Trisha M. Wall, 2026 CanLII 15161

Ontario Review Board

Re: Trisha M. Wall

ORB File No: 5240

Hearing held on: Wednesday, November 26, 2025

Place of hearing: Brockville Mental Health Centre

Pursuant to: Section 672.81(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: Trisha M. Wall Counsel: Mr. P. Lewandowski

The person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. J. Gray

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

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated February 24, 2026)

Introduction

1. On December 15, 2008, the accused, Trisha Wall, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on a charge of mischief contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”). Ms. Wall is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated December 18th, 2024, which discharges her on certain terms and conditions.

2. On November 26th, 2025, the Board convened a hearing at the Brockville Mental Health Centre, hereinafter referred to as the hospital, to conduct Ms. Wall’s annual review hearing. Ms. Wall attended her hearing and was represented by her counsel, Mr. Paul Lewandowski. A hospital report dated November 3rd, 2025, was entered as Exhibit No. 1.

3. The issues for this hearing are whether Ms. Wall continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and, if so, to determine the necessary and appropriate disposition.

Preliminary Matters

4. Mr. Lewandowski, on behalf of Ms. Wall, requested an appointment as counsel, which the Board granted in the interests of justice. Ms. Wall was in attendance although she had declined to attend a number of her previous hearings.

Without Prejudice Positions of the Parties

5. Dr. Gray submitted that a detention disposition as set out in Exhibit 2 was the necessary and appropriate recommendation. Mr. Schultz, on behalf of the Attorney-General, indicated that he joined in the hospital recommendation and additionally requested a non-communication order with Ms. Jessica Robertson as well as a 100-meter radius prohibition with the exception of legal proceedings.

6. Mr. Lewandowski advised that he was conceding the ongoing presence of significant threat and joined in the hospital recommendation.

Index Offences

7. The circumstances giving rise to the index offence is summarized as follows:

“The police occurrence report states that Ms. Wall called 911 repeatedly on and around November 14, 2008, complaining of voices telling her to kill her mother, and seeking assistance. She was reportedly taken to the Civic hospital where she was offered admission with a 1:1 sitter. However, when she refused, she was released. Once home, she continued to call 911 and returned again to the hospital but was not admitted. When she continued to make further calls, she was arrested and charged with mischief due to abuse of the 911 system. The police reported that she was "happy to be arrested" so that she would not hurt anyone.”

Current Diagnosis

8. Ms. Wall’s current diagnosis is:

• Query Schizoaffective Disorder versus Cannabis Induced Psychotic Disorder – in remission
• Borderline Personality Disorder
• ADHD, by history
• PTSD, by history
• Opioid Use Disorder - in sustained remission

Evidence at the Hearing

9. The Board admitted into evidence the Hospital Report dated November 3rd, 2025, as Exhibit 1. This document provides a great deal of information concerning Ms. Wall’s personal history, mental health history as well as her course in hospital and in the community both prior to and subsequence to the index offence. As the Hospital Report was made an Exhibit, it is unnecessary to reproduce the information contained therein in these Reasons.

10. Dr. Gray advised that he was not recommending a no-contact order because Ms. Wall had ceased contact with Jessica Robertson, her former partner. At present, Ms. Wall is neither communicating with or harassing Ms. Robertson. Nevertheless, Ms. Robertson had continued to send abusive text messages to Ms. Wall. It was noted that there has been no communication between the two in the two months preceding today’s hearing.

11. Dr. Gray also opined that a no-contact order would not impact Ms. Wall’s homicidal ideations towards her ex-partner.

12. Dr. Gray has stopped Ms. Wall’s prescribed Olanzapine and Clozapine. She remains on Haloperidol as well as an injectable medication every two weeks. Ms. Wall has also been started on adjunct medication for depression.

13. The last recommended term reads as follows, per Exhibit 2:

1. Up to indirectly supervised privileges on hospital grounds and the community;
2. Indirect passes up to 72 hours within a 150km radius with an approved person; and
3. Live in the community in approved accommodation within a 250 radius of Brockville.

14. Dr. Gray advised that the intention of these recommended terms is to allow Ms. Wall to spend additional time with her brother who is not yet an Approved Person. The Doctor added that the hospital is supportive of this relationship.

15. The treatment plan for the upcoming year is to rebuild structured activities in the community which Ms. Wall finds interesting. Dr. Gray noted that Ms. Wall particularly enjoys animals and caring for older people.

16. Responding to questions from Mr. Schultz, Dr. Gray advised that his patient is in hospital due to homicidal ideation regarding her ex-partner subsequent to the dissolution of their relationship. At present nothing prevents Ms. Wall from communicating with Ms. Robertson. Ms. Wall is sensitive to the effects of cannabis and Ms. Robertson was the supplier of cannabis to her.

17. The treatment team would be supportive of a rekindled friendship between Ms. Wall and Ms. Robertson notwithstanding evidence that Ms. Robertson was financially exploiting Ms. Wall. Questioned about a change of diagnosis, Dr. Gray stated that Ms. Wall went off antipsychotic medication and has not displayed psychotic symptoms. Only when using cannabis have psychotic symptoms been observed which is why a diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder has been maintained. There are no concerns surrounding the misuse of cannabis since returning to the hospital.

18. Looking forward, a positive year for Ms. Wall would include engagement with the treatment team and her involvement in structured activities, both inside and outside of hospital. Further, a lessening of hatred towards her ex-partner and the feelings of the need for revenge are targets as well.

19. Also, positives would be the development of Ms. Wall’s relationship with her brother. Towards the end of this reporting year a discharge to a supervised residence will be considered.

20. Responding to questions from Mr. Lewandowski, Dr. Gray agreed that Ms. Robertson could use a non-communication order as a shield with which one-sided antagonism could be directed at Ms. Wall. Dr. Gray added that abusive correspondence from Ms. Robertson could constitute evidence of criminal harassment similar to what is referenced within the hospital report.

21. A panel member inquired with regard to the status of Ms. Robertson’s mother who remains an Approved Person. Dr. Gray responded that Ms. Wall is currently angry at Ms. Robertson’s mother and blames her for the breakup of the relationship with Jessica Robertson. It was suggested that the possibility of a revocable no-contact provision on the consent of Ms. Jessica Robertson be considered.

22. Dr. Gray has attempted to contact Jessica Robertson but, to date, they have not had any direct communication. The Doctor added he feels Ms. Robertson would contact him or the treatment team if there was something amiss with Ms. Wall’s conduct. Another panel member inquired if there was any consideration given to an intimate violent risk assessment.

23. Asked if there were any supports available to Ms. Wall surrounding the termination of her longstanding relationship with Ms. Robertson, Dr. Gray responded that a hospital psychotherapist has been ill for two months and is expected back in late December. In the interim he continues to meet with Ms. Wall up to two times per week. It was suggested that the possibility of a revocable no-contact provision on the consent of Ms. Jessica Robertson be considered.

Closing Observations

24. Dr. Gray submitted that a no-contact order is unnecessary, but in the even that one is imposed it should be revocable with signed consent.

25. Mr. Schultz submitted that the reason Ms. Wall is hospitalized, is due to her homicidal thoughts about Ms. Robertson, therefore, this risk should be in the forefront of the Board’s mind in crafting a disposition.

26. Mr. Schultz added that a no-contact order serves as a deterrent. Further, adding a radius restriction provides the police with greater intervention options. Mr. Schultz further submitted that given the broad range of privileges accorded Ms. Wall, absent a no-contact provision the police cannot protect Ms. Robertson in the event Ms. Wall would show up at her residence unbeknownst. Finally, Mr. Schultz submitted that a no-contact order may prevent re-establishment of this relationship with which was somewhat exploitive in nature given that Ms. Robertson was the supplier of cannabis to Ms. Wall.

27. Mr. Lewandowski submitted that the use of a no-contact order as a sword rather than a shield is inappropriate. He added that the radius restriction is not contested. Ms. Wall simply wishes to be able to defend herself verbally if attacked by Ms. Robertson. Ms. Wall has demonstrated restraint by not responding to maligning texts. If a non-communication order is in place there is a defacto power shift and Ms. Robertson can become a “cry bully” thwarting Ms. Wall’s ability to expose Ms. Robertson’s actions.

Analysis and Decision

(a) Significant Threat

28. Ongoing 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.

29. In determining whether Ms. Wall continues to represent 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.

30. The Board unanimously finds that Ms. Wall continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public. In arriving at this independent determination, the Board considered the joint position of the parties and accepted the uncontroverted evidence of Dr. Gray that Ms. Wall continues to pose a significant threat. The primary risk scenario is set out at page 108 of the Hospital Report and reproduced below for ease of reference:

Overall, her current risk is primarily that of carrying out a plan to harm Jess [Ms. Roberston] and then kill herself. While in hospital, she does not present a significant risk to harm other patients or staff.

(b) Disposition

31. Flowing from the Board’s finding that Ms. Wall continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public it must shape a Disposition for the year ahead. Its paramount consideration in doing so must be the safety of the public while also considering Ms. Wall’s needs pursuant to s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

32. The necessary and appropriate disposition for Ms. Wall provides her as much freedom as possible without subjecting the community to a real risk of dangerous behaviour.

33. The parties were at idem that a detention disposition was the necessary and appropriate disposition. Mr. Schultz advocated for the inclusion of a no-contact provision with Ms. Jessica Robertson as Ms. Wall was re-hospitalized on July 7th, 2025, after expressing homicidal ideations to kill her.

34. The panel does not agree with Mr. Schultz’s submission that a no-contact term vis-à-vis Ms. Jessica Robertson is required. First off, Ms. Wall has ceased communication with Ms. Robertson for an extended period. Ms. Robertson last sent maligning emails to Ms. Wall some two months prior to this Hearing to which Ms. Wall, to her credit, did not respond. In the event hurtful communication directed at Ms. Walls from Ms. Robertson were to resume Ms. Wall retains the option to go the police and request that criminal harassment charges be laid. Secondly, a no-contact order will not impact Ms. Wall’s homicidal ideations towards her former partner. Thirdly, the Hospital Report at page 107 states that Ms. Wall will not be discharged to live in the community at this juncture because she continues to process the relationship breakdown and therefore formulation of a discharge plan has not yet begun. This is suggestive that an imminent discharge is not anticipated.

35. In the interim, an intimate partner violence (“IPV”) risk assessment may be considered for Ms. Wall, particularly if dynamic risk changes as she navigates the dissolution of her relationship with her long-term partner. Structured Professional Judgement (“SPJ”) risk assessments are particularly relevant, given they are intended to be used when there are reasonable grounds to believe that an individual may pose a risk for IPV, including either physical or psychological harm. For SPJ tools to be used (e.g., SARA-V3), notably, there does not have to be a known history of IPV and may be used regardless of gender, sexual orientation, or culture. The benefit of an IPV-specific risk assessment would be to collate risk factors specific to any IPV behaviour (including threats), identify risk factors reflecting the psychosocial background of an evaluee, and, additionally, that of the (former) intimate partner. This would provide a comprehensive formulation and associated intervention recommendations that would be appropriate and effective in managing any potential IPV risk.

Conclusion

36. Therefore, the Board unanimously determines that the necessary and appropriate Disposition required to manage the threat Ms. Wall poses to the safety of the public while still meeting her needs is a Detention Disposition.

37. In arriving at this Disposition, the Board carefully considered the positions and submissions of the parties and the evidence of Dr. Gray and is satisfied that this determination is both necessary and appropriate. The Board reviewed the provisions of s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code and carefully considered the need to protect the public from dangerous persons, Ms. Wall’s mental condition, her reintegration into society and other needs.

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

Mr. P. Capelle Alternate Chairperson

__________________

Office of the Registrar

Ontario Review Board