Re Kreig Campbell, 2026 CanLII 15173

Re: Kreig Campbell

ORB File No: 7663

Hearing held on: January 15, 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 (via Zoom)

Members: Dr. R. Sheppard Dr. L.O. Lightfoot Ms. C. Murray Ms. R. Chopra

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Kreig Campbell Counsel: Ms. J. Boissonneault

The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Szabo

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. N. MacDonald (via Zoom)

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated February 23, 2026)

Introduction

1. On December 12, 2019, Kreig Campbell was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on a charge of arson causing damage to property, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (the “Criminal Code”).

2. On January 15, 2026, a panel of the Ontario Review Board (“Board” or “panel”) convened at Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (“Ontario Shores” or “the hospital”) to review Mr. Campbell’s current Disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. At the time of the hearing, Mr. Campbell was ordered Discharged Subject to Conditions.

3. Mr. Campbell was present for his hearing and was represented by counsel, Ms. Jocelyne Boissonneault, throughout the proceedings.

4. A Hospital Report dated January 5, 2026, was entered as Exhibit 1.

5. The issues to be determined are whether Mr. Campbell continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public, and if so, the necessary and appropriate Disposition to manage that risk having regard to the criteria set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

6. For the reasons set out below and based on the evidence and opinions before us, the Board found that Mr. Campbell continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board finds that a Conditional Discharge with amended terms per the recommendation of the hospital 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. Campbell’s mental health, reintegration into society, and his other needs.

Current Psychiatric Diagnoses

7. Schizophrenia

Alcohol Use Disorder, Severe

Cannabis Use Disorder, Moderate

Position of the Parties

8. At the commencement of the hearing, the parties were canvassed for their without prejudice positions. Ms. Szabo, counsel for the hospital, took the position that Mr. Campbell continues to present a significant risk to the public and the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Conditional Discharge with removal of the following terms:

• 1(a) (“reside in supportive housing associated with Durham Mental Health Services”);
• 1(c) (“abstain absolutely from the non-medical use of alcohol or drugs or any other intoxicant”); and
• 1(g) (“not attend within 200 metres of his parent’s home without the written revocable consent of his parents, Mr. Fitzroy Campbell and Mrs. Blossom Campbell”).

9. Counsel for the Attorney General, Ms. MacDonald, supported the position of hospital.

10. Counsel for Mr. Campbell, Ms. Boissonneault, stated that Mr. Campbell is not a significant threat and should be granted and Absolute Discharge. In the alternative, she asserted that if the Board finds that Mr. Campbell meets the threshold of significant threat, she agrees to a Conditional Discharge on the terms recommended by the hospital.

Index Offence

11. The particulars of the index offence from the Peel Regional Police Service Synopsis are found on pages 2 and 3 of the hospital report and are extracted as follows:

“On Monday, November 26, 2018, at approximately 1:19 AM, the complainant, Ms. Kamille Campbell, contacted 911 in regards to a fire at her residence located at 16 Moss Creek Court in the City of Brampton. Ms. Campbell advised that the fire had originated at the front door of the residence. She believed that someone had thrown gas on the door to start the fire, however, the fire had been extinguished.

At approximately 1:31 AM, police attended along with Brampton Fire and observed several items, including a bottle filled with a liquid, believed to be gasoline. The bottle also had a sock stuck in the end making it an incendiary device. Police located a barbecue lighter on the front lawn and observed that the front door area of the residence had been burned.

Upon speaking with Ms. Campbell’s parents, Fitzroy and Blossom Campbell, Police were advised that they awoke to the sound of the smoke alarm. They had been sleeping in the upper level of the residence and upon attending the main level they observed smoke. They further advised that the rear door of the residence was open and that their gas stove was turned on, however, there was no flame.

Brampton Fire advised police that there had been another source of fire in the basement ceiling near the front door. However, they did not believe that this fire could have been caused by the fire on the exterior of the residence. This would require further investigation.

The family believed that Mr. Campbell was responsible for the fire as he had been recently apprehended under the Mental Health Act and since that time, had not been welcome in the residence. Mr. Campbell had resided at this residence previously, however, had been living in shelters since being released from the hospital and was at that time of no fixed address.

Upon attending the rear of the house, police located a black winter jacket hanging on a post near the back door of the residence. Inside the jacket, police located a cell phone and a wallet containing various identification in the name of Kreig Campbell.

Mr. Campbell was located a short distance away from the residence by police and he was identified by Mrs. Blossom Campbell. At approximately 3:37 AM, police spoke to Mr. Campbell and advised him that he was being placed under arrest for the offence of arson.”

Background and History

12. The Hospital Report contains extensive information regarding Mr. Campbell’s background and history, the entirety of which need not be repeated here in detail. However, the following particulars are noteworthy.

13. Mr. Campbell is a 39-year-old single male born in Ontario. After completing high school, he enrolled in an electrical engineering program but was unable to complete it.

14. Mr. Campbell was homeless and residing at a shelter in Brampton at the time of the index offence.

15. Mr. Campbell is financially supported by Ontario Disability Support Program.

16. Mr. Campbell had no prior criminal convictions. He was charged with assault on October 17, 2008, but it appears the charge was stayed after Mr. Campbell completed mental health diversion.

17. Mr. Campbell first experienced psychotic symptoms in his early twenties. Between 2014 and 2018, he had multiple psychiatric contacts or admissions to hospital due to violence and aggression, often directed toward his parents and often in the context of medication non-compliance and substance use.

Course Since Last Disposition

18. On November 12, 2025, Mr. Campell was found capable of consenting to psychiatric treatment.

19. Mr. Campbell continues to reside in Whitby at a supported group home, Ballantyne House, operated by Durham Mental Health Services (DMHS). He has resided there since July 2023. He is seen weekly by his Forensic Outpatient Service (FOS) clinician at this group home. He is forthcoming and transparent with relevant information. Group home staff express no concerns regarding Mr. Campbell.

20. Mr. Campbell has provided urine samples when requested by staff; all samples have tested negative for substances.

21. Mr. Campbell has utilized his privileges to attend at his parents’ home for multiple night in March 2025 following a family trip to Jamaica. There were no reported issues or changes in mental status during his 12-day leave of absence. It is reported that he did not consume alcohol during that period. In October 2025, Mr. Campbell visited his parents’ home for one night.

22. Mr. Campbell completed individual counselling sessions with Concurrent Disorders at Ontario Shores in July 2025. At discharge from the program, Mr. Campbell reported no desire or intention to consume alcohol. Mr. Campbell has expressed to FOS staff that he would like the option to consume alcohol socially in the future. The Hospital Report states:

“He vacillates between desiring abstinence and wanting to drink socially. His insight into his alcohol use disorder diagnosis is limited. Mr. Campbell understands that using alcohol as a coping mechanism would be detrimental to his recovery and plans to continue to use exercise as a coping strategy.”

23. Mr. Campbell has been taking courses in preparation for working as a database engineer. He plans to start working in this field in the beginning of 2026.

Oral Evidence at the Hearing

24. Dr. Bhullar, Mr. Campbell’s psychiatrist and co-author of the Hospital Report, provided viva voce evidence at the hearing as follows.

25. Dr. Bhullar testified that Mr. Campbell continues to represent a significant threat. His violence risk flows from his psychotic illness, history of alcohol and cannabis use disorders, history of assaultive behaviour, and environmental aggression. He committed a very serious index offence. He has a significant history of treatment non-adherence. Mr. Campbell has limited insight into his alcohol use disorder. When unwell, he exhibits significant aggression. More recently he shared that he would like to consume alcohol on a social basis. He is unable to appreciate the impact alcohol would have on his mental state. Given Mr. Campbell’s Alcohol Use Disorder there is a strong risk that moderate consumption would escalate to excess consumption leading to non-adherence with his prescribed medications, and, over time, a likely decompensation of his mental state leading to violence.

26. Dr. Bhullar testified that she is recommending the removal of the abstention clause to test Mr. Campbell regarding alcohol use while he remains on a Conditional Discharge. His future plan, upon receiving an Absolute Discharge, is to consume alcohol socially. Therefore, he needs to be tested with the opportunity to use alcohol while he is receiving the support of FOS.

27. Mr. Campbell has insight into his illness and his need for medications.

28. Dr. Bhullar testified that, at this time, there is no follow up care arranged for Mr. Campbell were he to receive an Absolute Discharge. This means, in the context of an Absolute Discharge, he would not have the benefit of any professional oversight he should have when he returns to the use of alcohol. While Mr. Campbell transitions back to the use of alcohol the FOS team needs to be available to provide oversight because the FOS team is familiar with his history, knows what his baseline mental state looks like, and can increase visits when he consumes alcohol so that his mental state can be monitored.

29. It is only recently that Mr. Campbell has wanted to return to using alcohol. Up until two months ago he understood that alcohol could lead to deterioration of his mental status, had no plans to use alcohol, and stated he had no cravings. Mr. Campbell has recently stated that he would like to drink a beer when he comes home from work so that he can sit down and relax. He didn’t understand that this would be using alcohol as a coping strategy, not using socially.

30. FOS has requested a concurrent disorders programming referral. However, he has already done this programming. This program requires that he has the desire to want to abstain. Dr. Bhullar stated that she, therefore, wasn’t confident that the concurrent disorders programming would help him at this time.

31. Dr. Bhullar stated that the Hospital is requesting the removal of term 1(g), being that he not attend within 200 metres of his parent’s home without the written revocable consent of his parents, Mr. Fitzroy Campbell and Mrs. Blossom Campbell, because Mr. Campbell has gone on trips with his parents. He speaks to them every week. The FOS team reached out to them and they would like Mr. Campbell to be present at their home. His parents agree to the removal of the term.

32. Dr. Bhullar testified that Mr. Campbell has been living in the lowest support group home. He is now on waitlists for independent living. When Mr. Campbell gets a job, he would like to live independently. Dr. Bhullar does not have concerns about Mr. Campbell moving out of his housing prematurely and becoming homeless. Mr. Campbell knows that being homeless contributed to the index offence. Therefore, the treatment team is of the opinion that there is no risk concern should the residence clause be removed.

33. In response to questions of Ms. MacDonald, Dr. Bhullar testified that Mr. Campbell’s parents do not consume alcohol. However, they did not have concerns with the removal of the abstinence provision concurrently with removal of the non-attendance provision.

34. In response to questions of Ms. Boissonneault, Dr. Bhullar testified that Mr. Campbell moved from Ballantyne House to Smith House in July 2024. Mr. Campbell is content to remain at Smith House until his independent living comes through. He is on housing waitlists at DASH, Durham Mental Health, Canadian Mental Health Association and Access Point. It is unlikely that he would gravitate to unsuitable housing.

35. If Mr. Campbell were granted an Absolute Discharge at this time, it is likely that he would remain at Smith House until one of the other homes became available but he would not receive any supports. He gets his injection from the Smith House staff. Dr. Bhullar did not know how Mr. Campbell would receive his prescription for his injectable antipsychotic medication if he received an Absolute Discharge because she currently prescribes the medication. FOS has not canvassed with his nurse practitioner in the community if she is able to provide the medication. However, it would be inappropriate for a nurse practitioner to prescribe the medication when Mr. Campbell is using alcohol since the nurse practitioner would not be able to provide the necessary oversight when Mr. Campbell begins drinking alcohol.

36. Dr. Bhullar testified that Mr. Campbell would agree to a Community Treatment Order (CTO) if there is no abstain clause in the order. However, for a CTO he would require physician follow up. If Mr. Campbell were granted an Absolute Discharge, then the FOS would attempt to make connections to a physician for him.

37. Dr. Bhullar testified that Mr. Campbell does not appreciate, given his diagnosis of Alcohol Use Disorder – Severe, that simply drinking socially could lead to overconsumption. This is a biological issue. It is important when venturing out to try alcohol that he has FOS oversight to assist him in controlling his alcohol consumption, and his potential risk to himself and to the safety of the public.

38. In response to questions of the Board, Dr. Bhullar testified that Mr. Campbell now knows that psychosocial stressors and non-compliance with medication each have a detrimental impact on his illness.

39. Dr. Bhullar opined that it would be wise for Mr. Campbell to start with part-time employment given that psychosocial stressors have impacted his mental stability in the past. She thinks he could ultimately work full-time.

40. Dr. Bhullar testified that Mr. Campbell’s shift in his abstinence plan arose when he discussed that he would like to drink when he is on a date because it would be hard to explain why he is not drinking. He also was not able to drink at his cousin’s funeral when others were drinking. In the context of his diagnosis, he uses alcohol as a coping strategy.

41. Dr. Bhullar stated that on a Conditional Discharge the hospital would have the ability to return Mr. Campbell to hospital quickly enough to manage his risk. He would likely return voluntarily if requested, because he has good rapport with his treatment team. It remains unknown how quickly the treatment team would expect Mr. Campbell to decompensate when drinking because this scenario has not yet been tested. Dr. Bhullar stated that this is a reason she is asking for a continuation of the Conditional Discharge. Staff at Smith House would likely pick up changes in his mental state and FOS would increase the number of visits if Mr. Campbell does start to consume alcohol. FOS would be able to use breathalyzers to determine the level of alcohol consumption.

42. Mr. Campbell has not indicated that he wishes to return to the use of other substances but were he to return to cannabis use, her concerns would be the same as she described for alcohol use.

Submissions

43. Ms. Szabo submitted that removal of the abstinence clause is the least onerous and least restrictive way to manage Mr. Campbell’s risk. Mr. Campbell does not appreciate how the social use of alcohol can expand to greater use. A Conditional Discharge would allow the hospital to determine how Mr. Campbell’s potential return to alcohol use would impact his mental state.

44. Ms. MacDonald adopted the submissions of the hospital. She submitted that the Conditional Discharge should continue with the recommended changes to allow the hospital to gage how Mr. Campbell’s potential return to alcohol impacts his mental state and his risk to the public.

45. Ms. Boissonneault submitted that the test for significant risk is not “no risk”. She submitted that protective factors need to be taken into consideration, which include improved insight, treatment compliance with a long-acting injectable medication, stable housing, a relationship with his family, and he is open to information about Alcoholic Anonymous. She stated that the risks described by Dr. Bhullar are speculative.

Analysis and Conclusions

Significant Threat

46. Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence as well as the submissions from the parties, the Board finds that Mr. Campbell remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.

47. Mr. Campbell’s risk flows from his Schizophrenia and substance use disorders. He has limited insight into the impact alcohol use could have on his mental illness. He does not understand that social use of alcohol could lead to much greater consumption due to biological factors inherent in his Alcohol Use Disorder diagnosis. Given Mr. Campbell’s Alcohol Use Disorder there is a strong risk that consumption would turn into excess consumption leading to non-adherence, and decompensation of his mental state leading to violence. Mr. Campbell has recently expressed an interest in consuming alcohol.

48. Historically, when unwell, Mr. Campbell is aggressive.

49. Mr. Campbell’s index offence was serious and occurred while experiencing symptoms of his illness. He acknowledged consuming alcohol the day of the index offence. He has been inconsistent in describing why he wants to use alcohol, at times citing stress relief and other times citing he would limit use to social contexts.

50. The Board relies on the treatment team’s unanimous conclusion from the Clinical Assessment of Risk at page 38 of the Hospital Report, extracted as follows:

“Given this history, the treatment team recommends that any alcohol use occur while he remains under the Board’s jurisdiction, prior to consideration of an Absolute Discharge, to allow for monitoring and timely intervention should his mental state worsen. Without such oversight, a relapse could lead to treatment disengagement and housing loss, circumstances similar to those surrounding the index offense and associated with increased violence risk. Accordingly, the team unanimously concludes that Mr. Campbell continues to pose a significant risk to public safety.”

51. Therefore, the Board finds that Mr. Campbell continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public.

Necessary and Appropriate Disposition

52. In light of the Board’s finding of significant risk, it is charged with shaping a Disposition for the coming year.

53. The Board accepts the conclusion of the treatment team that any alcohol use should occur while Mr. Campbell is under the jurisdiction of the Board to allow for monitoring and timely intervention should his mental state worsen. Continued FOS support and oversight will be necessary if Mr. Campbell relapses to the use of alcohol. Repeat engagement in Cognitive Behavioural Therapy and Concurrent Disorders counselling may help to bolster Mr. Campbell’s insight into substance use, which clearly would benefit from further development.

54. FOS involvement also remains necessary as Mr. Campbell embarks on employment in a new field, which may introduce potential future stressors that could negatively impact his mental health.

55. The parties were ad idem regarding the appropriate clauses in a Conditional Discharge. The panel finds that the evidence supports the removal of terms 1(a), 1(c), and 1(g).

56. The Board finds that the necessary and appropriate, least onerous and least restrictive Disposition, is a continuation Conditional Discharge on the terms recommended by the hospital, as set out in our formal Disposition.

DATED this 23^rd 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