Re: Neil J. Teneyck, 2026 CanLII 15162

Re: Neil J. Teneyck

ORB File No: 8058

Hearing held on: Tuesday, February 10, 2026

Place of hearing: Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care (Via Zoom Video Conference)

Pursuant to: Sections 672.48(1) and 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Goldenberg

Members: Dr. T. Verny Dr. G. Nexhipi Ms. A. Israel Ms. C. Plyley

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Neil J. Teneyck Counsel: Ms. C. Francis

Person in charge of hospital: Representative: Ms. M. Kraftscik

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. S. Curry

REASONS FOR DECISION

(Dated February 20, 2026)

Introduction:

1. On March 28, 2022, Mr. Neil J. Teneyck was found unfit to stand trial on a charge of sexual assault contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”).

2. Mr. Teneyck is subject to the terms of a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”) dated May 30, 2025 (the “Disposition”), which orders that he be detained at the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care, Brébeuf Program for Regional Forensics (“Waypoint”) with discretionary privileges up to and including the ability to live in the community, anywhere in Ontario, in accommodation approved by the person in charge.

3. Pursuant to s. 672.56(2) of the Criminal Code, Waypoint notified the Board by letter dated December 12, 2025, that Mr. Teneyck’s liberty had been restricted.

4. On February 10, 2026, the Board convened a virtual hearing to conduct a Restriction of Liberty (“ROL”) hearing.

5. Mr. Teneyck was present at the hearing and was represented by his counsel, Ms. Francis.

6. A letter dated December 12, 2025, from Waypoint to the Board pursuant to section 672.56(2) of the Criminal Code was entered as Exhibit 1.

7. A letter dated the same date from the Board to Waypoint acknowledging the ROL was entered as Exhibit 2.

8. A ROL Report (the “ROL Report”), dated January 27, 2026, was entered as Exhibit 3.

9. For the ROL, the issues at this hearing was:

a) whether the decision made by the person in charge to significantly increase the restriction of liberty on Mr. Teneyck was necessary and appropriate and represented the least onerous and least restrictive measure at the time it was imposed and throughout its duration.

10. For the reasons set out below and based on the expert evidence and opinions before it, the Board concluded that the initial Restriction of Liberty was warranted, necessary and appropriate from its onset, on December 4, 2025, and through its duration. The Board found that these restrictions were necessary for public safety, and they represented the least onerous, and least restrictive, interventions available.

Position of the Parties

11. Counsel for the Hospital, counsel for the Attorney General and counsel for Mr. Teneyck advised that this was a joint submission, with respect to the restriction of liberty: all parties agreed that the restriction of liberty was warranted, necessary and appropriate and remained so throughout the admission until the discharge on February 2, 2026.

Reasons for Restriction of Liberty

12. The ROL Report sets out the reasons for Mr. Teneyck’s readmission to Waypoint which are briefly summarized as follows:

Mr. Teneyck was residing at LOFT in Penetanguishene, Ontario, a facility with locked private rooms, 24/7 staffing which provides meals as well as medication supervision. Mr. Teneyck is required to attend Waypoint at least once weekly but attends daily. On December 4, 2025, Mr. Teneyck attended his daily check-in for a “rapid drug screen” and before the results were identified he reported to Dr. Jones that he had been hearing “a voice telling him to harm himself”. After the meeting, Dr. Jones learned that the drug screen was positive for cannabis and according to her note “recent use of cannabis may account for the new complaints of auditory hallucinations.” Thus Mr. Teneyck was admitted to Waypoint. Indirectly supervised privileges were placed on hold until a “negative broad spectrum” (urine samples sent to the lab for broad spectrum) result was obtained. “A broad spectrum drug screen is the “gold standard” test however there is a delay in obtaining results.”

Evidence at the Hearing

13. The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence from Dr. A Jones. Dr. Jones authored the Hospital Report and testified as follows:

a) Mr. Teneyck has a long standing, serious mental disorder dating back to age 18. He is particularly vulnerable to the effect of substances, especially cannabis which can cause a rapid decompensation of his mental health. When he is unwell, Mr. Teneyck can come psychotic, manic and over the years had made threats, destroyed property, and acted inappropriately with women.

b) Prior to the restriction, Mr. Teneyck reported daily to the Hospital, via taxi, for urine testing and mental status evaluations.

c) While residing at his current housing, LOFT, Mr. Teneyck has been largely abstinent from substances by choice.

d) On December 4, 2025, the restriction of liberty arose as a result of a significant change to Mr. Teneyck’s mental health status after testing positive for cannabis use and hearing voices telling him to harm himself. He originally denied using cannabis but on December 9, 2025, he admitted to eating an unused part of a cannabis joint found in an ashtray in the courtyard at LOFT.

e) Mr. Teneyck was not given off unit privileges until his urine analysis was cleared. He tested negative for the presence of cannabis on December 31, 2025, and was given indirectly supervised privileges on the grounds of the Hospital.

f) Dr. Jones and an outreach nurse visited LOFT on January 6, 2026, to verify that the ashtray where Mr. Teneyck found the cannabis joint was secure and butts were inaccessible. They confirmed that the ashtray was screwed shut.

g) From the ROL Report, the panel was also aware that on multiple occasions, commencing on January 7, 2026, Mr. Teneyck was granted leaves of absence from the Hospital to reside at LOFT while continuing check-ins.

h) Mr. Teneyck abstained from substance use and was discharged to LOFT on February 2, 2026.

i) Dr. Jones testified that the Disposition is working very well, and that LOFT is a good placement for Mr. Teneyck in terms of managing risk. She indicated that it is important to the Hospital to interrupt substance use in order to stop the escalation of the symptoms of his mental disorder. This is of concern given that the alleged index offence occurred in a co-ed group home with vulnerable females, similar to LOFT.

14. In response to questions from counsel for Mr. Teneyck, Dr. Jones testified as follows:

a) Mr. Teneyck will continue to report for daily testing at the hospital and then return to the group home. He likes this routine. At LOFT, there are many appealing items in the vending machine unit, and he does not feel the need to stray from the home. He is impulsive and has a difficult time restraining himself if he sees cannabis. However, at LOFT, there is little temptation, and he is very happy to be living there.

15. In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Jones testified:

a) Mr. Teneyck has not had a positive test for substance use, other than the test on December 4, 2025, since he has resided at LOFT. He is diagnosed with PICA, and it is ongoing, not only during psychotic episodes.

b) Mr. Teneyck displays inappropriate sexual behaviour when in a manic state and his mania is often associated with an increased sexual drive and disinhibition.

16. No other evidence was called.

17. At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties confirmed that there was a joint submission that the restriction of liberty was necessary and appropriate and represented the least onerous and least restrictive measure at the time it was imposed through to February 2, 2026. Ms. Kraftscik indicated that it was important to have Mr. Teneyck return to the community as soon as possible. Ms. Francis concurred and commended the Hospital for doing a great job and expressed that Mr. Teneyck is grateful.

Analysis and Conclusions

18. The Board finds that a significant increase of the restriction on Mr. Teneyck’s took place, pursuant to the factors set out in the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in R v MLC (2010 ONCA 843), as well as Regina v Campbell (2018 ONCA 141), when he was admitted to Waypoint from his housing at LOFT. This was a significant departure from his liberty norm to which he had been accustomed.

19. The Board accepts Dr. Jones’ testimony that the restriction of liberty was necessary and appropriate and represented the least onerous and least restrictive measure at the time it was imposed and throughout its duration.

20. Considering all of the circumstances, the Board finds that the restriction of Mr. Teneyck’s liberty from December 4, 2025, to February 2, 2026, was necessary and appropriate for the safety of the public and it represented the least onerous and least restrictive measure at the time it was imposed and throughout its duration.

DATED this 20th day of February 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.

Ms. A. Israel Legal Member

__________________ Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board