Re: Claude Bonneville
ORB File No: 8872 Hearing held on: Friday, January 9, 2026 Place of hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre Pursuant to: Section 672.47(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: Claude Bonneville Counsel: Ms. M. Lord The person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. A. Sandhu Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. J. Wright
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated February 20, 2026)
Introduction
On September 25, 2025, Mr. Claude Bonneville was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, on two counts of assault with a weapon, one count of assault, four counts of uttering threats, one count of assault police, one count of assault police officer with a weapon, two counts of assault resist arrest and one count of mischief under $5,000 all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”).
The Court declined to make a disposition and thus Mr. Bonneville was referred to the Ontario Review Board for an initial hearing.
On January 9, 2026, a panel of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB”) convened in person and a hearing was held at the ROMHC. The purpose of the hearing was to determine if Mr. Bonneville represents 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. Bonneville meets the threshold for significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Detention Order Disposition with several terms and conditions.
Current Psychiatric Diagnoses:
- Schizoaffective Disorder;
- Cannabis Use Disorder – in early remission
- Stimulant Use Disorder – in early remission
- Borderline intellectual functioning
Index Offences:
- The facts giving rise to the index offences were set out in the Hospital Report and are summarized as follows:
“On August 18, 2024, at 15:45hrs, Cst. Bradley was dispatched to the area of 8 Park St. Unit B in relation to a disturbance.
Information received by complainant and victim, Chalina Wilde, is that there is a disturbance heard in the background and males are threatening to stab her boyfriend and father over a parking spot. The male is currently outside yelling and it is unknown who they are.
Chalina's boyfriend Kyle is also involved yelling. The suspect is now climbing over the fence into their property and threw a water bottle at them and is standing on the fence. There is mention of a knife and unsure if anyone saw a knife, only threatening to use it.
The suspect males are described as the first one wearing a black shirt, shorts, long hair, ponytail. The second wearing a blue jersey, running towards the college and has 00 on it, wearing white shorts and has a green bag.
At 15:47hrs Cst. Bradley attended the above noted area with other police officers and met with victim, Chalina Wilde, who provided information that the suspect male with the blue jersey ran towards the St. Lawrence College and the other suspect male was currently in the backyard of 106 Alice St. still screaming at them. Subsequently Cst. Bradley attended the area of the backyard, where there was a fence between Cst. Bradley and the suspect, who is described as a tall skinny male wearing a black shirt with red writing, black pants with hard plastic knee pads, long hair in a ponytail and the male was yelling uncontrollably at police and neighbours, being Chalina and Kyle. The male was yelling at Chalina that she was native and fuck you, among other nonsensical info.
Police then attended the backyard were Cst. Lemoyre made contact with the male, where Cst. Bradley observed him aggressively approach Cst. Lemoyre and made threats, stating that he was going to kill him.
At 15:52hrs Cst. Bradley heard a taser deployment and a sound where the suspect male then jumped over the east backyard fence, running away from police. Cst. Bradley then observed the male running east on Park St. towards the dead end. The male was yelled at by Cst. Bradley that he was under arrest, which the male kept running, refusing to listen to police. The male then turned running southbound towards 11 Park St. where the male ran up a stairway at the side of this residence and smashed the front door window, breaking it. At this point Cst. Bradley had his taser drawn and pointed at the male.
At 15:53hrs the suspect male was told that he was under arrest again and the male then brought himself to the ground area. Upon physical control being gained the male began to actively resist arrest, tensing his muscles and trying to crawl down the stairway from 11 Park St. where there was broken glass on the ground area due to the male breaking the glass. The male began flailing on the ground and resisting arrest and assaulted Cst. Flipsen, kneeing him in the head with the pants that had plastic knee pads on them, breaking Cst. Flipsen's Oakely sunglasses, valued at approximately $213.80. The male was then handcuffed to the rear and a frisk search was conducted. At this time, the male was not compliant and had to be dragged to police vehicle #4 and lodged in the rear.
Cst. Bradley attempted to advise the male of the grounds for arrest, however Cst. Bradley was not able to explain this due to the male's manic state.
Subsequently identification was located in the form of an Ontario photo ID card in the male's wallet, matching descriptors of the arrested male, identifying as Claude Bonneville.
At 16:02hrs Cst. Flipsen assumed custody and transported Bonneville to CPS HQ.
Cst. Bradley then obtained written statements from Daniel Giguere explaining that the suspect male, Bonneville, smashed his window.
Cst. Bradley also witnessed Bonneville do this. Cst. Bradley also obtained an audio axon statement from victim Kyle Dussiaume of his account of the incident in which he detailed that Bonneville threatened to kill him and then threw a water bottle at him. The other male, who was unidentified at this time threatened to slit his throat and Kyle further explained that there was no knife that he observed, but the unidentified male had a large
wooden stake in his hand.
Cst. Bradley also obtained an axon audio statement from Lisa Dussiaume of her account of the incident.
Cst. Chu obtained audio statement from victim Chalina Wilde who explained that Bonneville threatened to kill her and boyfriend Kyle Dussiaume with a knife and Bonneville also chased the female down the sidewalk when he was attempting to run away from police and explains he only stopped because the neighbours tried to prevent him from chasing her. Chalina also explained Bonneville was making racially motivated comments that she is native and that he is trying to be racist towards her.
Cst. Chu also obtained a statement from Stephane Dussiaume who also explained in his statement that Bonneville threatened to kill and threw a water bottle at him.
Cst. Chu obtained another audio axon statement from witness Sandra Hart of her account of the incident.
Cst. Bradley then received further information via radio transmission that Bonneville had been transported to CCH by police to be assessed for his mental health.
At 16:25hrs Cst. Bradley received further information that Bonneville has been placed on a Form 1 and will remain at CCH and is currently unconditionally released by police.”
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. Bonneville meets the threshold for significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition was a Detention Order with several terms and conditions, up to and including residing in the community in accommodation approved of by the person in charge.
Counsel for the Attorney General anticipated supporting the Hospital’s position.
Counsel for the accused also anticipated supporting the Hospital’s position except for its recommended prohibition on the consumption of alcohol.
Evidence at the Hearing:
The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence from Dr. Sandhu.
Dr. Sandhu testified by way of update to the Hospital Report that he was able to meet with Mr. Bonneville in December to conduct a risk assessment. Mr. Bonneville’s symptoms are stable according to the doctor, due in large part to his long-acting injectable medication.
The greater concern, according to Dr. Sandhu, is that most of his day-to-day activities, including taking care of his apartment and cooking his meals, are conducted by his mother. The plan going forward is to identify what barriers and limitations Mr. Bonneville has, which may have been caused by a prior motor vehicle accident.
As a result of that accident, Mr. Bonneville may have issues with mood, motivation or memory and Dr. Sandhu feels that it is important to better understand Mr. Bonneville’s level of functioning through the use of testing and other diagnostic methods.
Mr. Bonneville sees a psychiatrist in the community on a monthly basis when he receives his injection. Dr. Sandhu hopes to receive consent from Mr. Bonneville to work with that community psychiatrist in his care.
Dr. Sandhu was informed by Mr. Bonneville’s mother that Mr. Bonneville was previously on a Community Treatment Order and when that expired, Mr. Bonneville was subsequently found capable of consenting to treatment, which Dr. Sandu felt demonstrated improvement in Mr. Bonneville’s understanding of his illness.
According to Dr. Sandhu, Mr. Bonneville was able to demonstrate an understanding of his schizoaffective disorder specifically, however, he continues to have issues with his anxiety and it’s important to understand how that might affect his engagement with his day-to-day activities.
As it concerns the use of substances, Dr. Sandhu is concerned because Mr. Bonneville consumes alcohol on the weekends with his father. Not only can this cause “rebound anxiety” but could also destabilize his sleep quality and overall mental stability.
In response to questions from the Crown Attorney, Dr. Sandhu confirmed that Mr. Bonneville is not currently working – although he hopes to return to work soon – and is also not currently driving. When asked if Mr. Bonneville driving would be a concern for him, Dr. Sandhu replied that before this occurred, a functional assessment of Mr. Bonneville would need to take place.
Dr. Sandhu further testified that, much like with cannabis, alcohol can contribute to withdrawal symptoms and of course, intoxicating effects, in addition to contributing to other physical health consequences that could ultimately lead to psychosis in Mr. Bonneville. Dr. Sandhu expressed concern that the evidence provided to him was that Mr. Bonneville was engaging in “binge drinking” on the weekends with his father, consuming upwards of ten to twelve beers at a time.
Dr. Sandhu hopes that with further psychoeducation, Mr. Bonneville would agree to abstain from the consumption of alcohol as he has with cannabis.
In response to questions from Ms. Lord, Dr. Sandhu agreed that it appears Mr. Bonneville was previously using cannabis in order to address his symptoms of anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder. Mr. Bonneville is now prescribed medication to address these concerns.
Dr. Sandhu was asked if he knew how long these binge drinking episodes on the weekends had been occurring. He answered that he believed that this pattern of alcohol consumption has been occurring for the past few months but doesn’t believe it was occurring at the time of the index offences. He opined that this seems to be a more recent development, but that it seems to have occurred after Mr. Bonneville ceased using cannabis, and it could be the case that Mr. Bonneville simply switched from cannabis to alcohol as a coping mechanism.
Dr. Sandhu was asked by Ms. Lord how Mr. Bonneville will fulfill the bi-monthly reporting to Hospital condition, given that he resides in Cornwall and doesn’t drive. Dr. Sandhu replied that he envisioned virtual reporting or that the reporting could be fulfilled by him meeting with his community Psychiatrist.
In response to Panel questions, Dr. Sandhu agreed with the suggestion that Mr. Bonneville’s alcohol consumption could interfere in the testing which is to be conducted to assess his cognitive deficits and memory impairment. He further testified that alcohol consumption would have a confounding effect on the medication he is taking to address his anxiety symptoms.
Dr. Sandhu also explained that the effect of alcohol on Mr. Bonneville’s sleep quality is relevant because when he experiences manic symptoms, he has an excess of energy and little need for sleep, which was the case around the time of the index offences.
Dr. Sandu further testified that he and his team have not had the opportunity to observe Mr. Bonneville while he is under the influence of alcohol and therefore it is difficult for the doctor to fully appreciate how Mr. Bonneville’s mental status changes while consuming alcohol.
Dr. Sandhu agreed that Mr. Bonneville has not yet been diagnosed with an alcohol use disorder, but that he could yet be, depending on the outcome of further assessments.
At the conclusion of the evidence, the parties maintained their initial positions.
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. Bonneville does meet the threshold for significant threat to the safety of the public and finds that a Detention Order Disposition is the least onerous and least restrictive, necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances.
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. Bonneville 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. Bonneville suffers from a psychotic disorder which seems to be well treated by his current medication regime and the structure and supports of the forensic mental health system. However, as set out in the testimony of Dr. Sandhu, Mr. Bonneville continues to struggle with anxiety and has demonstrated a concerning pattern of alcohol consumption.
Furthermore, as this is an initial hearing and there was some delay in assessing Mr. Bonneville due to the Court ordering the wrong assessment, the treatment team has yet to properly and fulsomely assess Mr. Bonneville’s deficits.
As outlined in the Hospital Report, Mr. Bonneville has experienced problems with anxiety since the age of 19. He was prescribed medication for that disorder, but he stopped taking his medication within months.
Mr. Bonneville reported being treated with various medications over the years but that he did not see a benefit from them and discontinued some of the medications due to unpleasant side effects. He further reported his first psychiatric admission occurred in 2016 due to depressed mood and suicidal ideation, and that since that time he required short term admissions approximately once per year prior to the index offence.
The Hospital Report quotes Mr. Bonneville as stating that he has previously stopped taking medications “cold turkey” due to prescriptions not being renewed and that he was sleeping poorly. Prior to the index offence, he was admitted to a psychiatric hospital for approximately two and a half months for these reasons and that after being discharged from Hospital, he unilaterally decided that he did not want to take medication.
His most recent admission to hospital prior to the index offence was in September 2024 after he discontinued his oral quetiapine due to excessive sedation.
Mr. Bonneville’s mother reported that Mr. Bonneville experienced his first manic episode in 2015 after a motorcycle accident and a further manic episode in 2021 around the time he also was involved in a motor vehicle accident. She felt that he may have been psychotic as well around that time.
She further explained that Mr. Bonneville’s mental health started to decline approximately one month prior to his August 2024 charges and subsequent hospital admission. She explained that initially he was able to “hide his symptoms”, but then became more mentally unwell.
Collateral medical sources reviewed for the Hospital Report note that Mr. Bonneville was previously diagnosed with bipolar disorder, tobacco use disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, ADHD, PTSD, unspecified alcohol and cannabis use disorder and others. His father reportedly struggled with a crack cocaine addiction for many years.
The Risk Assessment performed by Dr. Sandhu notes that Mr. Bonneville’s current pattern of alcohol use is concerning and is complicating attempts to determine whether or not this substance is affecting his functioning.
Using the HCR-20 v.3, Mr. Bonneville is assessed as presenting a moderate to high risk of future violence at this time.
The Panel finds that there was uncontradicted evidence on the record that supports the position of the Hospital that Mr. Bonneville presents a significant threat to the safety of the public
As such, after considering of all the evidence, the submissions of the parties, the wishes of Mr. Bonneville and the criteria set forth in s. 672.54, the paramount consideration being the safety of the public, in addition to the mental condition of Mr. Bonneville, his reintegration into society and his other needs, the Panel finds that a Detention Order Disposition with the requested terms and conditions is the necessary and appropriate Disposition.
Lastly, the Panel accepts the position of the hospital that the Detention Order should contain a clause prohibiting the consumption of alcohol, cannabis and other intoxicating substances and that Mr. Bonneville should be required to submit urine drug screens and other samples of his bodily fluids in order to monitor his compliance with this condition.
The uncontradicted evidence of Dr. Sandu is that Mr. Bonneville suffers from a cannabis use disorder. He has voluntarily ceased his cannabis use and he does not contest this prohibition term.
Similarly, the evidence of Dr. Sandhu was also uncontradicted as it concerns the use of alcohol. He testified that alcohol is an intoxicant and can impair functioning, thus interfering with the treatment team’s attempts to properly assess Mr. Bonneville’s level of functioning, cognitive deficits and mental status.
Furthermore, there was consistent and uncontradicted evidence that Mr. Bonneville’s pattern of alcohol consumption is extremely problematic. It seems to be a recent development and occurs only on weekends with his father, who has previously struggled with a long-standing addiction of his own.
Lastly, Dr. Sandhu testified that alcohol interferes with sleep quality and patterns, which is a very specific risk factor for Mr. Bonneville as outlined in the Hospital Report and specifically at the time of the commission of the index offences.
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