
(a) Moderate Intellectual Disability
(b) Polysubstance Use Disorder (methamphetamine, cocaine and cannabis), in early remissions within a controlled environment;
As noted above, Ms. Kemp has a seizure disorder. Dr. Malka indicated that the latest ECG indicated only one seizure since the previous ECG. Ms. Kemp’s neurologist believes that her seizure medications are currently optimized.
Fitness to Stand Trial
Evidence
Dr. Malka last assessed Ms. Kemp’s fitness to stand trial in October 2025, and at that time found her to be permanently unfit. Dr. Malka did not reassess fitness after that time because in Dr. Malka’s opinion Ms. Kemp is permanently unfit; and because Ms. Kemp finds the process of assessing fitness to stand trial very upsetting.
In September and October 2025, the Treatment Team met with Ms. Kemp weekly for fitness education, using one-on-one instruction based on her developmental level. Ms. Kemp was reluctant to participate and was unable to retain information.
Ms. Kemp is able to give definitions for the roles of some of the persons involved in the court process, but the responses are intermittent and Ms. Kemp would often change the topic to unrelated matters.
In Dr. Malka’s opinion, Ms. Kemp cannot understand the nature or object of the proceedings or their consequences. She is unable to rationally communicate, process information and answer questions or process information in a way that would allow her to meaningfully engage in the court process.
In Dr. Malka’s opinion, because of her developmental delay, Ms. Kemp is unable to develop these skills. Ms. Kemp’s fitness to stand trial cannot be remediated with education or medication.
In addition, Ms. Kemp does not have a reality-based understanding of why she is in the Hospital (i.e. because of fitness to stand trial for the alleged offences). She believes that she is in the Hospital because of substance use. Since she is not using substances, Ms. Kemp believes that she should be discharged from the Hospital.
As noted in the Hospital Report on pages 45-46:
Starting on September 12, 2025, Ms. Kemp engaged in weekly sessions focused on fitness to stand trial. Throughout the sessions, she demonstrated difficulty engaging and maintaining focus on the task at hand. The Direct Instruction (DI) model within an Applied Behaviour Analysis (ABA) framework was implemented to provide structured, systematic teaching with reinforcement strategies, including verbal praise for sustained attention. Instruction targeted foundational court concepts such as identifying the roles of the judge, crown attorney, and defense lawyer, understanding the meaning of a plea, and recognizing the sequence of a trial. Sessions emphasized repetition, clear routines, and practice responding to fitness-related questions (e.g., “What does a judge do?” and “Why do you need a lawyer?”), while monitoring comprehension and linking progress to community placement objectives. Despite these interventions, Ms. Kemp did not demonstrate meaningful insight into the forensic or court system. She continued to state that her hospitalization was solely related to substance use and believed that she should be discharged, because she had been abstinent of substances in the hospital.
By October 7, 2025, Ms. Kemp continued to appear confused about the purpose of fitness training and repeatedly redirected the conversation toward group home selection, requiring multiple firm prompts to remain on topic before engaging appropriately. Her cognitive limitations substantially impaired her ability to rationally communicate and participate meaningfully in interviews, including when discussing her legal situation. She was unable to identify her charges or the court process in any meaningful way. She was unable to consistently identify the roles of the various personnel in the courtroom, despite repetition. Ms. Kemp was unable to identify the possible consequences of her proceedings. She was unable to reliably articulate the plea options available to her or the related outcomes. Ms. Kemp understood that she had a lawyer but would be unable to communicate with counsel in any meaningful way or tolerate the courtroom environment. It is unlikely that she would be able to focus, or process and respond to questions.
Analysis and Conclusion
The legal framework for assessing fitness to stand trial has been most recently addressed by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Bharwani, 2025 SCC 26. The Court emphasized the need for meaningful participation in proceedings for an individual to be fit for trial. The Court also emphasized the need for a nuanced, contextual assessment of an accused’s abilities to conduct a defense or to instruct counsel to do so. The purpose of applying the criteria set out in s. 2 of the Criminal Code of Canada is to ensure that an accused can be meaningfully present and meaningfully participate at their trial. This includes, among other things, that an accused must have a reality-based understanding of the nature, object and possible consequences of the proceedings as well as the ability to make decisions and intelligibly communicate them to counsel or the court. In this regard, an accused need not have the analytical capacity to make decisions in their own best interests.
For the reasons set out below, in considering the legal test, and based on the expert evidence and opinions before it, the Board has no hesitation in finding that Ms. Kemp is permanently unfit to stand trial.
The Board accepts uncontroverted evidence of Dr. Malka, and the evidence set out in the Hospital Report, that Ms. Kemp’s intellectual disabilities and impaired cognitive functioning preclude her from having even a rudimentary understanding of the nature, object and possible consequences of the charges against her, the identity and role of the various participants in the court proceeding or to consistently communicate with counsel in such a way as to meaningfully assist in conducting her own defense or to participate in court proceedings.
The Board notes that Mr. Dobson, Ms. Kemp’s counsel, confirmed that his experience is consistent with Dr. Malka’s opinion.
Necessary and Appropriate Disposition
Ms. Kemp has had a very good year. Dr. Malka told the Board that the Treatment Team is very pleased with her progress this year.
To appreciate this progress, it is necessary to describe Ms. Kemp’s mental and behavioural baseline. The following is excerpted from the Hospital Report (pages 23 – 24):
After optimization of her medications, Ms. Kemp’s mental status remained at her baseline. Her behaviour was labile and unpredictable, and at times, aggressive. Her behaviours included limit testing and staff splitting, as well as violent and impulsive outbursts due to distress intolerance. As noted last reporting period, a behaviour plan was implemented upon her transfer to the treatment unit, and with clear expectations and consistent behaviour care planning, her behaviour improved, though fluctuated. One to one staff supervision was provided to maintain consistency. Her clinical presentation and treatment was complicated by the severity of her epilepsy, as well as her intellectual disability and significant history of trauma both in childhood and adulthood. Her limited understanding of her symptoms and mental illness was consistent with her intellectual disability.
… Ms. Kemp continued to experience agitation and dysregulation throughout the reporting period. She often postured, used profanity (e.g. “fuck you,” “fucking pussy”), and at times, violence. For example, on February 28, 2025, she pushed a staff member after the staff member attempted to search her room for food that she was not allowed to have per unit guidelines. Security was called and Ms. Kemp was cooperative, walking into the seclusion room without assistance. Seclusion was discontinued that day. In the latter part of the reporting period, there were no episodes of physical violence and agitation was limited to verbal aggression. Ms. Kemp frequently presented as irritable due to a variety of circumstances. For example, when staff set boundaries for her, when she was requested to attend a non-preferred activity, or when peers looked at or spoke to her. Her responses varied and included slamming her bedroom door, verbal aggression towards staff or peers (e.g. “you are ugly”), throwing objects towards staff (e.g. throwing a carton of milk or pop bottle), and blaming others (e.g. “they started it,” “they deserved it,” “I did not do anything”). At times, the seclusion space was utilized to allow Ms. Kemp to co-regulate with staff during incidents of aggression or severe agitation. Ms. Kemp appeared to be more irritable when she was experiencing pain or physical discomfort including dental pain, constipation, menstrual cramps, or back pain. In addition, during periods of low mood, often related to missing family or wanting to live in the community she became more easily irritable, although presented more tearful than agitated.
- Improvement began mid-reporting period, as described in the Hospital Report (pages 24-25):
Mid-reporting period, the team observed that Ms. Kemp had improved significantly due to decreased antipsychotic dosing and consistency with her behaviour plan. Her behaviour support plan (BSP) was introduced in early July 2025 in consultation with the hospital’s Advanced Behavioural Analyst. The behaviour protocol included a reinforcement system with a visual aid to help Ms. Kemp understand which behaviours would result in reinforcement (i.e. a reward) and which would not.
…In addition to the behaviour protocol, a safety plan was developed to provide Ms. Kemp’s support team with specific strategies for responding to behavioural escalations (e.g. swearing, yelling, property destruction).
In addition, her plan included one to one support from staff, and often that staff member was the hospital’s developmental service worker (DSW). Ms. Kemp had built a strong rapport with her DSW worker, and when the DSW worker was unavailable, Ms. Kemp had difficulty (e.g. she would become more intrusive with peers, there was an increase in behavioural and affective instability). Consistent staff members significantly improved Ms. Kemp’s behaviour, lability, and safety.
The treatment team continued to work with her to develop coping strategies for feelings of frustration and regulation of mood in general. Her movement was also more fluid, with less psychomotor slowing.
…Towards the end of the reporting period, Ms. Kemp showed signs of more irritability and mood dysregulation. This was primarily related to having different staff members as her one to one, which contributed to inconsistent enforcement of rules.
Dr. Malka told the Board that as of the hearing date, Ms. Kemp engages well with one-to-one staff. She benefits from consistency and can identify when a staff member is not familiar with her plan. She can tell the staff when they are not following the plan.
Ms. Kemp has begun to be able to communicate her feelings with staff before she acts out. She has engaged in emotional regulation programming. According to Dr. Malka, “she has come a long way and is doing well”.
Ms. Kemp is compliant with her medications and can identify that they make her feel better.
She is aware that substances aren’t good for her and shared during the hearing that they make her vomit. She does not want to use substances again.
Ms. Kemp has sufficient insight into the impact of substance use that she recognizes that she would be at risk if she returned to the same types of homes she has lived in previously.
In Dr. Malka’s opinion, Ms. Kemp is vulnerable to substance use relapse, especially if associating with negative peers.
Ms. Kemp has been attending half-day programs at Elgin Community Living with no issues with aggression in that setting. The number of days per week when she attends has been increasing slowly. As Dr. Malka was describing this program to the Board, Ms. Kemp volunteered, “I love it!”
According to D. Malka, the plan going forward is to arrange suitable housing, with one-to-one staff providing 24/7 supervision and support. The hope is that this will be available through DSO (Developmental Services Ontario) in the near future, although Dr. Malka urged Ms. Kemp to be patient as the Hospital arranges for this housing. The timeline is uncertain, based as it is on bed availability.
Hatts Off has been identified as unsuitable housing. Ms. Kemp disclosed that she had been sexually abused at a Hatts Off residence. This has been reported to the police.
In addition, the Re-Offence Scenario, set out at page 44 of the Hospital Report indicates that:
Absent forensic supervision, Ms. Kemp would return under the care of Hatts Off in a congregate setting. As she has historically done, she would engage in interpersonal conflict with peers or coresidents. This would then result in aggression, emotional outbursts, and instability. She would resume using substances and this would impact her mental status. Due to her lack of coping skills and cognitive limitations, she would resume engaging with negative peer connections and become vulnerable to sexual exploitation and substance use. Ms. Kemp would then display hostility and aggression towards group home staff and peers. She would display behaviours that were present at the time of the alleged index offence.
Analysis and Conclusion
Without one-to-one care by familiar staff, and without a consistently applied behavioural plan, Ms. Kemp engages in impulsive and aggressive behaviours that are challenging to manage, and which present a risk of harm to others.
In this regard, the Board relies upon the integrated risk assessment set out at p. 44 of the Hospital Report which concludes that:
When assessing Ms. Kemp’s integrated risk, she presents as a moderate risk of violent reoffending over the next reporting year under a detention disposition. Ms. Kemp’s violent risk would decrease in a structured and predicable environment with close staff support. She would do well in a private residential setting (i.e. noncommunal setting), with one-to-one support.
Ms. Kemp is in need of significant support to manage her medication, treatment and follow-up. Treatment, including substance abuse treatment, will need to be tailored to her specific needs. She is unable to live independently and would be best placed in a 24/7 supervised setting appropriate to her needs, with consistent one-to-one staffing, ideally with two staff.
Ms. Kemp’s history of involvement in the criminal justice system, addiction and vulnerability to exploitation speaks eloquently to the inability of prior placements to meet her complex needs, and her risk to others and herself. Ms. Kemp is in need of a high degree of support, supervision and care which can best be provided under the auspices of a detention disposition allowing her to live in Southwestern or Southern Ontario in a 24/7 supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge. This will allow the Hospital to conduct a search for an appropriate accommodation.
The Board finds that the terms of the current Disposition continue to be necessary and appropriate. Ms. Kemp’s indirectly supervised privileges should be limited to within the hospital only. Other access to hospital and grounds and the communities of Southwestern and Southern Ontario may be accompanied by staff, or a person or delegate approved by the person in charge, which will permit non-hospital staff, such as group home staff, to accompany her outside the hospital in appropriate circumstances Her history with the criminal justice system and her untreated substance use disorder inform the need for her to abstain absolutely from the non-medical use of alcohol or drugs or any other intoxicant, submit samples of urine or breath to permit monitoring of this term and to refrain from possessing weapons and the like. When living in the community, Ms. Kemp shall be required to report to the person in charge not less than four times per month. These privileges, taken together, are consistent with maximizing Ms. Kemp’s liberty interests while keeping herself and others safe.
The Board congratulates Ms. Kemp on her progress this year. The Board encourages Ms. Kemp to continue to cooperate with her treatment team and participate in programing.
The Board asks Ms. Kemp to try to be patient as the Hospital searches for appropriate accommodation.
In arriving at our Disposition, the Board has considered the paramount factor of the safety of the public, Ms. Kemp’s community reintegration, her mental condition and her other needs, all as required by s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
DATED this 27th day of February 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Ms. K. Tomaszewski
Legal Member
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board