Ontario Review Board
Re: Tyler Bedard
ORB File No: 5503
Hearing held on: Tuesday, January 27, 2026
Place of hearing: Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences 700 Gordon Street, Whitby
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Goldenberg
Members: Dr. M. Attia
Dr. M. Kalia
Ms. J. Ferguson
Mr. J. Cyr
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Tyler Bedard
Counsel: Mr. S.F. Gehl
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Szabo
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. N. MacDonald
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated February 24, 2026)
Introduction:
On December 1, 2009, Mr. Tyler Bedard was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, on charges of assault (x2), attempt to choke or strangle to aid in commission of an offence (x2), assault causing bodily harm, uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm, and disobeying court order, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”).
Mr. Bedard is subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”), dated February 5, 2025, which orders that he be detained at the Forensic Program of the Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (“Ontario Shores”).
On January 27, 2026, the Board convened a hearing at Ontario Shores to conduct the annual review of the current Disposition.
Mr. Bedard was present and was represented by his counsel, Mr. S. Gehl.
A Hospital Report, dated January 5, 2026 (the "Hospital Report"), was entered as Exhibit 1. Dr. D. Pallandi, Mr. Bedard’s treating psychiatrist, gave oral evidence at the hearing.
The issue at this hearing is whether Mr. Bedard is a significant threat to public safety, as defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code. 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.
For the reasons set out below and based on the expert evidence and opinions before it, the Board concluded that Mr. Bedard continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board ordered that the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances is a discharge subject to specified conditions as set out below.
Current Psychiatric Diagnoses:
- Bipolar 1 Disorder
Antisocial Personality Disorder
Index Offences:
- The circumstances giving rise to the Index Offences are extracted from last year’s Board Reasons, as follows:
“Mr. Bedard had been involved in a 10-month long relationship with the victim of the index offences.
On September 8, 2009, Wendy Gordon (the victim) and Mr. Bedard were in her apartment when they engaged in a heated discussion about her children possibly residing with her. Wendy stated Mr. Bedard was getting angry over the conversation when she excused herself to use the bathroom. Wendy stated she was seated on the toilet when Mr. Bedard charged into the washroom placed both of his hands around her neck and began choking her. She reported being unable to breathe as Mr. Bedard lifted her by the neck off the toilet. Mr. Bedard released his grip on Wendy causing her to drop down on to the toilet where she started coughing and gasping for air. Mr. Bedard reportedly pushed her head down toward her feet causing her to fall and strike the left side of her face off the edge of the bathtub after he had hunched over trying to catch her breath. Wendy stated she was lying on her back on the bathroom floor when Mr. Bedard stood on her stomach and began jumping up and down. When Mr. Bedard stopped he laid down on top of Wendy hugging her and asking her to do the same in return to him.
Wendy advised she laid on the floor underneath Mr. Bedard in order for him to calm down. Once Mr. Bedard had calmed down, she stated that she was going down to the laundry room to do laundry. Wendy left the apartment and immediately went down to the Violence Against Women’s office and spoke to a staff member who provided her with a phone to contact police. Mr. Bedard was subsequently placed under arrest.
On September 13, 2009, Wendy reported that she received a telephone collect call. The caller simply said, “Wendy, please, we just need to talk.” She recognized the caller’s voice to be that of Mr. Bedard. At the time Mr. Bedard was remanded into the custody of the Elgin Middlesex Detention Centre and an order was in place for Mr. Bedard to abstain from communicating with the victim.
Mr. Bedard met the victim of the index offences while they were inpatients at the Regional Mental Health Centre, St. Thomas. He described the relationship as good, until the commission of the offences, but she describes other episodes of violent behaviour prior to those offences.”
Background Information:
- Mr. Bedard’s background, psychiatric history and criminal convictions are outlined in detail in the Hospital Report, and they are accurately summarized in last year’s Reasons:
“He was seen by psychiatrists at a very young age as a result of issues with his behaviour. His mother reported that the school board utilized a psychologist to assist him. He eventually was placed at the Huron Boys Home from the ages of 12 to 17 where he completed grade 10. After he was discharged from the home, he attended high school for a brief period before being expelled for setting a fire on the front step of the Vice Principal’s home. He did not return to school.
Mr. Bedard has a long history of problematic substance use, beginning in his early teens. Mr. Bedard’s mother reported that Mr. Bedard was using marijuana at 13 years of age and he would steal his prescribed Ritalin and sell it to purchase street drugs. His drug use included amphetamines, crystal methamphetamines (including intravenously), LSD and cannabis.
Mr. Bedard has a criminal record that commenced as a youth in 2003 and extends to convictions in March 2019, while under the jurisdiction of the Board. His convictions include assault, uttering threats, and failing to comply with a court order.
Following the NCR verdict, Mr. Bedard was admitted to St. Joseph’s Health Care, Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care in October 2009. During the eight years that he was at that facility, he experienced relapses into either substance use or behavioural problems. Mr. Bedard tested positive for various illicit substances (alcohol, opiates, cannabis, amphetamine), particularly while utilizing indirectly supervised privileges. He was convicted of offences involving violence and aggression on three occasions while at that facility. Mr. Bedard remained there until he was transferred to St. Joseph’s Hamilton Health Sciences in April 2018, in part due to a perceived therapeutic impasse.
Mr. Bedard struggled while at St. Joseph’s Hamilton. He frequently would become argumentative with staff when his needs were not immediately met or to his satisfaction. He would become threatening and aggressive and, on occasion, cause damage to property. In the latter half of 2018, there were a number of Code Whites in response to Mr. Bedard’s violent behaviour. He was admitted to the High Secure Provincial Forensic Program at Waypoint (Waypoint) under the auspices of an Assessment Order pertaining to the issue of criminal responsibility for charges arising out of significant damage caused on December 13, 2018. Once those charges were resolved, Mr. Bedard was readmitted to Waypoint under the auspices of a disposition of the Board.
In November 2019, staff on the treatment team attempted to speak with Mr. Bedard regarding calming techniques and ways to manage his behaviour, in particular his anger and frustration. In response, Mr. Bedard began speaking about the index offences, stating “I beat the shit out of my girlfriend but she deserved it.” He became increasingly agitated. Over the ensuing months, Mr. Bedard engaged in dysregulated and aggressive behaviour including damage to hospital property, verbal and physical aggression, and threats toward staff and co- patients. He also required an extended period of seclusion.
In June 2020, Mr. Bedard agreed to a change in medication to olanzapine and then to a gradual increase in dosage. Notably, an improvement in his mental state was observed. There was no evidence of irritability or aggression. He was polite, adherent to the rules, and participated in various activities on the ward. Mr. Bedard participated in substance use counseling, although he minimized the impact of substance use and did not believe that substance use would have any impact on his risk of violence.
Mr. Bedard was transferred from Waypoint to a secure forensic unit at Ontario Shores on September 15, 2022. He actively participated in recreation programs and worked well with his treatment team. He was able to recognize his period of stabilization while at Waypoint and attributed it to his medication. However, he expressed a lack of insight into the severity of his index offences and the victim’s experience. Periodically, he requested PRN to manage feelings of restlessness and frustration and reported that these were effective.”
Preliminary Position of the Parties:
Counsel for the hospital submitted that the hospital is seeking a conditional discharge for Mr. Bedard on the terms and conditions set out on pages 29 & 30 of the Hospital Report.
Ms. MacDonald, on behalf of the Attorney General generally supported the position of the hospital.
Mr. Gehl, on behalf of Mr. Bedard submitted that Mr. Bedard no longer poses a significant threat to the safety of the public and that an Absolute Discharge was the appropriate order. In response to a question from the Alt Chair, Mr. Gehl advised that if the Board found his client to be a significant threat, he agrees that his client should receive a Conditional Discharge. Mr Gehl strongly opposed the provision proposed by the hospital regarding the order is seeks from the Board, as set out in subparagraph (f) on page 31 of the Hospital Report, which reads as follows: “obtain approval of the person in charge of the Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences, or his or her designate, of any absence from his residence for longer than 1 week”.
Evidence at the Hearing:
The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence from Dr. Pallandi. Dr. Pallandi co-authored the Hospital Report and testified at the hearing. No other evidence was tendered.
Dr. Pallandi testified that Mr. Bedard still poses a significant threat as set out in the Hospital Report in great detail starting at page 25. Dr. Pallandi opined that the significant threat emanates from an admixture of factors: Mr. Bedard’s major mental illness for which he’s getting treatment; his maladaptive personality structure; and his tendency to intimate partner violence. Dr. Pallandi testified that many of these things continue to be true, albeit that some are not under Mr. Bedard’s control. Dr. Pallandi stated that Mr. Bedard’s actuarial assessment of risk won’t be tempered and that, high as it was when scored, Mr. Bedard has been problem free with respect to intimate partner violence for some time.
With respect to Mr. Bedard’s use of substances, Dr. Pallandi testified that he has done quite well and that although Mr. Bedard has asked us to remove the prohibition against cannabis, Dr. Pallandi was not sure that it would be a risk enhancing factor, although other substances would be.
Dr. Pallandi testified that Mr. Bedard was transferred into housing in the community relatively recently and that he has had an additional year of non-problematic time in the community. Mr. Bedard has exhibited no violence and has not used substances. Dr. Pallandi commented that the question is whether there has been enough time passing with better pro- social behaviour by Mr. Bedard.
Dr. Pallandi testified that last year, the Board asked whether Mr. Bedard had received intimate partner violence therapy and advised that Mr. Bedard is on the list and near the top of the list but hasn’t yet started this therapy.
Dr. Pallandi testified that Mr. Bedard’s actuarial anchor is quite heavy but that the passage of time has shown that he has done quite well despite some worrisome prognostications about his return to the community.
Dr. Pallandi testified that while the issue of therapy remains uncertain, Mr Bedard has remained stable for some time, had done quite well recently, and that, while we need to be mindful of historic factors, a judicious return to community is warranted. However, Dr. Pallandi opined that, in his clinical opinion, Mr. Bedard remains above the threshold of significant threat, despite the fact that the level of risk has attenuated since last year.
Dr. Pallandi testified that with respect to the actuarial risk assessment, some things were simply not under Mr. Bedard’s control, and that, for example, in one part of the assessment, it predicts that the risk of reoffence is 100% within a certain period of time. However, Dr. Pallandi noted that Mr. Bedard has not re-offended. Dr. Pallandi added that risk assessment instruments use development samples and look at the outcomes and that because such assessments predict a 90 or 100 per cent recidivism rate doesn’t mean any particular person will reoffend. Dr. Pallandi noted that Mr. Bedard hasn’t reoffended and has had several years without sexual misconduct of any kind. Dr. Pallandi noted that Mr. Beddard has been in a controlled environment where the opportunity to reoffend is not there to the same extent as in the community. Dr. Pallandi testified that it is necessary to integrate all the factors, that risk assessment is the anchor against which other things must be weighed including how Mr. Bedard has acted in the community where he has demonstrated that he has been able to conduct himself in a responsible way.
Dr. Pallandi testified that it is the hospital’s position that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a conditional discharge and that it is hard to argue that Mr. Bedard continues to need a detention order from an evidentiary perspective. Dr. Pallandi opined that the next most restrictive disposition is a conditional discharge and that the treatment team believes Mr. Bedard can conduct himself appropriately under a conditional discharge.
Dr. Pallandi testified that the hospital recommends that Mr. Bedard continue to reside at Westwood Manor where he is doing well, but that his longer-term goal is to return to a location closer to his family. Dr. Pallandi asked rhetorically whether there should be some accommodation in the order so that Mr. Bedard can move closer to his family, but that the reality is that he has said he’s not going anywhere and he has been completely cooperative. Dr. Pallandi confirmed that the treatment team did not think a residence clause was necessary, although the hospital is seeking such a clause.
Dr. Pallandi gave evidence that he is not worried that Mr. Bedard will discontinue his treatment because he has been completely committed to his treatment and articulates the benefits of treatment, including being calm and sleeping well. Dr. Pallandi added that Mr. Bedard is capable of consenting to treatment and therefore he could stop treatment if he wishes but he hasn’t and for that reason, Dr. Pallandi opined that a treatment provision in the disposition was unnecessary.
With respect to whether the disposition should require Mr. Bedard to seek approval for any absences of more than a week, Dr. Pallandi testified that Mr. Bedard is very good about talking to the treatment team and informing them of his plans, usually far in advance and Dr. Pallandi had no concerns that this would not continue.
In response to a question from the Crown as to whether the disposition should require Mr. Bedard to continue to live at Westwood Manor, which is an all-male residence, Dr. Pallandi replied that he didn’t think he could give any evidence to support such a provision. Dr. Pallandi reiterated this position that he did not think it clinically necessary for Mr. Bedard to live at Westwood Manor in response to a question from Mr. Gehl.
In responses to a question from Mr. Gehl as to whether an antisocial personality disorder was unchangeable, Dr. Pallandi testified that is usually the case, but that the current thinking is if you can break it down a bit you can come up with management plan, which is not really a cure but, like anger management, for example, there are things you can do to improve the problem.
Mr. Gehl reviewed Mr. Bedard’s history and broke it down into two phases, the first being the period up to mid 2020, the firs period of which he described as the bad or difficult period and the period after mid 2020 which he described as the good period. Dr. Pallandi agreed that there had been a significant change in Mr. Bedard’s behaviour since June of 2020 and he agreed with Mr Gehl’s proposition that a medication change on June 5, 2020 was largely responsible for the great improvement in Mr. Bedard’s conduct. Dr. Pallandi agreed that after the medication change there has been a night and day difference and that Mr. Bedard – has remained consistent with that new profile of behaviour since June 2020 subject to a few minor irregularities, but nothing to get him arrested, secluded or result in his privileges being revoked.
Dr. Pallandi testified that Mr. Gehl’s characterization was quite accurate and that there had been quite an abrupt change in Mr. Bedard and that, normally Dr. Pallandi would be suspicious when one drug changes things so radically and he would wonder if this is disingenuous. Dr. Pallandi added that while it is possible, it is hard to imagine that this is a put on or a false observation and it is more likely that Mr. Bedard got a great drug that works for him.
Mr. Gehl directed Dr. Pallandi to page 11 of the Hospital Report which sets out that following an increase in olanzapine there was a notable improvement in Mr. Bedard’s behaviour, he was no longer secluded and he progressed within the security level system. Dr. Pallandi testified that it was a defensible and logical conclusion that such a radical change was, in his clinical opinion, not caused by volition but by the medication change.
When Mr. Gehl directed Dr. Pallandi to page 12 of the Hospital Report which indicated that a doctor at Waypoint indicated that Mr. Bedard was able to appreciate the difference medication made to his mental state. Dr. Pallandi testified that he believes Mr. Bedard to have been genuine in voicing that view.
Mr. Gehl pointed out that on page 13 of the Hospital Report, it sets out that Mr. Bedard is becoming an active participant in activities, which is pro social behaviour. Dr. Pallandi agreed with this characterization. Mr. Gehl also pointed out that the Hospital Report sets out that, between December 1, 2020 and April, 2021 there were two incidents during which Mr. Bedard was approached by ill co-patients and that, on both occasions, he avoided conflict and effectively dealt with the situation. Dr. Pallandi agreed that such conduct appears contrary to a finding that Mr. Bedard has an anti-social personality.
Dr. Pallandi testified that after Mr. Bedard was transferred to Ontario Shores, he did everything he was supposed to do, despite being in a less secure area than the one he was in at Waypoint.
Dr. Pallandi also agreed with Mr. Gehl’s proposition that Mr. Bedard recognises his diagnosis and its symptoms and the need for medication to monitor and manage it, that he is generally motivated to take medication to maintain his mental stability, that he is fully compliant with taking his medication and that there have been no notable incidents since his discharge into the community.
When asked by Mr. Gehl whether Mr. Bedard might be a person who can overcome and manage an antisocial personality disorder despite it generally being regarded as a life long condition, Dr. Pallandi testified that at first there was a concern about returning Mr. Bedard to a place in the community quite far from the hospital but that, despite our expectations of a problem, even the most ominous prediction, it hasn’t happened. Dr. Pallandi added that he could not say that Mr. Bedard would never engage in anti-social conduct again, but that he can go into the community for hours and hours, during which time he has had ample opportunity to conduct himself inappropriately, but he hasn’t. Dr. Pallandi asked rhetorically whether Mr Bedard is a person who is at the end of his problem conduct and commented that although Mr. Bedard has had lots of opportunity to make mistakes, this hasn’t happened.
In response to a question from Dr. Kalia as to whether his diagnosis should be changed to “anti-social personality disorder in sustained remission” given he has not exhibited any anti-social personality traits in the past five years, Dr. Pallandi responded that Mr. Bedard has not exhibited any signs or traits of anti social personality disorder and that perhaps his diagnosis should be changed to “anti-social personality disorder by history” or “historical traits of anti-social personality disorder”. Dr. Pallandi agreed that such a revision could be considered.
In response to a question about whether Mr. Bedard was engaging in adequate therapy, Dr. Pallandi testified that Mr. Bedard has met with a psychometrist on 19 occasions and that that does not represent minimal therapy. With respect to the need for Mr. Bedard to engage in intimate partner violence, Dr. Pallandi opined that Mr. Bedard’s personality traits have softened, his insight is good and that it would be beneficial for Mr. Bedard to engage in intimate partner violence therapy but, nevertheless, Dr. Pallandi did not think it necessary as a precondition of Mr. Bedard moving forward in the ORB process.
In response to a question as to what would be a prerequisite for an absolute discharge, Dr. Pallandi opined that, if Mr Bedard was given a conditional discharge, that would give the treatment team another year to work with him and it would give him more space to make mistakes. Dr. Pallandi added that presently, Mr. Bedard was ambivalent about becoming engaged in an intimate relationship and has indicated he is “not there right now” and will stick to platonic relationships.
In response to a question about whether Mr. Bedard still held the position that the victim of the index offence was equally responsible for the incident, Dr. Pallandi replied that Mr. Bedard principally holds this to be true and that this is a concern. However, Dr. Pallandi testified that this is a difficult question because the dynamics of intimate partner violence are very complex. In addition, Dr. Pallandi testified that he could not say that if Mr. Bedard continues to believe there was an interactive part of incident that would increase the level of risk but Dr. Pallandi added that Mr. Bedard did take partial accountability for what occurred and that acknowledgement is one of the targets of treatment. Later in his testimony, Dr. Pallandi added that Mr. Bedard has never said he didn’t assault the victim, or that there was somebody else involved, but that he has said it was a toxic relationship and that the victim was violent and threatening.
When asked if Mr. Bedard’s desire to use cannabis was a concern, Dr. Pallandi testified that Mr. Bedard hasn’t used it, is not entrenched in his desire to use it, and the hospital is still seeking the inclusion of a prohibition against it in the Disposition. Dr. Pallandi added that the treatment team and Mr. Bedard have not butted heads about the cannabis issue, and Dr. Pallandi pointed out that cannabis is not in the same category as other substances he’s misused in the past. Dr. Pallandi noted that, since Mr. Bedard came under the supervision of the Board, cannabis is no longer illicit, it is just ill-advised, although Dr. Pallandi opined that it was hard to say whether moderate cannabis use would be a problem for Mr. Bedard.
When asked by a Board Member whether the veiled threat referring to Mr. Bedard “having caused code whites over less this” was a concern for the treatment team, Dr. Pallandi testified that he didn’t put too much emphasis on that comment as Mr. Bedard tends to be very loquacious, and “a lot of things come out of his mouth.”
Dr. Pallandi testified that it was the unanimous opinion of clinical team of three people who were responsible for the contents of the Hospital Report that Mr. Bedard remains a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the hospital agrees with that opinion.
Final Submissions:
Counsel for the hospital submitted that Mr. Bedard has done well in his current housing in the community and that a conditional discharge is the least onerous, least restrictive and most appropriate way to manage his risk, and asked that the clauses set out in the Hospital Report dated January 5, 2026 on pages 30 & 31 from a) to i) be included in the Disposition. Counsel stressed the need for housing and treatment clauses. Counsel for the hospital also submitted that clause 1 f), a clause requiring Mr. Bedard to obtain approval before going out of town for more than a week, need not be included. Counsel submitted that Mr. Bedard discusses his plans to travel with the treatment team well in advance and seeks their input.
Counsel for the Attorney General submitted that if the Board finds that a conditional discharge is the appropriate order, the provision requiring him to reside at Westwood Manor should be omitted to give Mr. Bedard the opportunity to potentially reside elsewhere.
Mr. Gehl, counsel for Mr. Bedard submitted that regardless of actuarial tests or constructs, there are cases where the facts do not demonstrate the existence of an ongoing threat and this is one of those cases. Mr. Gehl added that, while he was adverse to a conditional discharge, nevertheless, if the Board found that Mr. Bedard continues to pose a significant risk to the public, he agreed with Crown counsel that the residence clause should be omitted from this year’s disposition. Mr. Gehl also submitted that he didn’t object to clause c), being the clause requiring Mr. Bedard to “abstain absolutely from the non-medical use of alcohol or drugs or any other intoxicant” to be included in any order for a conditional discharge. Mr. Gehl also submitted that there had been no evidence at the hearing to support a clause requiring Mr. Bedard to obtain permission from the hospital before he travels out of town.
Analysis and Conclusions:
Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence, as well as submissions from the parties, the Board finds that Mr. Bedard remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.
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. Pallandi, in addition to the documentary evidence set out in the Hospital Report.
Of greatest relevance to violence risk for Mr. Bedard is his significant history of past violence, interpersonal conflict, substance use, personality features, violence-condoning attitudes, and difficulty adhering to treatment and supervision. While Mr. Bedard’s official criminal record began at age 17, file information documents behavioural changes from an earlier age. However, Mr. Bedard has made considerable progress over the last five years and has had a very good reporting year in which he continued to make progress. He has been living in the community for approximately two years without incident, has remained abstinent from substances and has been medication compliant. Mr. Bedard has engaged with his treatment team, is committed to his treatment, and has avoided interpersonal conflict. Mr. Bedard’s insight is good and he appreciates the need for medications and mental health therapy.
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 needs of Mr. Bedard and his reintegration into society, the Board finds that the necessary and appropriate Disposition which is the least onerous and restrictive is a Discharge upon the terms and conditions set out in our formal Disposition, which conditions do not include a specific location at which Mr. Bedard must be housed, and which allows Mr. Bedard to advise the hospital of any planned absences from his housing and not obtain their permission for such absences.
The Board congratulates Mr. Bedard on his progress and wishes him well in the year ahead.
DATED this 24th day of February 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Ms. J. Ferguson Legal Member
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board