Re: Kyle J. Windle
ORB File No: 4521
Hearing held on: Tuesday, January 6, 2026
Place of hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. M. Labrosse
Members: Dr. G. Boulais
Dr. S. Lessard
Mr. D. D’Intino
Ms. K. Brisson
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Kyle J. Windle
Counsel: Mr. M. Davies
The person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. J. Gojer
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. J. Wright
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated February 17, 2026)
Introduction
On July 12, 2006, Mr. Kyle J. Windle was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of Assault with a weapon (x2), Assault, Possession of a weapon (x2), robbery, aggravated assault, fail to comply with an undertaking (x2) and theft under $5000, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“The Code”).
Mr. Windle is subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated January 9, 2025, detaining him at the Secure Forensic Unit of the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre (“ROMHC”) with privileges and conditions up to and including living in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
On January 6, 2026, the Board convened an Annual Hearing to determine whether Mr. Windle remained a significant threat to the safety of the public and if so, to determine the necessary and appropriate Disposition.
Mr. Windle was present at his annual hearing, and was represented by his counsel, Mr. Michael Davies.
Current Psychiatric Diagnoses:
Schizophrenia
Polysubstance Abuse Disorder – alcohol, stimulant and cannabis
Index Offences:
- The details of the index offences are extracted from the previous Disposition, which are as follows:
On May 3, 2006, the accused and several other individuals attended a bar in Hull on an organized bus trip. After the bus returned the group to Barrhaven, three individuals who were not associates of the accused, stopped while one had to urinate. The individual by the name of Cory Hume who had separated from his friends, walked a little way from his friends when he was hit by the accused on the head, shoulders, arms, and hips with an 18-inch steel rod which was taped at one end to provide a handle. The accused was heard to shout, “I’m going to get you mother fucker” and “fuck you.” The victim ran from the accused, holding his head and was calling to his friends for assistance. The other two friends by the names of Scott Whitaker and Jeremy Fetterfield saw the accused with the weapon and gave chase. They ran after him and at this time the victim was on the phone with 911 and relaying the assault when an ambulance happened to drive by, and the victim was able to flag down the ambulance for assistance. After a short chase on foot, Mr. Whitaker caught up with the accused and demanded that he drop the steel bar. The accused complied, approached Mr. Whitaker, and then threw a punch at him and the two engaged in a physical altercation until the accused was restrained and police arrived. The accused was arrested and then released.
On May 8, 2006, at 22:30 hrs, an individual by the name of Kirby Lin was walking through a park in Barrhaven when he was approached by a man matching the description of the accused. The individual introduced himself as “Kyle” and began to ask Mr. Lin many questions of a personal nature. The accused then asked Mr. Lin for his shoes. The victim refused to give them up and turned away form the accused to walk towards his home. The accused then pulled out a steel pipe and struck Mr. Lin on the back of his head. The victim then took out his cell phone and called 911. The accused then pulled the victim to the ground and continued to beat him with the steel bar and the victim was said to have been struck at least seven times on the back and once again on the head. Mr. Lin suffered a on-inch gash at the back of his head and another on his forehead, as well as several bruises on his back. The victim pleaded for the accused to stop, and the accused then stated that he liked the victim and would return the shoes the next day. The victim was pinned on the ground by Mr. Windle and was forced to give up his shoes. The victim surrendered the shoes and was hit again with the steel pipe. The accused ran away.
On May 10, 2006, police apparently attended at Mr. Windle’s residence to question his parents about the second assault. Thereafter Mr. Windle’s parents were able to convince him to attend at the Ottawa Civic Hospital where he was admitted later that same day on a Form 1. He was noted to be irritable, withdrawn, labile and suspicious and admitted to having auditory hallucinations. He was extremely vague about the assault that the police had questioned his parents about but admitted to using cannabis on a regular basis. Once the Form 1 expired the attending physician did not believe on a regular basis. Once the Form 1 expired the attending physician did not believe that he met the criteria to be held involuntarily so that no Form 3 was ever issued. On May 13, 2006, Mr. Windle signed out of hospital against medical advice. He was given a prescription for Risperidone which he did not take.
Immediately after his discharge from the Ottawa Civic Hospital on May 13th, 2006, Mr. Windle attended at the Rideau Centre and while in the LCBO selected and concealed a bottle of Smirnoff Vodka and walked out of the store without attempting to pay for the bottle. He was stopped by staff and a minor scuffle ensued, but he was restrained, the police were called, and Mr. Windle was placed under arrest.
Without Prejudice Position of the Parties:
At the commencement of the hearing, the parties were canvassed for their initial, without prejudice positions on the necessary and appropriate Disposition for Mr. Windle.
Dr. Gojer, on behalf of the Hospital, took the position that the necessary and appropriate Disposition was A continuation of the existing detention order.
Mr. Wright, on behalf of the. Ministry of the Attorney General anticipated being in agreement with the hospital's position.
Mr. Davies on behalf of Mr. Windle reserved his position because Dr. Gojer’s position for the hospital had changed from the conditional discharge recommended in the hospital report to a continuation of the detention order.
Evidence at the Hearing:
The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence from Dr. Gojer.
Dr. Gojer testified that he would like to see Mr. Windle get a conditional discharge but with him currently residing at a residential treatment facility and with there have been some issues with rule noncompliance there, Dr. Gojer had concerns. The Doctor thought that a conditional discharge could be tried but he was concerned that Mr. Windle has been known to “fall off the wagon” and didn't think that a conditional discharge would be workable if Mr. Windle had to be brought back to the hospital.
In essence, Dr. Gojer’s concern with a conditional discharge is that he didn't think it was workable when there was a need for a specified address at which Mr. Windle was to reside.
Dr. Gojer testified that Mr. Windle has been residing at Jericho House, which is a residential treatment facility. He has been there for almost three months, and, with the exception of some minor rule non-compliance, he has been engaging in intensive programming and has not used illicit substances. Should he complete the program at Jericho House, Dr. Gojer noted that they are able to provide an aftercare program and can assist him in finding accommodation in the community.
In response to questions from The Crown, Dr. Gojer agreed that prior to his admission to Jericho House, Mr. Windle had some issues with substance use. He was not following the rules at his previous residence and was asked to leave. When the possibility of transferring Mr. Windle to the Brockville Hospital was broached, Mr. Windle on his own accord arranged for his admission to Jericho House, which Dr. Gojer noted was an example of his hard-working and “enterprising” nature.
Dr. Gojer concluded his response by saying that Mr. Windle is very bright and if he continues to work hard on his addiction issues, good things will happen for him next year (referring to his next annual hearing).
Dr. Gojer further offered that in respect of Mr. Windle’s challenges, housing instability is a major factor in his risk to the public. Should Mr. Windle once again destabilize, Dr. Gojer feels it would be necessary to quickly return him to the Hospital, which is why he leaned against recommending a conditional discharge.
In response to questions from Mr. Davies, Dr. Gojer testified that currently Mr. Windle is compliant with his medication most of the time. So long as he is compliant with his medication, Dr. Gojer is of the view that Mr. Windle’s risk to the public presents as low. However, should cease medication compliance and disengage from treatment, his risk level would rise.
Dr. Gojer further testified that while Mr. Windle is the greatest risk to himself, he remains a significant threat to the safety of the public and this stems in part from Mr. Windle’s struggles with alcohol and substances.
When asked by Mr. Davies about what he would like to see from Mr. Windle before recommending a discharge, Dr. Gojer agreed that completing the Jericho House treatment program, remaining abstinent from substances, and establishing a stable lifestyle are the main objectives.
Dr. Gojer was also very complimentary toward Mr. Windle’s family. According to the Doctor, Mr. Windle enjoys “excellent family support” and he visits his family quite regularly and they are always involved in Mr. Windle’s case conferences.
Mr. Davies asked Dr. Gojer about the possibility of a Community Treatment Order which the doctor considered but ultimately felt was not appropriate because Mr. Windle is not on an intramuscular injection, he is treatment capable, and he is very engaged with his treatment team.
In response to questions from the Panel, Dr. Gojer testified that Mr. Windle does better in a structured environment and Jericho House is even more structured and restrictive than the hospital is. Dr. Gojer stated that Jericho House has zero tolerance for substance use and they monitor Mr. Windle’s urine drug screening which is also done by the hospital.
At the conclusion of the evidence, Mr. Davies informed the Panel that he would join the hospital and the Crown in recommending a continuation of the existing Detention Order Disposition.
Analysis and Conclusions
Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence as well as the submissions from the parties, the Board accepts the joint submission: Mr. Windle remains a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board makes this finding based on Dr. Gojer’s testimony and the documentary evidence available at the hearing.
Mr. Windle suffers from a psychotic disorder, which has been described in the Hospital Report as “treatment resistant” and has struggled with medication compliance in the past, as well as substance abuse, which when combined, have historically led to rapid decompensation.
The most recent risk assessment in the Hospital Report concluded that under the current disposition, Mr. Windle poses a high risk of future violence, which would likely increase were he to discontinue his medication and/or return to substance abuse. This is an important consideration given that his index offences were violent in nature and involved attacks on persons that were not known previously to Mr. Windle.
However, the Board also considered the testimony of Dr. Gojer that Mr. Windle’s current risk to the public is low while under the strict terms of the Detention Order.
While at present, Dr. Gojer is of the view that Mr. Windle poses the greatest risk of self-harm, the Board is mindful that acts of self-harm may cause either or both of physical and psychological harm to persons other than the accused who may be present during such incidents.
The Board is also of the view that at the present time, the provisions of the Mental Health Act would be insufficient to quickly return Mr. Windle to the ROMHC should he experience a decompensation in his mental status.
The Board wishes to recognize the outstanding family support Mr. Windle has received and Mr. Windle’s tremendous progress to date. By all accounts, he had a very good reporting year, and we wish him the best going forward.
In consideration of all the evidence, the submissions of the parties, and the criteria set forth in s. 672.54, the paramount consideration being the safety of the public, in addition to the mental condition of Mr. Windle, his reintegration into society and his other needs, the necessary and appropriate Disposition is continuation of the existing Detention Order Disposition with no changes to the current terms and conditions.
DATED this 20th day of February 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. D. D’Intino
Legal Member
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board