Ontario Review Board

Re: Matthew Brownlee

ORB File No: 4425

Hearing held on: Monday, January 5, 2026

Place of Hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre

Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) the Criminal Code

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Ms. M. Labrosse

Members: Dr. S. Lessard Dr. G. Boulais Mr. D. D’Intino Ms. K. Brisson

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Matthew Brownlee Counsel: Mr. M. Davies

Person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. J. Gojer

Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. J. Wright

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated February 23, 2026)

Introduction

1. On March 27, 2006, the accused, Matthew Brownlee, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of impaired operation of a motor vehicle, operation of a motor vehicle while disqualified, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and failure to comply with a probation order, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada.

2. Mr. Brownlee is currently subject to an Ontario Review Board disposition dated January 3, 2025, which detains him at the Secure Forensic Unit of the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre with privileges up to and including community living in accommodation approved by the person in charge.

3. On January 5, 2026, the Ontario Review Board (“ORB”) convened at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, hereinafter referred to as the hospital, to review Mr. Brownlee’s disposition further to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Brownlee attended his hearing and was represented by his counsel, Mr. Michael Davies. Mr. Brownlee’s father, Natasha Day and Anthony Low from the Phoenix Network, and a friend of Mr. Brownlee’s Ms. Carolyn Robert were also in attendance. A hospital report dated December 23, 2025, and a Report from the Phoenix Network Inc. dated November 27, 2025, were both admitted into evidence for the hearing.

4. The issues for this hearing are whether Mr. Brownlee continues to meet the threshold of significant threat to the safety of the public and, if so, to determine the disposition that is necessary and appropriate in the circumstances.

5. At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as to their preliminary without prejudice positions for the hearing. Dr. Gojer advised that the hospital was recommending the maintenance of the detention order on the same terms and conditions. Counsel for the Attorney General, Mr. Wright, indicated that he would likely support the hospital’s recommendation and counsel for Mr. Brownlee, Mr. Davies, advised that Mr. Brownlee was seeking an absolute discharge.

6. For the reasons set out below, the Board finds that Mr. Brownlee continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public, and that the maintenance of the current disposition, namely a detention order with community living in approved accommodation, remains the necessary and appropriate and least onerous and least restrictive Disposition.

Index Offences

7. The details of the index offences are set out in last year’s Reasons for Disposition as follows:

“On October 12, 2005, Matthew Brownlee was seen operating a GMC pickup truck. This vehicle belonged to his father and he had taken it without his father’s consent. At the time he had been prohibited from driving and had no driver’s license.

He was spotted driving erratically and at a high rate of speed in the City of Ottawa. He stopped at a parking lot of a funeral home to fill up the fuel tank from a portable tank in the truck. At that point he was approached by Constable Giroux who noted that the accused’s eyes were watery and blood shot and he was unsteady on his feet and his speech was slurred. Constable Giroux determined that the vehicle had been stolen. Mr. Brownlee was arrested. During the arrest process he was observed to have bloodshot and glossy eyes with an odour of alcohol on his breathe. He was of no fixed address and had just been released from the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre the day before.

A passenger in his vehicle at the time advised the police she had asked Mr. Brownlee “why he was driving like a maniac”

Background History

8. Mr. Brownlee’s personal, legal and psychiatric history is set out in detail in the hospital report (Exhibit 1). Briefly summarized, Mr. Brownlee, who is currently 53 years of age, left school without finishing Grade 9. He worked as a heavy equipment operator for his father’s company. By all accounts, until he left school, Mr. Brownlee had no behavioural issues and was a reasonably good student.

9. At about the age of 15, Mr. Brownlee began to use drugs and alcohol. He had numerous run-ins with the law. At the age of 17, he was convicted of possession of property obtained by crime over $1,000. He was also convicted of theft over $1,000 in 1991, break and enter and theft in 1992, and assault peace officer and obstruction in 1995.

10. In 1996, Mr. Brownlee suffered a closed head injury and brain trauma in a motor vehicle accident for which he was convicted in 1997 of criminal negligence causing death and criminal negligence causing bodily harm. He was sentenced to a prison term of six years and prohibited from driving for ten years. Prior to that, Mr. Brownlee had a number of driving infractions including speeding, failing to yield right of way, a seatbelt infraction, failure to produce driver’s license, driving vehicle with a radar warning device, driving while license suspended, and careless driving. Those court matters arose between March 1989 and February 1996.

Psychiatric History

11. In November 2005, Mr. Brownlee was hospitalized at the Brockville Mental Health Centre. Over the years, he has suffered with relapses and worsening psychotic symptoms, particularly grandiose delusions. Between 2008 and 2011, he eloped once annually from the hospital, following his relapse into substances. For a number of years, Mr. Brownlee did not have indirectly supervised community access.

12. Mr. Brownlee’s current diagnoses are:

13. Psychotic Disorder, with delusions due to brain trauma (likely Schizoaffective in nature)

14. Major Neurocognitive Disorder due to brain trauma

15. Brain Trauma (severe) with left-sided hemiplegia

16. Personality Change due to brain trauma

17. Cocaine and Amphetamine Use Disorders, severe, in early emission.

18. Alcohol Use Disorder, severe, in early remission

19. Cannabis Use Disorder, moderate, in early remission

20. Antisocial personality trait

Evidence at the Hearing

13. The hospital’s evidence was presented through its report as well as through the oral testimony of Dr. Julian Gojer, Mr. Brownlee’s attending psychiatrist.

14. Mr. Brownlee has a long history of psychiatric problems due to a major neurocognitive disorder sustained from a traumatic brain injury, in addition to a psychotic disorder with fluctuating mood symptoms and chronic psychosis, predominantly in the form of grandiose and eroto-manic delusions. Upon further consideration, Dr. Gojer has concluded that the diagnosis is most likely one of schizoaffective disorder rather than bipolar disorder as it is unlikely that Mr. Brownlee is experiencing an ongoing manic episode. According to Dr. Gojer, Mr. Brownlee’s psychotic disorder is most likely schizoaffective in nature given the chronic presence of psychotic symptoms with the neurocognitive deficits arising from the traumatic brain injury.

15. Mr. Brownlee continues to complain about having to take medication. In the course of the past year, he decided to reduce his Clozapine dose of his own accord, from 325 mg to 200 mg, due to experiencing sedation and excessive salivation. Dr. Gojer has not insisted that the dose be restored at 325 mg because there have been no corresponding worsening psychotic symptoms and because the lowered dose appears to have alleviated some of the side effects. Dr. Gojer added that he has not discounted the possibility of turning to other antipsychotic medication should there be a need to do so.

16. Moreover, Mr. Brownlee’s mood symptoms appeared to be partially treated by the antipsychotic medication and Dr. Gojer is not considering adding further medication such as Lithium to address the mood symptoms due to concerns regarding toxic effects on Mr. Brownlee.

17. Mr. Brownlee remains a resident at the Lighthouse Residence operated by the Phoenix Network, a specialized supervised group home provider for people who have experienced traumatic brain injuries.

18. Mr. Brownlee has been residing there for several years and his privileges are managed in dynamic fashion due to ongoing issues with Mr. Brownlee accessing street drugs, in particular cocaine. Mr. Brownlee can build trust with the residence staff in order to have increased privileges, and those privileges can be withdrawn when there are episodes of drug use.

19. Mr. Brownlee is adamant that he would like to be able to use cocaine. There was one instance of cocaine use over the course of the past year, on November 27^th, 2025, when Mr. Brownlee was exercising a 15-minute indirectly supervised pass allowing him to go to the corner store during which time he met with a dealer and purchased cocaine. Mr. Brownlee also has a long history of alcohol use. Without the oversight and supervision of the residence staff, Dr. Gojer believes that Mr. Brownlee would seek out further substances leading to a significant deterioration in his mental condition.

20. Mr. Brownlee does not want to stay at the group home where he is currently residing as they restrict his freedom to use substances, in addition to his freedom in general.

21. Dr. Gojer believes that the ongoing risk is well managed in the current residence and that without such oversight Mr. Brownlee’s risk to others would escalate significantly. In addition, Mr. Brownlee is incapable of caring for himself given his issues with executive functioning and would not be able to manage living independently in the community.

22. Dr. Gojer does not believe that a conditional discharge would be adequate to manage the risk given that the hospital would lose the ability to bring Mr. Brownlee into hospital and the Mental Health Act might not be utilized quickly enough to avoid a significant decompensation and an increase in risky behaviours.

23. The behavioural management approach of the Phoenix Network, as managed at the Lighthouse residence, appears to work well for Mr. Brownlee. Dr. Gojer added that though Mr. Brownlee feels very constrained by the rules at the group home, he does not express disliking it.

24. In response to questions posed to him by counsel for the Attorney General, Mr. Wright, Dr. Gojer responded as follows:

a. There was no perceptible increase in delusions following the reduction of Mr. Brownlee’s Clozapine. Mr. Brownlee’s delusions are quite fixed and seem to be there all the time. They become more difficult to manage when Mr. Brownlee is manic, but the mania appears to be responding sufficiently to the antipsychotic treatment regime that Mr. Brownlee is taking.

b. Mr. Brownlee has also agreed to take Olanzapine and Dr. Gojer is not ruling out adding other medications if needed.

c. Other than the incident of November 27, 2025, Mr. Brownlee has had a relatively good year in terms of managing his drug use and this is largely due to the external controls of the treatment team, and more importantly, the residence staff. Without this Mr. Brownlee would leave, use drugs and end up homeless.

d. Dr. Gojer acknowledged that with a conditional discharge he could ask for a residence specification; however he believes that it would be difficult to bring Mr. Brownlee into hospital, if needed, without a Form 49.

25. In response to questions posed to him for counsel for Mr. Brownlee, Mr. Davies, Dr. Gojer responded as follows:

a. Dr. Gojer acknowledged that when Mr. Brownlee reduced his Clozapine dose of his own accord, the treatment team did discuss bringing him into hospital in the event of decompensation but that ultimately this was not required given that there was no corresponding deterioration in Mr. Brownlee’s mental condition.

b. Mr. Brownlee is not only refusing to abstain from cocaine use but holds the belief that the cocaine will help him. Dr. Gojer acknowledged that medications could be added to help control Mr. Brownlee’s cravings and the effect of the drugs, however he would need to buy into taking such medication and is not clear how helpful this might be.

c. Mr. Brownlee is not a good candidate for traditional substance addiction treatment given his neuro-cognitive issues. His current group home specializes in dealing with this type of concurrent disorder in brain-injured patients.

d. Though the group home tries to manage his privileges, there is also a certain antisociality to Mr. Brownlee’s actions, which is historical in nature and continue to lead him to engage in certain behaviours.

e. If left to his own devices, Mr. Brownlee would leave the group home and would seek out the use of drugs and alcohol which would aggravate his psychosis and cause him to engage in further antisocial behaviours as was the case even prior to his brain injury and prior to the index offences.

f. As Mr. Brownlee’s money is controlled by his father, he is likely to engage in antisocial behaviours in order to procure drugs for himself.

g. Mr. Brownlee does not see the benefit of medication and would most likely stop taking it due to the side effects.

h. In the opinion of Dr. Gojer, Mr. Brownlee is a “high risk of low harm behaviour of a criminal nature”. He has shown historically that he will use whatever means available to him to get what he wants and also has a history of aggressive behaviour. As he is under a restrictive disposition, Mr. Brownlee has not reoffended for some time.

i. Dr. Gojer acknowledged that Mr. Brownlee is able to stay at the Lighthouse residence because of the fact that the insurance pays for the cost of this residence. Dr. Gojer is not aware of anything that might interrupt those payments and accordingly does not see any change in the near future regarding Mr. Brownlee’s accommodation. The hospital and the group home maintain good communication and Dr. Gojer believes that Mr. Brownlee is receiving very good care for his condition.

26. In response to questions posed to him by members of the hearing panel, Dr. Gojer responded as follows:

a. Due to his organic brain dysfunction, Mr. Brownlee would experience an increase in symptoms of psychosis if he was not on medication. Mr. Brownlee has no insight into this, nor into the fact that he represents a risk to himself and others.

b. Mr. Brownlee’s father, who was present at the hearing, is the substitute decision-maker and according to Dr. Gojer, he is on board with treatment and remains in good communication with the hospital and with the group home.

c. Dr. Gojer is not surprised that Mr. Brownlee is seeking an absolute discharge as has been the case for some time and because he wants to live in the community. If he stops taking medication, Mr. Brownlee would likely decompensate in a matter of days to weeks.

d. Dr. Gojer continues to believe that the Mental Health Act is not sufficient to manage Mr. Brownlee. It is also highly likely that Mr. Brownlee would relapse into drugs and alcohol if he were not on medication and not under the oversight of the ORB.

e. Dr. Gojer acknowledged that there has been no recent neurocognitive assessment of Mr. Brownlee and that it is unlikely that one would be useful given the fact that it is difficult to parse out the neuro-cognitive issues from the ongoing psychotic illness. It is difficult to confirm whether Mr. Brownlee has experienced any significant deterioration over the course of the past few years as his presentation is prone to fluctuations. Mr. Brownlee has reasonable short-term memory but is unable to assimilate the details of his illness. Dr. Gojer believes that it remains difficult to separate the symptoms of the illness and the brain injury.

f. Dr. Gojer is not aware that Mr. Brownlee’s erotomatic delusions have been overly problematic in the past year. The Group Home staff is generally able to redirect those types of behaviours when they occur.

g. With respect to the incident of cocaine use of November 27, 2025, Dr. Gojer acknowledged that when Mr. Brownlee is more symptomatic, his desire to use drugs increases; however, that desire also seems to be engrained in him. The group home is very aware and diligent about Mr. Brownlee’s propensity to seek out drugs and are able to manage as evidenced by the past year where there was only one such incident.

h. Mr. Brownlee has no insight into his mental illness and the severity of his brain injury. His brain injury contributes to his inability to understand the situation. This is unlikely to change.

i. Dr. Gojer acknowledged that Mr. Brownlee’s history appears to show a trajectory towards an increase in the use of harder drugs. The use of cocaine can worsen the neuro-psychiatric condition and the mental illness. Mr. Brownlee has a fragile brain which is very susceptible to the use of those drugs.

j. In addition, Mr. Brownlee is vulnerable and can be taken advantage of by others due to his traumatic brain injury.

k. Mr. Brownlee has previously expressed a desire to drive fast and there continues to be a concern that he would seek out a vehicle to drive if he could. In addition to the index offences which occurred some 20 years ago, Mr. Brownlee was also convicted of criminal negligence causing death due to dangerous driving.

Evidence of Natasha Day

27. Natasha Day, the Clinical Director and registered speech language pathologist at Phoenix Network organization testified briefly at the hearing. She stated that the November 27^th incident was prompted by Mr. Brownlee being upset that Dr. Gojer had told him that he was not supporting Mr. Brownlee’s request for an absolute discharge. Mr. Brownlee procured cocaine for himself and consumed some but then provided the group home with the rest of the cocaine that he had stashed in his room upon request. According to Ms. Day, Mr. Brownlee can be easily directed once he gets past his desire to use cocaine.

28. According to Ms. Day, the biggest risk factor is Mr. Brownlee’s complete lack of insight. He does not see how drugs impact his behaviour and judgment and that it may cause risk to others. If he was granted an absolute discharge, there would be nothing to stop him from engaging in risky behaviours, including driving. The nature of Mr. Brownlee’s brain injury has led to difficulties with executive function, including impulsivity and verbal memory. This is quite common in the TBI population and there is no improvement expected on that front. Ms. Day confirmed that Mr. Brownlee’s place at Phoenix House is likely secure, and that the insurance company has indicated that it is content with the current treatment plan.

29. Ms. Day confirmed that when Mr. Brownlee is more manic, he tends to be more resistant to the limits placed upon him by the residence. When able to access privileges and do the things that he enjoys doing, such as smoking, Mr. Brownlee appears content most of the time.

30. When asked if there were any aspects of therapy missing in the current treatment program, Ms. Day responded that she does not believe so and added that Mr. Brownlee is also currently seeking a psychotherapist on a weekly basis. With respect to speech language interventions, she confirmed that there has been no progress noted with verbal therapy and this has therefore been discontinued.

31. The most significant risk factor continues to be Mr. Brownlee’s delusions which impact everything in conjunction with his executive function and lead to this drug-seeking behaviour. For example, Mr. Brownlee has stated his belief that he created cocaine and therefore should be able to use it.

32. No further evidence was presented.

Submissions of the Parties

33. The hospital submits that due to his multiple psychiatric and neuro-psychiatric problems which contribute to behaviours that put himself and others at risk, Mr. Brownlee remains a significant threat to the safety of the public. Mr. Brownlee also has additional personality variables that predate his brain injury, and which led to him engaging in very risk behaviours which caused the death of two individuals while he was driving impaired. Mr. Brownlee’s ongoing use of cocaine and belief that he should be able to drive a vehicle are such that in the absence of the very strenuous oversight of the detention order, he is likely to engage in such behaviours if he is granted an absolute discharge. The detention order remains the least restrictive way to manage him on an ongoing basis.

34. Counsel for the Attorney General, Mr. Wright, indicated his support of the hospital position and stated that it must be noted that Mr. Brownlee had an overall positive year, with the exception of one episode of drug use, and that this is due to external controls rather than any actual improvement in his condition.

35. Counsel for Mr. Brownlee, Mr. Davies, confirmed that Mr. Brownlee is seeking an absolute discharge and that he believes he no longer represents a significant threat to the safety of the public. Without a disposition, Mr. Brownlee might very well turn to drugs which could cause him to leave or get kicked out of the Phoenix residence, but the evidence is not persuasive that Mr. Brownlee would necessarily engage in any aggressive or dangerous behaviour as these incidents are now going back more than 20 years and are far too remote to be anything more than speculative. Mr. Davies indicated that he is not advocating for a conditional discharge. If Mr. Brownlee does not receive an absolute discharge and can therefore not make his own decisions with respect to his living accommodations, he is content to stay where he is.

Analysis and Conclusion

36. Having considered all of the evidence tendered at the hearing, and the submissions of the parties, the Board does find that Mr. Brownlee continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code of Canada and as further defined in the Supreme Court of Canada decision Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625.

37. According to R. v. Winko, a significant threat to the safety of the public means a real risk of physical or psychological harm to members of the public that is serious in the sense of going beyond the merely trivial or annoying. The conduct giving rise to the harm must be criminal in nature.

38. Our finding that Mr. Brownlee continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public is based on the fact that he has a complex mental disorder diagnosis and no insight into his situation. The psychotic disorder and cognitive deficits caused by a traumatic brain injury, along with preexisting antisociality and problematic drug use, have led to criminal behaviour, most notably driving infractions, as well as sexually inappropriate behaviour which can cause psychological and or physical harm to others.

39. Mr. Brownlee remains symptomatic, has no insight into his condition and does not believe that drugs have any negative impact on him. On the contrary, his ongoing delusions include the belief that he created cocaine and that it is good for him. Mr. Brownlee has shown that he is able to capitalize on the smallest of time windows to obtain drugs, and as a result, requires a high degree of supervision.

40. Thanks to available insurance coverage, Mr. Brownlee is able to reside in a specialized group home, where he receives excellent care. He has an individualized care plan, and his privileges are administered in accordance to the extent to which he can be managed safely in the community. Without that ongoing supervision and structure, the evidence persuades us that Mr. Brownlee would discontinue medication, seek out drugs and decompensate very quickly. He is highly likely to engage in behaviour that could cause physical or psychological harm to others and to himself.

41. We have taken into consideration the factors at s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code of Canada, namely the protection of the public, which is the paramount consideration, the mental condition of the accused, his reintegration into society, and his other needs in coming to the unanimous finding that a detention order on the same terms and conditions remains necessary and appropriate and least onerous and least restrictive disposition in all of the circumstances.

DATED this 23rd day of February 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

Ms. M. Labrosse Alternate Chairperson

Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board