Re Harlon Jack, 2026 CanLII 15163

Re: Harlon Jack

ORB File No: 5994

Hearing held on: Tuesday, December 9, 2025

Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health Via Zoom Videoconference

Pursuant to: Section 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Ms. L. Banks Members: Dr. K. Hand Dr. M. Mamak Ms. K. Weisbaum Mr. A. Mete

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Harlon Jack Counsel: Ms. L. McCullough

The person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. P. Darby

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. M. Feindel

REASONS FOR DECISION

(Dated January 8, 2026)

Introduction

1. On October 28, 2011, Mr. Harlon Jack was found not criminally responsible (“NCR”) on charges of assaulting a peace officer, failure to comply with probation order, assault with intent to resist arrest, fail to comply with condition of undertaking or recognizance, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”).

2. Mr. Jack is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board” or “ORB”) dated September 10, 2025, ordering his detention at the Forensic Service of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto (“CAMH” or the “hospital”), and granting him privileges, including living in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge of the hospital.

3. On October 22, 2025, the ORB received notice from Sham Hishmeh, Manager Office of the Person in Charge at CAMH, advising that on October 14, 2025, Mr. Jack was readmitted to the hospital from his residence in the community. He remained in the hospital for a period in excess of seven days. The letter was to be considered notice pursuant to s. 672.56(2)(b) of the Criminal Code.

4. On December 9, 2025, the Board convened a hearing at the hospital’s request to review the increased restrictions of Mr. Jack’s liberties pursuant to s. 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Jack was not present at the hearing but was represented by his counsel, Ms. L. McCullough, who indicated that she had instructions to proceed in her client’s absence. The Board ordered that Mr. Jack be excused from the hearing pursuant to s.672.5(10) of the Criminal Code.

5. The issues at the hearing included a determination of whether the hospital’s decision to significantly increase the restrictions on Mr. Jack’s liberty was the least restrictive and least onerous intervention available to the hospital in the circumstances, both at the time of Mr. Jack’s readmission to the hospital on October 14, 2025, and throughout the continuation of those restrictions until November 5, 2025.

Position of the Parties

6. At the commencement of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as to their recommendations to the Board. The hospital’s representative, the Crown and Ms. McCullough presented the Board with a joint recommendation that the restriction of Mr. Jack’s liberty from October 14, 2025, until November 5, 2025, was the least restrictive and least onerous intervention available to the hospital in the circumstances.

7. All parties maintained their initial joint recommendation to the Board in closing submissions and all parties confirmed that there was no need to review the terms of Mr. Jack’s existing Disposition.

Index Offences

8. The allegations giving rise to the index offence are extracted from the ORB’s recent Reasons for Disposition dated October 8, 2025, as follows:

“Mr. Jack, while at a crosswalk, walked behind a stopped police cruiser and butted out a cigarette on the trunk. When the officer called out to him about what he had done he responded by saying, “Fuck off cops, you got nothing on me.” The police cruiser followed him and pulled up beside Mr. Jack, who was on foot. Mr. Jack then reached through the window and lit a cigarette lighter near P.C. Dobb’s face. She got out to arrest him for assault and he grabbed her by her vest and punched her “several times.”

Mr. Jack was released on a recognizance and did not attend on his first court appearance. He also did not remain at the address specified on his recognizance. At the time he was also on a probation order with a term reading ''Follow the directions of Stephen Willoughby at CAMH.” He had been discharged from the program run by Mr. Willoughby for non-attendance.”

Background Information

9. Mr. Jack’s personal history, his mental health history, details of prior criminal charges and convictions, additional details of the index offences, and Mr. Jack’s course in hospital and in the community subsequent to the date of the NCR finding is set out in the Hospital Report to the ORB dated August 7, 2025, (the “Hospital Report”) which was entered as an Exhibit at the hearing and, therefore, its content will not be repeated here. These Reasons have also relied on the historical information as set forth in the ORB Reasons for Disposition dated October 8, 2025.

10. At the time of the hearing, Mr. Jack was 61 years old. He was born in St. Vincent but has been living in Canada since he was 9 years old.

11. Mr. Jack’s education is limited as he did not return to school after an incident there where he was stabbed, resulting in a lung injury when he was 16 years old. After leaving school, he started using cannabis and eventually cocaine and began living on the street.

12. Mr. Jack was diagnosed with Schizophrenia at age 19. He had numerous hospitalizations and had assaulted a psychiatrist when he was unwell. The Pro-ACT team followed Mr. Jack prior to the index offences. He became non-compliant with medication approximately three months before his arrest.

13. Mr. Jack has a history of medication refusal and non-compliance. He was subject to a Community Treatment Order that was not continued as it did not effectively impact his behaviour or treatment. He was immersed in the drug culture and chronically homeless.

14. Prior to his readmission to the hospital on October 14, 2025, Mr. Jack had been residing in the community in supportive housing since his discharge in 2017 except for one month-long hospital admission in 2019.

15. Mr. Jack’s criminal record includes many convictions for assaultive behaviour, spanning from 1987 to 2010.

16. Following his NCR finding, Mr. Jack absconded from hospital and used crack cocaine daily for 10 days in 2012, after which he progressed uneventfully until May 2016 when he again tested positive for cocaine.

17. In April 2017, Mr. Jack was discharged from the hospital to reside in LOFT housing with 24-hour support. At times, he was involved in altercations with co-residents, staff and community clients. His behaviour became sufficiently aggressive in late 2019 that staff felt unsafe with him in the home. He was readmitted to the hospital for approximately one month before being discharged back to LOFT.

18. In the 2020 to 2021 reporting year, Mr. Jack started refusing to provide urine drug screen samples for drug testing and refused to meet with Dr. Darby, his treating psychiatrist with the forensic outpatient team.

19. Mr. Jack has been maintained in a high support residence in the community for several years. He had a number of brief readmissions, the most recent being in April 2024.

Psychiatric Diagnoses

20. Mr. Jack’s current diagnoses are:

Schizophrenia;

Polysubstance Abuse/Dependence (cocaine, marijuana, amphetamines), in remission in a controlled environment; and

Antisocial Personality Traits (per history).

Evidence at the Hearing

21. Dr. P. Darby, Mr. Jack’s forensic psychiatrist, testified at the hearing to supplement the documentary evidence before the Board, including the Hospital Report and the Restriction of Liberties Report dated November 18, 2025 (the “ROL Report”). The doctor adopted the contents of these Reports.

22. Dr. Darby testified that Mr. Jack lives a quiet life in the community at his LOFT residence. He engages minimally with co-residents and staff. On the day prior to his readmission, Mr. Jack asked a co-resident for a cigarette. The man declined and punched Mr. Jack in the arm. Mr. Jack was not injured. In response, Mr. Jack tried to throw a chair at the co-resident and staff had to intervene to de-escalate Mr. Jack and prevent injury.

23. The following day when housing staff spoke to Mr. Jack about the incident, he expressed being irritated by the other co-resident and then abruptly left the meeting.

24. The ROL Report indicates that “Mr. Jack has an extensive history of aggression in the context of a major mental illness and antisocial personality disorder. His behaviour could escalate very quickly and, given the potential for significant aggression towards staff and other patients, it was felt that he needed to be admitted for a brief period of time to stabilize his mental status and behaviour.”

25. On admission, Mr. Jack minimized his role in the incident and continued to externalize blame on the co-resident. After some time in hospital, Mr. Jack returned to his baseline and expressed his desire to return to his LOFT housing, which Dr. Darby stated was permanent housing.

26. During his brief admission, Mr. Jack did not present as a management concern and there were no episodes of verbal or physical aggression, and he appeared to have returned to his baseline.

27. The in-patient team, members of the Forensic Outpatient Service team and the housing supervisor conducted a virtual meeting with management of LOFT and Mr. Jack. Mr. Jack was clearly told that if he were to engage in any further incidents of aggression, he would risk eviction from the residence.

28. Mr. Jack was discharged back to his LOFT residence on November 5, 2025.

29. Dr. Darby stated that this is only Mr. Jack’s third readmission to hospital over the past several years. In the doctor’s opinion, the recent readmission was warranted due to Mr. Jack posing a risk of continued physical harm to housing staff and co-residents.

30. In response to a question posed, the doctor advised that Mr. Jack’s medications were not adjusted during his brief readmission. Dr. Darby stated that he believes the assaultive episode was more likely driven by Mr. Jack’s anti-social personality traits rather than by psychosis.

31. No further evidence was called by the parties.

Analysis and Conclusions

32. Pursuant to the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Regina vs. M.L.C. (2010 ONCA 843), the Board must consider not only the reason for the restriction and the initial decision to impose a restriction but also the ongoing circumstances of the accused for the period of time that the restriction remains in place including up to the time of review. The initial restriction of liberty and ongoing restriction of liberty must be the least onerous and least restrictive necessary for public safety and for the accused.

33. The Board finds that the initial restriction of Mr. Jack’s liberty on October 14, 2025, was warranted and that the actions taken by the hospital at that time were the least restrictive and least intrusive in the circumstances. His re-admission was prompted by concerns that he was presenting with heightened aggression directed at a co-resident. He had acted out in an assaultive manner.

34. The Board finds that the restriction of Mr. Jack’s liberty from October 14, 2025, to November 5, 2025, was the least restrictive and least onerous intervention in the circumstances in order fully re-stabilize his mental status. The purpose of the admission was achieved, and Mr. Jack was safely discharged to his community residence at the earliest possible opportunity.

35. In reaching our decision, the Board considered public safety, Mr. Jack’s mental condition, his integration into society and his other needs.

DATED this 8th day of January, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

Ms. L. Banks Alternate Chairperson

___________________

Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board