Re: Timothy Firman
ORB File No: 4767
Hearing held on: Wednesday, January 21, 2026
Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. C. Finley
Members: Dr. G.A. Chaimowitz Dr. L. Leong Ms. M.L. Bridger Mr. S. Doherty
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Timothy Firman Counsel: Mr. D.J. Brodsky
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Mr. D. Blumenkrans
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. D. Moskovitz
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated March 2, 2026)
Introduction
On April 24, 2007, Timothy Firman was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for assault causing bodily harm, contrary to the Criminal Code. Mr. Firman is subject to a Disposition detaining him at the Forensic Service of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (the “hospital”) with privileges up to and including living in the community of the Greater Toronto Area in supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge, with the level of supervision required to be determined by the treatment team.
On July 22, 2025, the hospital notified the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”) that Mr. Firman had absconded on July 21, 2025. On September 7, 2025, the Board was advised that Mr. Firman was transferred from the FGUC (a general unit) to the FATU (a secure unit). On October 22, 2025, a Restriction of Liberty hearing was held virtually from the hospital. Mr. Firman attended the beginning of the hearing but chose to leave partway through. As Mr. Firman had provided instructions to his counsel, the Board made an order permitting the hearing to continue in his absence.
The Board had before it as Exhibit 1 a Restriction of Liberty Report dated October 2, 2025, and as Exhibit 2 the Hospital Report dated December 5, 2024, filed at the patient’s last annual hearing. The Board also had before it correspondence including a Campbell letter and notifications regarding absconding and restrictions.
In preliminary positions the hospital advanced that the transfer to FATU was justified and the least restrictive and least onerous measure that could be taken in the circumstances. The hospital also was requesting that the exception to the permitted use of cannabis added at the last annual hearing should be removed. Crown counsel agreed but wished to hear the evidence regarding the cannabis clause. Mr. Brodsky, for the patient, agreed that the transfer to FATU was appropriate but wished to reserve his position regarding both the ongoing restriction and the possible removal of the cannabis clause. Mr. Brodsky indicated that his client’s next annual hearing was on January 21, 2026, which would offer a more suitable time to deal with the cannabis restriction. After hearing the evidence and submissions, the panel of that Board concluded that the restriction of liberty was necessary and appropriate and continued to be so. The Board declined to remove the cannabis exception at this time.
On Wednesday, January 21, 2026, this panel of the Board convened a hearing at CAMH for the annual hearing of Mr. Firman’s disposition pursuant to s.672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Firman was present for the hearing and represented by counsel, Mr. Brodsky.
Position of the Parties
- The Alternative Chair canvassed the position of the parties, that if a continued Detention Order with conditions. It was a joint position of the Hospital, the Crown and Mr. Brodsky, on behalf of Mr. Firman. All agreed that significant threat was conceded. The only difference was that Mr. Brodsky asked if matters could be moved along more quickly. The Hospital Report as well as other documents were filed as exhibits.
Evidence at the Hearing
Dr. Eid testified on behalf of the Hospital and was the sole witness called at the hearing. Mr. Firman, who has been diagnosed with schizophrenia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance use disorder is generally stable, but he does get intimidating, angry and abusive. He uses foul language, refuses nursing care and was believed to be sharing medication with another patient.
Asked what she wants for Mr. Firman, Dr. Eid said when he was on a minimum-security wing, he went AWOL twice. There was drug use, so that would have to be changed. The doctor testified that right now he is doing three groups a week. The doctor would like to see him doing therapeutic groups addressing his substance use and personality issues, but that is not what Mr. Firman chooses. He chooses recreational groups exclusively.
Asked if one-to-one substance treatment might work better for him, she replied she could not say. She stated that alcohol has not been too much of an issue.
In terms of treatment, he is waiting for a bed in the Secure Rehab Unit. He has been in the Secure Assessment Unit now for five months, where much not treatment happens. It would be more structured if he showed that he would use passes without going AWOL.
The Crown had no questions but Mr. Brodsky, on behalf of Mr. Firman, did.
Mr. Brodsky asked what Mr. Firman could do to get himself into the secure rehab unit. The doctor replied that if he would choose something more therapeutic aligned three times a week, that might help but in reality, she stated, it is very hard to get out of the assessment unit because there is a long waiting list. She opined that much of it is not Mr. Firman’s fault that he is there for so long–but some of it is. Twice in 2025 he went AWOL (Absent With Out Leave) and that does not help.
Mr. Brodsky asked what his client might do to earn back trust after two AWOLs. The doctor answered that it was going to take a while. First, do not do AWOLs, no substance abuse and then take the treatments that are recommended and engage in these programs.
Mr. Brodsky inquired if when Mr. Firman is moved to the Secure Treatment Unit would he have Dr. Woodside or Dr. Eid as his doctor. She responded neither, as Mr. Firman would have a new doctor.
Mr. Brodsky asked if an ORB recommendation (for a hastier transfer) would help, and he was told no by the doctor.
A Board member asked about Mr. Firmin’s privileges. He currently has two passes of 15 minutes daily in the company of two staff members–no security officer required. If that goes well, it will drop to one staff member. If all goes well after that, he may get to go out in groups.
The Board member indicated surprise that Mr. Firman was on the secure assessment unit for 5 months. The doctor said it is because when they get to the next unit, many patients are waiting for community placements, which are very few. So, the system gets backed up.
Another Board member asked Dr. Eid about having a self-sabotaging personality disorder. The doctor agreed and said he cannot follow groups. The accused interjected and said, “Sure I can. I am not retarded.” Mr. Firman was very upset by any suggestion that he cannot follow the group. Dr. Eid said his motivation and impulsivity are two problems. The doctor was asked if Mr. Firman does not want to identify with low intellectual functioning and that was agreed by the doctor
Another Board member asked if even if his bed is in secure assessment, could he not be given therapy or attend therapy on other wards. The doctor replied that they have a “therapeutic neighbourhood” so a patient should be able to go, in principle, to therapy on other wards. Mr. Firmin’s security is an issue, but when he gets to one-on-one, he could be escorted to a group held in the Secure Rehab Unit. The problem is that Mr. Firman has rejected offers to go to therapy in the past. Space is limited in these groups. Mr. Firman would need to demonstrate that something has changed, and he is now willing to make good use of these opportunities.
In a question arising, Mr. Brodsky asked if when his client’s security level is with one staff member, would he be allowed to attend therapy on another floor. He was told yes.
There was a joint submission that Mr. Firman does pose a significant threat to the public.
There was a joint submission that there should be no change to the current disposition.
During submissions, Mr. Firman was very upset and repeated that he was being controlled by sociopaths.
Analysis and Conclusions
Although there was a joint submission conceding significant threat, the panel independently found there to be such a threat which would put the public at risk. In support of that are his antecedents, his limited self-control, and his anger, among other issues.
Unfortunately, Mr. Firman’s progress is heavily limited by his self sabotaging behaviours. It appears that a combination of his intellectual disability and his antisociality make for significant barriers to fulsomely engage in therapeutic activities that will move him forward. Though he will likely benefit from therapeutic interventions that take in account his cognitive limitations, his antisociality and bravado make it less likely that he will engage. Perhaps specific attention to this approach may break what appears to be a stalemate in his progress.
A Detention Order with the same conditions is the only possible disposition, as was agreed by all three parties. The Board reviewed the evidence and independently came to agree with the joint submission of the parties. The Board hopes that Mr. Firman will be able to take the advice of his doctor and his lawyer and work towards more freedom and helpful therapy.
In arriving at our conclusion, the Board has considered the paramount factor of the safety of the public, Mr. Firman’s mental condition, his community reintegration, and his other needs, all as required by s.672.54.
DATED this 2nd day of March, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Ms. M.L. Bridger Legal Member
__________________
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board