Ontario Review Board
Re: K. (A.)
ORB File No: 8679
Hearing held on: Thursday, January 15, 2026
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. Y. Alatishe Dr. P. Wright Mr. K. McKenna Mr. J. Cyr
Parties Appearing:
Accused: K. (A.) Counsel: Ms. M. Frouhar
The person in charge of hospital: Representative Dr. A. Adiele
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. J. Masse
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated February 25, 2026)
Introduction
On December 2nd, 2024, K. (A.) was found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder on charges of assault with intent to resist arrest, assault a peace officer causing bodily harm, attempt to take weapon from peace officer, resist public or peace officer, and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“the Criminal Code”).
K. (A.) is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated February 6th, 2025, and an order amending that Disposition dated April 11th, 2025, detaining him within the Forensic Program of the Brockville Mental Health Centre (“BMHC”) with privileges up to and including to live in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge of the hospital.
On January 15, 2026, the Ontario Review Board (“the ORB” or “the Board”) convened a hearing at the BMHC pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. The annual review for K. (A.) was held in person. The hospital was represented by Dr. A. Adiele, the Attorney General by Ms. J. Masse and K. (A.) by Ms. Frouhar.
Without Prejudice Position of the Parties
- At the outset of the hearing, Dr. Adiele indicated that he was recommending a renewal of a Detention Disposition for K. (A.) with minor amendments to the wording indicated at page 42 of the Hospital Report, so as to read as follows:
2(e) to enter the community of Ontario within a 250 km radius of the BMHC indirectly supervised,
2(f) travel passes within Canada, upon first obtaining approval of his itinerary by the person in charge of the Brockville Mental Health Centre – Member of the Royal Ottawa Health Care Group, accompanied by staff or a person approved by the person in charge,
Ms. Masse, for the Crown, indicated that she was generally in agreement but had concerns vis-à-vis the conditions pertaining to K. (A.)’s proposed travel to Nova Scotia.
Ms. Frouhar, for K. (A.), indicated that she was not contesting the ongoing presence of significant threat but would otherwise reserve her position until having heard the evidence.
Index Offence
- The circumstances giving rise to the charges on the index offences is set out in last year’s Reasons for Disposition as follows:
“"On the 30th of June 2023, at 10:02 a.m. Brockville Police Service were dispatched to 35 Murray Street in the City of Brockville for a report of a male looking in windows of 35 Murray Street and was currently in the backyard. The male was described as wearing green hoodie, grey wind pants and blue running shoes and carrying a black backpack. Further information relayed to police was the male had a knife in his hand but just put the knife in his bag. He was potentially in possession of a switch blade in his sweater pocket as well.
Upon rounding the house1 in the front driveway1 police were met by a male wearing a green sweater and grey sweatpants matching the description1 kneeling down holding a cell phone in his hand. It was plugged into an exterior outlet The male was later identified as K. (A.). At that time police had given commands to K. (A.) to stand up and put his cell phone down to show police his hands. The male did not follow any police commands where he grabbed his large duffle bag and began to pace around1 not even recognizing that police were speaking to him and would not look up at police. K. (A.) began to walk away and while walking, he had concealed his left hand into his front sweater pocket.
At that time, with the information received to police that he was possibly in possession of what was believed to be a switch blade1 the [police officer] had removed his conductive energy weapon and pointed it at K. (A.), giving him orders to show his hands. K. (A.) did not follow any instructions and began walking further away from police, then turning around and walking in the opposite direction. K. (A.) was continued to be given commands to show his hands, to get on the ground. He did not follow any instructions that were ordered to him. At that time K. (A.) was warned that he would be tasered if he did not show his hands.
At 10:06 a.m. K. (A.) still did not listen to police and began to walk away. At that time the writer had deployed his conductive energy weapon which was ineffective as there was no neuromuscular incapacitation (NMI). K. (A.) began to run southbound on Murray Street still keeping his left hand concealed in his sweater pocket At that time police engaged in a foot pursuit keeping a safe distance as the male was considered to be armed where there was a second CEW deployment on K. (A.)'s back where there was a full-body lockup with neuromuscular incapacitation where K. (A.) fell to the ground.
While under current, police were attempting to grab his hands to place them behind his back. Upon the 5 second cycle, the [police] had attempted to take control of K. (A.)'s left hand. At that time he had kneeled up against his arm to prevent him from pulling out an edged weapon. The [police] was able to use soft-hand techniques where he was able to remove his left hand from underneath his body. At that time he did have a silver Smith and Wesson folding-blade knife in his hand. The [police] was able to remove it from his hand and toss it a short distance away.
Constable Kenney was attempting to control K. (A.)'s right hand as he had it under his body as well. A struggle continued to ensue. At that time, Constable Kenney was able to get a handcuff on to his left wrist. Police struggled to get the right arm under control. At some point, K. (A.) did a hold of Constable Kenney's glasses and refused to let them go. While police struggled, K. (A.) was flailing around where he was grabbing the officers' fingers and hands while they were attempting to place him in handcuffs. At one point he did have a full grip onto Constable Kenney's watch.
The [police] had conducted drive stuns with the conductive energy weapon to obtain compliance where the male thrashed around on the ground. During the course of drive stuns, K. (A.) was able to free his left hand, and the [police] no longer had control of K. (A.)'s left hand where only one handcuff was on. At point K. (A.) had a full grip on the [police officer's] conductive energy weapon. For a brief struggle the [police] maintained control of it and again. K. (A.) then made a second attempt, grabbing the conductive energy weapon. At that point the [police] had to use both hands to defend the intermediate weapon from K. (A.) where it had to be tossed a short distance away at which time the [police] used both of his hands to get K. (A.) under control. He was able to be placed into handcuffs.
While on the ground, K. (A.) was displaying extreme strength. Using his legs, he was able to push the [police] off of him. At that time, he had to forcefully hold his legs down. Even while handcuffed, K. (A.) continued to grab at fingers, watches. At that time Constables Despres and Lafontaine had arrived on scene.
At 10:07 hours K. (A.) was placed under arrest for the offence of resist police and trespassing. At that time the [police] was aware there was an email two days prior by a member of the Brockville Police regarding an officer safety sent from Kemptville OPP regarding K. (A.) where the male had to be subdued by conductive energy weapon after going for a knife and biting, using his hands to grab at police, throughout. the course of an arrest. It was similar behaviour that was displayed on today's date.
All four officers had to hold K. (A.) down as he was continuing to yell and flail
around. Police attempted to reason with K. (A.) but due to his heightened state, flailing and kicking, the hobble-restraint device was utilized, placing it around Alex's ankles to limit the movements of Alex as he was uncontrollable by four police officers. K. (A.) was placed in the rear of police vehicle 3.
At that time the [police] went over to speak to the complainant Curtis Burns; but had overheard a commotion and loud kicking coming from [the] police vehicle. At that time the [police] had observed the police vehicle getting kicked, and Constable Kenney, Constable Lafontaine and Constable Despres removed K. (A.) from the police vehicle to prevent any damage to police property. K. (A.) continued, while on the ground, to grab police hands. While he was thrashing around, K. (A.) did get a full grip onto Constable Despres duty belt. Within reach was his oleoresin capsicum (OC spray), a collapsible ASP baton and his conductive energy weapon.
At that time, a second hobble restraint device was used as he was still able to utilize his legs to kick around. Police were attempting to develop a plan for the next steps whether K. (A.) would be transported directly to the police station [or] to the Brockville General Hospital for medical purposes as the strength and state he was in is near consistent with excited delirium. At that time Acting Sergeant Muldoon had advised to transport to the Brockville General Hospital for medical attention. During transport K. (A.) repeatedly smashed his head off of the partition in the rear of police vehicle.
Once at the ambulance doors at the emergency department at the Brockville General Hospital K. (A.), in the back of the car, had calmed down but once he was told that he would be going into the hospital and would have to get out he again was heightened, and it is noted that K. (A.) was able to remove two hobble-restraint devices and switch his handcuffs to the front. Alex continued to yell repeatedly at the top of his lungs "rape" and "lawyer". Alex was advised due to his aggressive state, grabbing conductive energy weapons, grabbing officers' belts and four officers unable to physically control him. that it was not safe to put him. in contact with a lawyer but they could put it on speaker phone but he would not be offered a privacy call. K. (A.) did not register any of that and continued to yell "rape" and "lawyer".
K. (A.) was put on a stretcher where [he was] placed in a five-point restraint by hospital staff. Police assisted in the process. Stilt K. (A.) was exhibiting extreme signs of strength. With his legs in restraints he was able to push up police hands from. attempting to control him. while being restrained. K. (A.) had to be medically sedated due to his aggressive state.
At that time police had advised hospital staff that the male would be arrested and charged and held in bail court. Police did not want a form. issued as he was in police custody but at 11:32 a.m. K. (A.) was placed on a Form. 1 and admitted into hospital care. Hospital staff advised police they would contact them. upon his release for him. to answer to charges.”
Current Diagnoses
Specific Learning Difficulty (with impairment in written expression) - by history,
Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder - by history,
Schizophrenia,
Cannabis Use Disorder - currently abstinent while in a controlled environment.
Evidence at the Hearing
The Board admitted into evidence the Hospital Report dated December 30th, 2025, as Exhibit No. 1. That document provides a great deal of information concerning K. (A.)’s personal history, mental health history as well as his course in hospital and in the community both prior to and subsequent to the index offences. As the Hospital Report was made an Exhibit, it’s unnecessary to reproduce the information contained therein in these Reasons.
In addition to the documentary evidence, the Board heard from Dr. Anthony Adiele.
Questioned by Ms. Masse, Dr. Adiele stated that a trip to Nova Scotia was a realistic possibility in the coming year. The doctor added that he anticipated that the proposed travel would occur with K. (A.)’s parents as approved persons. Further, during the proposed travel, K. (A.)’s parents would oversee ingestion of his oral medications.
Dr. Adiele was asked if it would be difficult to return K. (A.) to Ontario, were he to theoretically decompensate in Nova Scotia. The doctor responded that K. (A.) grasps that he requires psychotropic medications to stay well. If, for some reason, his parents could not return him to Ontario, the treatment team could be reached and/or he could be taken to a Nova Scotia hospital for assessment. This is not anticipated as any proposed trip would likely be for approximately a week. During visits home, K. (A.)’s parents have been overseeing ingestion of his medication on a nightly basis, absent any issues.
It was noted that by the time any travel to Nova Scotia is anticipated, both his parents will be approved persons. As a result, Dr. Adiele would not object to the duration of any proposed trip being left open and subject to approval by the treatment team at that time.
Reference was made to paragraph 21 of last year’s Reasons for Disposition which address K. (A.)’s comments that he wished to cease taking his medications. Dr. Adiele responded that this has not been an issue in the past reporting year. Page 33 of the Hospital Report alludes to medication refusals. Dr. Adiele explained that this relates to morning incidents where K. (A.) had yet gotten out of bed. These occurrences were nonetheless noted as medication refusals.
K. (A.) has been referred for discharge to the FITT House and is now on their wait list. Before he can be transitioned there, he must also be approved for ODSP. Discharge is being considered to the FITT House rather than to K. (A.)’s parents’ residence so as to enable structure to his day and to allow him to learn the skills to manage independent living within a 24-hour supported accommodation.
Asked if the Mental Health Act would be sufficient to manage K. (A.)’s risk in the community, Dr. Adiele responded that if this patient was currently living in the community, he is unlikely to return to hospital voluntarily.
Ms. Frouhar inquired why it has taken so long for K. (A.) to exercise the full range of his privileges, specifically, indirectly supervised community passes. Dr. Adiele responded that initially, K. (A.) lacked confidence to leave the hospital on his own. However, he has progressed relatively quickly and within a year of his admission to the BMHC is now housed on the hospital’s discharge ward. K. (A.) is currently working at the patient-run River Café.
Dr. Adiele was asked about his patient’s reluctance to receive antipsychotic medication via intramuscular injection. Dr. Adiele responded that there have been no compliance issues with the oral form, adding that K. (A.) had a previous traumatic experience at the time of his arrest when he was tasered and injected with a PRN.
Reference was made to the second paragraph of page 34 of the Hospital Report which references K. (A.) engaging in inappropriate physical contact with a co-patient. Dr. Adiele responded that K. (A.) advises him that these occurrences were in jest and that K. (A.) has been told not to repeat these types of acts. Overall, it has not been difficult to manage K. (A.)’s disinhibited behaviour in hospital as these incidents have not been frequent or significant. Further, K. (A.) listens well when told to stop doing something.
A panel member inquired if K. (A.)’s learning disabilities compromise his insight with regard to substance use. Dr. Adiele replied that they do but added that K. (A.) has not used substances since his admission and appreciates that any substance use would set back his progress. Dr. Adiele is unaware of any familial objections to the use of psychotropic medications or pro-cannabis sentiments in K. (A.)’s family.
For the past six months, K. (A.) has had level six indirect passes into the community but was initially reluctant to use them. At present, he goes out by himself from time to time and is encouraged to do so more often. K. (A.) states that he has not used his passes as often as he might because he does not know Brockville well. Dr. Adiele added that Brockville is where he was grabbed and tasered by police. Further, Dr. Adiele recognized that there is not much to do in Brockville.
It was noted at page 33 of the Hospital Report that a change of medication due to sexual side-effects was being considered. Dr. Adiele responded that K. (A.) has not elaborated to any great degree in that regard. Nevertheless, K. (A.)’s prolactin levels will be assessed to determine if this may correlate with difficulties with sexual functioning.
Questioned with regard to the existing publication ban, Dr. Adiele stated that he would support its extension.
Closing Observations
After having heard and considered the evidence, Ms. Frouhar stated she agreed with the recommended continuation of a Detention Disposition. She reiterated K. (A.)’s request for the removal of any specification of the number of days associated with the granting of a travel pass.
Dr. Adiele confirmed that he was amenable to leave the duration of travel passes open within subparagraph 2(f) of the proposed Detention Disposition.
Ms. Masse stated she had no issue with the amended wording proposed for subparagraphs 2(e) and 2(f). She added that the publication ban intertwines K. (A.)’s criminal record as a youth and as an adult and should therefore be left as is. She submitted that s. 38 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act was applicable due to the difficulty in teasing out what applies to K. (A.) as a youth, as opposed to as an adult.
Analysis and Decision
(a) Significant Threat
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.
In determining whether K. (A.) continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public, the Board 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.
The Board unanimously finds that K. (A.) continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public. In arriving at this determination, the Board considered the position of the parties and accepted the uncontroverted evidence of Dr. Adiele that K. (A.) continues to pose a significant threat. The Board also relies on the Hospital Report, more specifically, the contents of the Summary Risk Formulation heading at page 41 in determining that K. (A.) suffers from Schizophrenia, a major mental illness, previously been complicated by a Cannabis use Disorder. The following excerpt addresses his Primary Risk Scenarios and buttresses the viva voce evidence of Dr. Adiele:
Primary risk scenarios of concern include violence occurring in the context of psychotic relapse, particularly if medication adherence deteriorates in less supervised settings. His partial insight, cognitive limitations affecting executive functioning and judgment, and resistance to long-acting injectable formulation create vulnerability to treatment discontinuation. Substance use, particularly cannabis, represents a significant risk factor given its association with his initial decompensation and ongoing availability in the community.
- The Board therefore accepts that absent an ORB Disposition, K. (A.) would likely become non-compliant with prescribed medications which would lead to decompensation, the use of substances and the re-emergence of behaviours similar to those seen at the time of the index offences. We are satisfied that absent an ORB Disposition, it is likely that K. (A.) will cause serious physical or psychological harm to members of the public and such conduct will likely be criminal in nature.
(b) Disposition
Flowing from the Board’s finding that K. (A.) 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 K. (A.)’s needs pursuant to s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
The necessary and appropriate Disposition for K. (A.) provides him as much freedom as possible without subjecting the community to a real risk of dangerous behaviour.
In considering K. (A.)’s needs, the Board was attentive to Dr. Adiele’s uncontested perspective that the Mental Health Act is currently insufficient to manage this patient in the community because if asked, he is unlikely to return voluntarily to hospital.
Therefore, K. (A.) will remain subject to his existing Detention Disposition absent any changes, but for the previously referenced changes to subparagraphs 2(e) and 2(f).
It is certainly encouraging that within a year of admission to the BMHC, K. (A.) has progressed to the community discharge ward. Greater use of indirect passes will enable him to prepare for and exercise the corresponding increase in privileges associated with a transition to community housing. His employment experience at the River Café will also assist in his community reintegration. The panel agrees that residing at the FITT House, rather than returning to live with his parents, is the appropriate mechanism to build the necessary skills needed to add structure to his life and progress towards more independent living.
Finally, the panel is grateful to Ms. Masse for her helpful closing submissions as to why the publication ban should remain in effect and on that very basis orders its continuance.
Conclusion
Therefore, the Board unanimously determines that the necessary and appropriate Disposition required to manage the threat K. (A.) poses to the safety of the public while still meeting his needs, is a Detention Disposition.
In making this Disposition, the Board carefully considered the positions and submissions of the parties and the evidence of Dr. Adiele 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, K. (A.)’s mental condition, his reintegration into society and his other needs.
DATED this 25th 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