Re: Padraig Teggart
ORB File No: 8399
Hearing held on: January 14, 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: Ms. L. Banks
Members: Dr. R. Sheppard Dr. L.O. Lightfoot Ms. C. Murray Ms. R. Chopra
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Padraig Teggart Counsel: Ms. J. Boissonneault
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Szabo
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. Aliki Yorgiadis
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated February 23, 2026)
Introduction
On June 28, 2023, Padraig Teggart was found not criminally responsible (“NCR”) on account of mental disorder on a charge of attempt murder, contrary to the Criminal Code. Further, on June 28, 2023, Mr. Teggart was designated by the Court as a high risk accused (“HRA”) pursuant to s. 672.64 of the Criminal Code.
Mr. Teggart is subject to an Ontario Review Board disposition of January 22, 2025, which detains him at the Secure Forensic Service of Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences with privileges up to and including to enter the community for the purposes of recreation and community reintegration, escorted by staff. The disposition, however, includes the s. 672.64(3) Criminal Code qualification that any absence from the hospital should be for medical reasons or a purpose necessary for the high risk accused’s treatment and a structured plan has been prepared to address any risk related to the accused’s absence from the hospital and that the accused’s absence will not present an undue risk to the public.
On January 14, 2026, a panel of the Ontario Review Board (“Board” or “panel”) convened at Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (“Ontario Shores”) to conduct Mr. Teggart’s annual review and to make a disposition further to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code.
Mr. Teggart was present for his hearing and represented by counsel, Ms. Jocelyne Boissonneault, throughout the proceedings. Mr. Teggart’s father attended the hearing as an observer.
A Hospital Report dated December 30, 2025, was entered as Exhibit 1. The Victim Impact Statements of Mr. Teggart’s father, Patrick Teggart, and his mother, Janice Teggart, were entered as Exhibits 2 and 3, respectively.
For the reasons set out below and based on the evidence and opinions before us, the Board finds that Mr. Teggart continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board finds that continuation of the Detention Disposition within the Forensic Service of Ontario Shores with the addition of indirectly supervised hospital and grounds privileges is the necessary and appropriate Order having regard to the safety of the public, which is the paramount concern, and also having regard to Mr. Teggart’s mental health, reintegration into society, and his other needs.
Position of the Parties
The parties presented their initial positions prior to the hearing of the evidence. The hospital recommended that Mr. Teggart be detained in the Forensic Program at Ontario Shores with the same terms as last year’s disposition, except the addition of a term permitting indirectly supervised hospital and grounds privileges. Ms. Szabo made clear that the hospital would have been requesting additional privileges but for the restrictions required as a high risk accused as set out in s. 672.64 of the Criminal Code.
Prior to evidence, counsel for the Attorney General, Ms. Yorgiadis, recommended detention within the Secure Forensic Program. The Crown supported indirectly supervised hospital privileges but anticipated that she would not be supporting indirectly supervised grounds privileges.
Counsel for Mr. Teggart, Ms. Boissonneault, agreed with the recommendations of the hospital and conceded the issue of significant threat.
Psychiatric Diagnoses
- Schizophrenia; and
Cannabis Use Disorder
Index Offences
- Last year’s Reasons for Disposition outline the index offence as follows:
“The victim of the offence is Janice McDonald-Teggart, the mother of Padraig Teggart. The offence occurred on May 11, 2022, at the family home in Pickering.
Ms. McDonald-Teggart was home alone with her son, when suddenly and without warning, she was attacked by him. He struck her in the head with an unknown object causing her to become disoriented. The accused was in possession of a knife, which he used in the assault causing serious injuries. She fled from the kitchen area to the hallway, where she was violently attacked and forced head first into a wall. She was briefly unconscious. She then attempted to flee the home through a laundry-room garage door entrance. She was prevented from leaving by the accused who told her she couldn’t leave. He forced her to the ground and choked her until she was unconscious. The accused then cut his mother with a knife or scissors causing significant facial wounds.
Ms. McDonald-Teggart regained consciousness and was able to escape to the driveway. The accused pursued her to the driveway and continued the assault. The accused pinned her on the ground and then dragged her by the hair into the garage. The accused then entered the house. Several witnesses called the police who heard the victim screaming for help. The accused exited the house on the arrival of the police and was arrested without incident.
The victim suffered extensive injuries: skull fracture, damaged orbital bone with impaired vision to her left eye, a broken nose, and multiple lacerations to her face and hands that required stiches. She also required reconstructive surgery to her nose and eyes, and had to have titanium plates implanted in the area of her eye.
Ms. McDonald-Teggart advised the police that on the morning of the assault, the accused had asked her for money. She refused to give him money and he made a comment to the effect of, “I could just stab you or cut you”. He did not appear well and the victim suggested he talk to someone. The accused later stated that his mother suggesting he needed help triggered him. The accused also advised the police that he was not under the influence of alcohol or drugs that day.”
Background
The Hospital Report contains extensive information regarding Mr. Teggart’s background and history, the entirety of which need not be repeated here in detail. However, in summary, Mr. Teggart is 30 years of age.
Prior to the index offence, he had no recorded criminal record, although his parents advised that he was charged with stunt driving in 2018 after driving excessively on the Don Valley Parkway. He pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of speeding under the Highway Traffic Act. His parents also reported that he was charged with shoplifting in 2020, but these charges were dropped. He also allegedly assaulted his father in February of 2020 and threatened him in January 2021. His parents did not press charges against him.
Mr. Teggart had psychiatric admissions to various hospitals commencing in 2011 when he was admitted to Lakeridge Health Oshawa on a Mental Health Act (MHA) on a Form 1.
Mr. Teggart states that he was diagnosed with schizophrenia in 2018 by his family doctor. He believed he was being controlled by evil forces and that his parents and sister were imposters created by artificial intelligence. He was diagnosed with Capgras Syndrome.
Mr. Teggart was admitted to Rouge Valley Centenary Hospital from May 10 to May 15, 2019, on a Form 1 of the MHA. After discharge, he was followed by the Durham Amaze Early Psychosis Intervention Program (EPI Program).
The EPI Program in February 2020 noted that Mr. Teggart was staying at a shelter in Oshawa after being asked to leave the family home a week prior following an altercation that resulted in his father requiring medical attention for a dislocated shoulder. He was noted to be not forthcoming regarding psychotic symptoms and was engaging in daily cannabis use.
During an admission to hospital from August 10 to August 20, 2021, on a Form 2 MHA, it was noted that Mr. Teggart had not been compliant with his oral and injectable medications for several months. Mr. Teggart’s outpatient nurse at the EPI Program expressed concern that Mr. Teggart may end up killing his mother. On discharge, he was to follow up with the EPI Program and was referred for a Community Treatment Order.
In March 2021 Mr. Teggart was admitted to Lakeridge Health Oshawa under a Form 1 MHA. He reported hearing voices telling him that his parents are not real.
Mr. Teggart reported first using cannabis when in grade 9. By the time he reached grade 11 he was smoking every other weekend. Mr. Teggart’s parents confirmed that when he went to college his cannabis use increased. By his own report, Mr. Teggart stated he had never tried any other recreational drugs, however, his parents and sister reported that he had used other street drugs. Mr. Teggart continued to use cannabis up to the time of the index offence.
Mr. Teggart reported only drinking alcohol on five or six occasions prior to the index offence.
Mr. Teggart is financially supported by Ontario Disability Support Program and receives a monthly Personal Needs Allowance. He has a history of verbal and physical altercations with his parents over money.
Course Since Last Disposition
Mr. Teggart’s psychotic symptoms have significantly reduced and are residual at this point in time. He continues to hear the voice of a woman who makes threats to “skin him” or otherwise “kill him.” By August 2025, the frequency of hearing the voice reduced to a few times per week. He states he does not have a plan to act on this voice.
Mr. Teggart has shown some improvement in his delusional beliefs toward his parents. His belief that his parents are imposters has dropped from 50 percent last year to 10 percent this year. When he last saw his father in person in early January 2026, he believed for 30 seconds that he was an imposter and was wearing a mask. He did not become angry and was not aggressive toward his father.
Mr. Teggart continues to endorse that he lives in a virtual world 10 percent of the time. He is aware that these beliefs are not real. These beliefs have no impact his behaviour or affect at this time.
In this reporting year, Mr. Teggart used Level 2 hospital and grounds staff accompanied privileges more than 264 times. He used Level 4 community escorted privileges more than 14 times. All privileges have been used appropriately.
Mr. Teggart has attended several programming groups this year including IMR: Building Social Supports, Managing Physical and Mental Health, Normalizing Symptoms, Relapse Prevention, Building Self-Worth, IMR: Coping with Stress. Mr. Teggart began participating virtually in Family Intervention Therapy (FIT) with his parents. Mr. Teggart and his parents have been active participants in the FIT program and it is clear that they are committed to and supportive of his recovery.
Mr. Teggart has participated in concurrent disorders programming. His insight into the link between cannabis use and psychosis is developing.
Evidence at the Hearing
Dr. Karen De Freitas testified on behalf of the hospital and as Mr. Teggart’s treating psychiatrist.
Dr. De Freitas testified that Mr. Teggart is less guarded in interactions with the treatment team this year. He speaks openly and freely with them.
Mr. Teggart’s psychotic symptoms have significantly reduced. The voice he was hearing almost continuously when acutely ill now occurs only a couple of times per week. He is clear that he is not afraid of the voice and does not believe what the voice says to him. Delusional beliefs have been twofold, including a belief that he is living in a virtual reality and a belief that his parents are imposters. At the time of the index offence, he believed both of these delusions completely. These beliefs have abated to being “in the background” which he believes only ten percent of the time. Dr. DeFreitas opined that it is not likely that these beliefs will go away completely in the sense that they will always be in the back of his mind.
The hospital is recommending a removal of detention in a secure forensic unit. The hospital is recommending, instead, detention in the general Forensic Service at Ontario Shores to permit Mr. Teggart increased hospital and grounds privileges. In the coming year it is likely that Mr. Teggart will be ready to exercise more than two hours of indirectly supervised hospital and grounds privileges. Dr. DeFreitas explained that hospital policy caps indirectly supervised hospital and grounds privileges to 1 hour (and, at times, 2 hours) if a patient resides in a secure forensic unit.
Dr. DeFreitas stated that the Hospital will take careful steps to move Mr. Teggart gradually out of a secure forensic unit. The hospital will likely start by granting 15 minute time-limited indirectly supervised privileges from the secure unit. Providing that Mr. Teggart uses privileges appropriately, the hospital would increase privileges gradually every few days until he reaches one hour of indirectly supervised privileges. Passes from the secure unit would build up to hospital grounds privileges. Once Mr. Teggart successfully progresses to hospital and grounds privileges for one hour, the hospital will consider moving him to a general forensic unit.
The hospital has always considered grounds privileges and hospital privileges together outside of the HRA designation. She is aware of another HRA case within hospital where grounds were considered by the Board to be akin to the community because of the close proximity to community housing.
Dr. DeFreitas testified that shadowing a patient on hospital grounds is more difficult than shadowing them in hospital. Shadowing involves a nurse following at a distance to observe the patient’s activities. With indirectly supervised grounds privileges the patient has to report where they are going. It is possible that the hospital could have staff waiting to receive the patient at the reported location.
Dr. DeFreitas testified that, absent the HRA designation, the hospital would be recommending community living in a group home, which she opines would be sufficient to manage his risk.
Mr. Teggart has done well clinically. He is pleasant and polite. He has never been a management problem. The doctor stated that he has been cooperative and responsive to staff direction.
Dr. DeFreitas testified that Mr. Teggart has participated in Family Intervention Therapy (“FIT”) with his parents this year. This has been going well. His relationship with his mother improved well enough that his mother visited him once in hospital. The doctor commented that Mr. Teggart speaks to his parents daily and they continue to be very supportive of his recovery.
Dr. De Freitas has asked Mr. Teggart to switch his medication to a long-acting injectable antipsychotic, Invega Sustenna. He has declined, stating he prefers to remain on oral medication because he has an aversion to needles. The treatment team has told him that an injectable medication will aid in his compliance; however, given his HRA status, the issue of an injectable medication is not important at this point as he does not have the privilege of community living. This year, Mr. Teggart has been treated with a high dose of clozapine as an adjunct therapy to oral Invega.
In response to questions of Ms. Yorgiadis, counsel for the Attorney General, Dr. DeFreitas stated that she believes that Mr. Teggart will be ready for greater than two hour indirect privileges within a few months.
Dr. DeFreitas confirmed that grounds in the context of privileges includes the hospital’s outdoor space. She stated that the treatment team has a level of trust with any patient that uses unsupervised grounds privileges. She opined that it would be overly restrictive to restrict Mr. Teggart’s privileges to “escorted” when outside on the hospital grounds over the course of the next year. If Mr. Teggart failed to check in during indirectly supervised grounds privileges, the hospital would use Code Yellow protocols. This would involve quickly initiating a search for him.
In response to questions of counsel for Mr. Teggart, Dr. DeFreitas testified that Mr. Teggart has been less guarded in his interactions with staff and more forthcoming this year, which is a protective factor. Mr. Teggart continues to have residual symptoms which may be further attenuated by Cognitive Behavioural Therapy commencing this year; however, Dr. DeFreitas does not believe these symptoms are impacting his risk to the public because the symptoms have not affected his affect or behaviour this reporting year.
Dr. DeFreitas testified that Mr. Teggart has actively participated in programming this reporting year. This is an improvement from the prior year. She believes he will continue to participate in programming and that it will benefit him.
Dr. DeFreitas testified that prior to patients being allowed to exercise their daily indirectly supervised privileges, the nurses want them up for at least a half hour to be able to observe them on the unit. The nurses then assess the patients prior to them going out on privileges. Nurses will only let Mr. Teggart go for unsupervised privileges if he is assessed as being stable. Dr. DeFreitas said that Mr. Teggart’s risk level today is appropriate for him to reside in a general unit once he gets beyond exercising indirect privileges from the secure unit.
In response to questions of the Board, Dr. DeFreitas testified that there is nothing in particular that triggers Mr. Teggart’s auditory hallucinations.
Dr. DeFreitas testified that the extent of “hospital grounds” is the “land around us”. She was unable to define the perimeter of the grounds. She is not sure what patients are told regarding hospital grounds boundaries. She noted that there is public access to the grounds and members of the public often walk on the grounds. Although Dr. DeFreitas cannot define the boundaries, staff are familiar with boundaries of the grounds and will provide Mr. Teggart with information regarding the boundaries of the grounds prior to exercising indirectly supervised privileges. She stated that the sidewalk between the street and the housing complex is a clear boundary and this would be communicated to Mr. Teggart.
Dr. DeFreitas confirmed that Mr. Teggart was using cannabis at the time of the index offence. With indirectly supervised privileges, he will have greater access to cannabis. Mr. Teggart says that he will not use cannabis because it impacts his mental state. He says it makes his psychosis worse, so he does not want to use it. He will have urine drug screens for cannabis once he is using indirectly supervised privileges. Dr. DeFreitas says she thinks that Mr. Teggart has insight into his substance use but “the proof is in the pudding”. The doctor stated that given that Mr. Teggart is residing on a secure forensic unit and has not exercised indirectly supervised passes, his ability to abstain from substance use has not yet been tested. If he were to use cannabis he would be asked to participate in substance use programming.
The Board asked Dr. DeFreitas if the Code Yellow protocols would include calling the victims of the offence in the event that Mr. Teggart failed to return in a timely fashion from indirectly supervised grounds passes. She testified that this is not normally the case, and the hospital would usually leave it up to the police to do so. However, given the nature of the index offence, she would not object to the victims being notified in the event that Mr. Teggart absconded. She agreed that the triggering event would be the calling of a Code Yellow. The hospital would call police and notify the victims at the same time. Dr. DeFreitas suggested that this term be identified in these Reasons for Disposition.
Submissions
The Hospital maintained their initial position that Mr. Teggart’s Disposition order Mr. Teggart be detained in the Forensic Service of Ontario Shores on the same terms as last year with the exception of addition of discretionary privilege of indirectly supervised hospital and grounds privileges. The Hospital was clear that this is not the least restrictive and least onerous Disposition, as they would be recommending a provision for community living absent Mr. Teggart’s HRA designation. The Hospital is not requesting that Mr. Teggart’s case be referred back to the court to remove the HRA designation given the current state of the law. The Hospital submitted that Mr. Teggart will likely be ready for indirectly supervised grounds privileges over the course of the upcoming year. Depending on his clinical stability, he may also be ready to transfer to a general forensic unit this year. There is a need to test Mr. Teggart with privileges in the interest of rehabilitation and reintegration. The indirectly supervised privileges will be maximized from the secure forensic unit before he is moved to a general forensic unit. The privileges will be granted in a gradual stepwise manner. Ms. Szabo noted the Board Decisions in Grant and Pestill (see citations in paragraph 51), which adopted differing perspectives regarding the granting of indirectly supervised “grounds” privileges. If the panel in Mr. Teggart’s case has any issue interpreting the provision, Ms. Szabo submitted that interpretation must be in favour of the accused.
After considering the evidence at the hearing, Ms. Yorgiadis submitted that she changes her initial position. She submitted that Mr. Teggart should remain in a secure forensic unit. It is clear from the Victim Impact Statements that his family remain very fearful of him. With participation in FIT, they are working through their fear. Mr. Teggart has exercised supervised privileges over 250 times this year. He is currently allowed community access with staff. Ms. Yorgiadis submitted that Mr. Teggart can exercise his unsupervised hospital and grounds privileges from the secure forensic unit through this year. He will receive one hour, possibly 2 hours, of unsupervised privileges on hospital grounds, which is sufficient given the serious nature of the index offence. The index offence arose from a combination of substance use and his illness. He will have more access to substances with indirectly supervised privileges and, therefore, the indirectly supervised privileges must be tested very slowly. Ms. Yorgiadis submitted that the victims want to be notified if a Code Yellow is called in relation to Mr. Teggart’s exercise of indirectly supervised hospital and grounds privileges.
Ms. Boissonneault, on behalf of Mr. Teggart, adopted the Hospital’s submissions. She submitted that there is precedent for including “grounds” in hospital and grounds privileges in the case of an HRA at Ontario Shores. Ms. Boissonneault kindly provided supporting Decisions of the ORB for this panel’s review, including Gautreau (Re) [2024] O.R.B.D. No. 2172 and Grant (Re) [2020] O.R.B.D. No. 2518. Ms. Boissonneault provided the panel with R. v. Raymond 2020 NBQB 251. Ms. Boissonneault submitted that hospital and grounds privileges are available under the HRA designation, and the expert, Dr. DeFreitas, testified today that his risk can be managed with “grounds” included in the indirectly supervised privileges for Mr. Teggart.
Analysis and Conclusion
Although significant threat was not contested at the hearing, the Board nevertheless makes an independent finding that Mr. Teggart continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. In particular, the Board notes that although Mr. Teggart’s progress has been positive this year, he still harbours active symptoms of his major mental illness in the form of auditory hallucinations, Capgrass symptoms including whether his parents are real, and whether he is, in fact, living in a real world. These symptoms are currently managed with oral medication such that he reports only believing the accuracy of the hallucinations and delusions ten percent of the time.
Significant risk to the public arises from Mr. Teggart’s schizophrenia and cannabis use disorder. Mr. Teggart has declined treatment with a long-acting injectable medication, which would provide a protective factor. Further, Mr. Teggart continued to use cannabis up to the time of the index offence. His insight into the connection between substance use and the index offences is still developing. Mr. Teggart has not yet been tested in the community, or even with indirectly supervised passes in the hospital and its grounds, where there will be increased access to substances.
The index offence was an extremely violent attack perpetrated on his mother. There was also prior significant violence against family members for which he was not charged. He has demonstrated behaviours clearly placing the public at risk when experiencing psychotic symptoms. He and his family are continuing FIT, and it is hoped that their relationship will continue to improve with their active participation.
Section 672.64 of the Criminal Code limits the privileges available to a high risk accused. It prohibits the granting of unescorted privileges from the hospital. The Board decisions of Grant and Gautreau both found that section 672.64(3) did not prevent the Board from allowing indirectly supervised access to hospital grounds. The Board also reviewed the decision in Pestill (Re), 2025 CanLII 81153 (ON RB), 2025 CanLII81153 (ON RB), wherein the panel found that because hospital grounds are not secured at Ontario Shores, and the hospital abuts a residential neighbourhood, the high risk accused should not be allowed outside of the hospital building unless escorted by a person approved by the person in charge. In Pestill the panel found that Mr. Pestill would be “absent” from the hospital if given access to hospital grounds.
The Board agrees with the ORB findings of Grant and Gautreau, specifically that section 672.64(3) of the Criminal Code does not prevent the Board from allowing indirectly supervised access to hospital grounds. We also note that the New Brunswick court in Raymond reviewed the French version of the section and came to the conclusion that “a walk on the property does not amount to … an absence from the hospital.”
None of the parties took issue with the authority of the Board to grant indirectly supervised access to hospital grounds. The Board finds that, in Mr. Teggart’s circumstances, the evidence supports indirectly supervised hospital and grounds privileges. The hospital has been clear that they will proceed in a cautious manner with the implementation of any indirectly supervised passes. The hospital has a cautious plan in place including gradual granting of privileges from a secure forensic unit, eventual granting of gradual privileges from a general forensic unit, pre-privilege nursing assessments and, in some circumstances, shadowing. The hospital has agreed that they would contact the victims of the index offence should a Code Yellow be called in relation to any unauthorized absence of Mr. Teggart.
The remaining issue is whether Mr. Teggart’s Detention Order should allow for detention in Forensic Service at Ontario Shores rather than Secure Forensic Service. The Board accepts the evidence of Dr. DeFreitas that Mr. Teggart may be in a position this year to exercise greater than one to two hours of indirectly supervised hospital and grounds privileges. Dr. DeFreitas told the Board, absent the HRA designation, she would have been requesting community living for Mr. Teggart this year given his progress. The Board took into serious consideration the submissions of Ms. Yorgiadis. However, ultimately the Board finds that the evidence supports the submissions of Ms. Szabo and Ms. Boissonneault in this regard. In particular, Mr. Teggart has used all privileges to date with no issue. He is not a management problem and there have not been any notable incidents in the past year. Mr. Teggart has been compliant with his oral medications. He has abstained from substance use in the past year. He will not be transferred to a general forensic unit until he has exercised the maximum privileges from the secure forensic unit.
Accordingly, the Board orders Mr. Teggart’s detention on Forensic Service at Ontario Shores with indirectly supervised hospital and grounds privileges and a provision that the Hospital contact the victims immediately in the event that the Hospital calls a Code Yellow as a result of Mr. Teggart’s unauthorized leave of absence from Hospital.
In making this Disposition, the panel carefully reviewed the provisions of section 672.54 of the Criminal Code and carefully considered the need to protect the public from dangerous persons, Mr. Teggart’s mental condition, his reintegration into society, and his other needs.
DATED this 23rd day of February 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. C. Murray
Legal Member
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board