Ontario Review Board
Re: Ian Young
ORB File No: 8344
Hearing held on: Friday, December 19, 2025
Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. S. Kert
Members: Dr. T. Verny Dr. G. Nexhipi Hon. C. Nelson Mr. W. Apted
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Ian Young Counsel: Ms. M. Perez
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Mr. D. Blumenkrans
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. S. Cressman
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated March 4, 2026)
Overview
On July 12, 2023, Ian Young was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on charges of engaging in threatening conduct to a person (criminal harassment), possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, indecent exhibition, and assault police. He is currently subject to a Review Board disposition detaining him on a general forensic unit at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (“CAMH”), with privileges extending to living in the Greater Toronto Area in accommodation approved by the person in charge. That disposition also allows for the possibility of indirectly supervised travel passes for up to one week within Ontario (subject to an approved itinerary) and requires that when living in the community, Mr. Young must report to the person in charge of CAMH or their designate not less than once per week.
On December 19, 2025, this panel of the Review Board convened a hearing at CAMH to review that disposition under s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Young was present with his counsel, Ms. Perez.
The issues to be decided at this hearing are whether Mr. Young is a significant threat to the safety of the public and, if so, what is the necessary and appropriate disposition to manage his risk, having regard to the criteria set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
None of the parties contested a finding of significant threat. The primary issue before us was whether the threat posed by Mr. Young can be managed under a conditional discharge (as submitted by Mr. Young), or whether a detention disposition remains necessary and appropriate to manage his risk (the position of CAMH and the Crown). CAMH and the Crown also submitted that the conditions attached to the current disposition should be changed to allow Mr. Young indirectly supervised travel within Ontario for up 14 days (as requested by Mr. Young), and that his reporting frequency should be reduced to not less than once every two weeks. Mr. Young asked for a reporting frequency of not less than once per month.
Having considered the evidence, the submissions and the relevant caselaw, we find that the threshold test for significant threat continues to be met, and that the necessary and appropriate disposition, which is also the least onerous and least restrictive in the circumstances, is one continuing the current detention disposition, with changes to the travel and reporting clauses as recommended by CAMH. These are our reasons.
Background and Index Offences
Mr. Young is 60 years of age. His current diagnoses are bipolar affective disorder, unspecified personality disorder and substance use disorder (in remission). He experienced the onset of bipolar disorder symptoms in 1986, and had several subsequent hospitalizations at Sunnybrook Hospital and CAMH. He experienced depressive episodes with suicidal ideation and manic episodes with psychotic symptoms. These included paranoid, grandiose and religious delusions, and auditory hallucinations. The course of his mental disorder and treatment was complicated by his non-compliance with medication and by his substance abuse (alcohol and cannabis). He also has a history of refusing recommended treatment.
This is not Mr. Young’s first finding of NCR. In November 1998, he was charged with numerous serious criminal offences – including unlawful confinement, robbery, attempted murder, and sexual assault – that resulted in significant injuries to both victims. He had been non-compliant with medication for several months leading up to those charges. In May 2001, he was found NCR. He remained under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board for 20 years, until he received an absolute discharge in mid-December 2021.
Following the first finding of NCR in 2001, Mr. Young was detained in hospital under a detention disposition at both CAMH and the North Bay Psychiatric Hospital. In April 2004, he was discharged to live in the community. His clinical course thereafter was variable. For some periods he did relatively well in the community. At other times he missed appointments and avoided his clinical team, refused medication and drug testing, and absconded while in the community. He was re-admitted to hospital several times due to non-compliance with medication and treatment plans, and resulting mental deterioration, including extended admissions at various times between 2013 and 2018.
After receiving his absolute discharge, Mr. Young continued to be followed by Dr. Ali and CAMH's Downtown East case management team (“DTE”). From January 2022 until late September 2022, he attended monthly appointments with Dr. Ali and the DTE team. Over that period, he was not working but spent his time reading, walking, and visiting friends and family, including two aunts and an uncle with whom he remained close.
In May 2022, Mr. Young first expressed concerns about returning to CAMH every month for appointments, as it reminded him of his previous admission to hospital. The team attempted to address his concerns by offering alternative ways for him to report. In August 2022, Mr. Young advised he was uncomfortable coming to CAMH because of the personal information collected by COVID-19 screeners at each visit. Possible alternate options were again discussed with him. On September 26, 2022, Mr. Young advised the DTE team that he planned to withdraw from the DTE and CAMH in general, as he preferred to be followed by his new family physician. The current index offences occurred less than three weeks later.
On October 16, 2022, Mr. Young was inside his apartment located in a building on Davenport Road in Toronto. Sometime after 6:00 pm, Mr. Young armed himself with a 31-pound sledgehammer and made his way to the 23rd floor of the building. He was completely naked at the time. He began yelling incoherently, and when another tenant opened their apartment door, Mr. Young walked toward him with the sledgehammer in his hands. When that person retreated and closed his apartment door, Mr. Young started yelling and banging on the door. The other tenant called 911.
Mr. Young took the elevator to the lobby, still naked and armed with the sledgehammer. He stood in the vestibule and was said to be “menacing residents from entering.” When police arrived on scene, Mr. Young fled down the hall. When an officer confronted him, Mr. Young held the sledgehammer over his head and made swinging motions directed at the officer, while standing slightly around a corner. He did not follow the officer's demands to drop his weapon and continued to threaten to “blow his load” on the officer, even after the officer drew his gun. It was only once he was tasered and fell to the floor that other officers were able to handcuff, arrest and detain Mr. Young.
Over the following week, CAMH psychiatrists attempted to assess Mr. Young while he was in custody at the Toronto South Detention Centre (“TSDC”). He would not acknowledge their presence or stared intensely while remaining mute, and he was not eating or drinking. In early November 2022, he was admitted to CAMH for assessment of his fitness to stand trial. On the unit he was withdrawn, selectively mute and was possibly responding to internal stimuli. At times he also presented as disorganized. He refused medication until November 25th; with compliance his symptoms improved. In early December 2022, he was deemed fit and remanded back to the TDSC. While there, he informed his CAMH psychiatrists (who saw him in custody) that prior to the index offences, his aunt and uncle died within one month. Following this, he stopped taking his medication and drank alcohol.
After being found NCR on the current index offences in July 2023, Mr. Young was detained at CAMH. On admission, he was settled and did not display any clear signs of active psychosis. He was polite with staff and quickly became engaged in unit programming.
During the 2023-2024 clinical year, Mr. Young continued to be detained on a general forensic unit at CAMH under the care of Dr. Benassi. He was consistently adherent with his prescribed medication, there were no incidents of aggression or sexually inappropriate behaviour, and there was no indication of substance use. Mr. Young was actively engaged in rehabilitative programming and was able to progress up the pass ladder, including the use of indirectly supervised community privileges. In terms of his mental status, there was no evidence of major mood disturbance or of delusional ideation. However, Mr. Young did exhibit “interpersonal challenges around irritability, defensiveness, and guardedness towards clinical staff. This could range from passive dismissiveness to more direct expressions of frustration and complaints. He was sensitive to power dynamics and often quietly attempted to assert control in such situations.” (hospital report, p. 17)
Course Since the Last Hearing
At Mr. Young’s last annual ORB hearing in December 2024, his treatment team reported that his aunt from Kingston (Ontario) had very recently become an approved person, and that the team was working with Mr. Young to facilitate the possibility of him traveling to stay with his aunt for up to 48 hours. Further, as the housing organization associated with his former residence was unwilling to allow Mr. Young to return to live in his apartment (due to his behaviour at the time of the index offences), he had played an active role in finding alternative housing through Nishnawbe Homes in Toronto. The proposed accommodation had staff available 24/7 and a policy that encouraged substance abstinence. The treatment team anticipated that this housing would be approved, and that Mr. Young would be required to report not less than weekly to his outpatient team to allow them to closely monitor his transition back to community living and his mental stability.
At the current hearing we received evidence from CAMH in the form of an updated hospital report, as well as oral testimony from Dr. Benassi, who has been Mr. Young’s attending psychiatrist both as an in-patient and an outpatient. That evidence revealed as follows: On January 7, 2025, Mr. Young was discharged to live at Nishnawbe subsidized/supportive housing in Toronto, and his care was transferred to the Expanded Forensic Outpatient Service (“EFOPS”) under the supervision of Dr. Benassi. Mr. Young has his own bedroom and shares a washroom, kitchen, and laundry area with other tenants. Staff at the residence are on site 24/7 and are aware of Mr. Young’s ORB status. Mr. Young signed releases allowing the EFOPS team to speak to the Nishnawbe Housing and other cultural providers, as the treatment team wants to ensure open communication among his care providers.
Once in the community, Mr. Young was compliant with all reporting requirements. He was initially seen weekly in person by Dr. Benassi. Over time, this transitioned to a combination of check-ins with his EFOPS caseworker and less frequent appointments with his psychiatrist. Mr. Young demonstrated appropriate understanding and appreciation of his mental condition (bipolar disorder) and its associated symptomatology. Although he did not clearly recall the events of his index offences, he was aware that he had been experiencing a manic episode. He identified several potential precipitating factors for his mental decompensation and offending behaviour, including medication non-compliance, lack of sleep, stress related to the deaths of family members, and being provoked by a fire alarm in his building.
Over the year, Mr. Young also accessed culturally appropriate community health resources, including rehabilitative programming through CAMH’s Aboriginal Health Services and support through Anishnawbe Health Toronto. He benefited from supports provided by his housing workers and staff at the Native Canadian Centre, and he made attempts to participate in local Indigenous community events. He enjoyed a close friendship with a neighbour and maintained regular contact with his aunt in Kingston, who is an approved person. He was also able to complete two successful trips to Kingston to visit his aunt.
Analysis and Conclusions
Significant Threat
None of the parties contested a finding of significant threat, and we agree that the threshold test for significant threat continues to be met.
The evidence is that the past clinical year was a good one for Mr. Young. In January 2025, he was able to transition to community living with Nishnawbe Housing and he has not required readmission to hospital. Although initially somewhat hesitant and guarded in his interactions with the EFOPS team, he gradually became more forthcoming and cooperative. He was adherent with his prescribed psychotropic medications (lithium and olanzapine, as corroborated by urine and blood samples) and demonstrated appropriate understanding and appreciation of the benefits of the medications. His mental state remained stable, with no evidence of abnormal mood episodes. He abstained from alcohol and substance use, which was confirmed by urine drug screens.
While all of this is positive, it is important to consider the past reporting year in the context of Mr. Young’s overall history, including his relatively recent history. This is the second time that Mr. Young has come under the jurisdiction of the Review Board after committing offences that placed the safety of the community at high risk of physical and/or psychological harm. For various reasons (including non-adherence with or refusal of medication; drug use; mental instability; disengagement from care providers; and interpersonal difficulties), after his first finding of NCR, Mr. Young remained under the jurisdiction of the ORB for over 20 years.
After receiving his absolute discharge in mid-December 2021, Mr. Young re-offended within 10 months. When he faced (and was overwhelmed by) significant stressors/destabilizers in the fall of 2022, instead of relying on Dr. Ali and the DET team for help, Mr. Young became more disengaged from their care, coped by consuming alcohol and stopping his medication (and did not advise his team), and was unable to identify signs of relapse as he began to decompensate. His current index offences were directly linked to his active psychotic symptoms at the time. In a similar state, he would be at high risk of committing another serious criminal offence.
In this context, it remains early days in Mr. Young’s most recent tenure in the community. As outlined in the results of the HCR-20, given Mr. Young’s significant historical risk profile, in the absence of ORB oversight and external controls, his risk of future violence (which is considered moderate under his current disposition) would increase to moderate–high. In other words, to avoid a situation similar to what occurred in the summer and fall of 2022, Mr. Young continues to require the external controls available under a Review Board disposition, including a forensic treatment team who can test for his continued compliance with medication and abstinence from substance use, and can closely monitor for early signs of deterioration in his mental state.
Necessary and Appropriate Disposition
We also find that a detention disposition remains necessary and appropriate for the coming year. There are a number of reasons for this. First, to ensure a sufficient level of oversight and monitoring, the clinical team continues to require the ability to approve any housing in which Mr. Young is residing. This can only occur under a detention disposition.
The evidence is that, so far, Mr. Young’s transition to the community (since January 2025) has been positive. His current housing is working well for him, he has benefitted from the culturally appropriate programming and support services available to him at his housing and in the community, and his treatment team has a good working relationship with the housing provider. However, as Mr. Young wishes to live in his own independent unit, he has begun looking at alternate housing under the umbrella of the same organization (Nishnawbe Housing). The treatment team has been trying to assist Mr. Young with this. As described by Dr. Benassi, although moving to another Nishnawbe run apartment in another building may be reasonable for Mr. Young, the team wants to check out any potential options and make sure they are appropriate for him before endorsing any change of residence.
In requesting a conditional discharge, Mr. Young did not suggest that we include a residence clause. Given his desire to move to an independent apartment this year, this makes sense – a condition requiring him to reside at a particular address would give him no option but to stay in the same housing for the coming year or until such time as his disposition is changed by the Board. Conversely, a conditional discharge that is silent on the issue of where Mr. Young must reside would leave the decision about where he lives entirely up to Mr. Young.
To date, Mr. Young has been willing to work with the outpatient team on the issue of a potential move. There may be two reasons for this: i) under his current detention disposition, his accommodation must be approved by the hospital; and ii) as an outpatient, Mr. Young has worked better with Dr. Benassi and hopefully views the team’s input as helpful. However, historically Mr. Young has had challenges around interpersonal functioning and has presented as guarded, defensive, and oppositional with his team around issues that he considers to be of a personal nature, including housing. For example, when his prior housing sought to evict him in early 2024 (because of the index offences), Mr. Young initially misattributed blame to the clinical team about the eviction notice, declined their assistance to try to resolve the matter and only shared details of his resolution of the matter after the fact. Therefore, to allow the outpatient team to maintain a good working relationship with Mr. Young, encourage his continued engagement, and ensure that his housing is appropriate to his needs, a detention disposition is necessary.
Second, it is not clear that the Mental Health Act (“MHA”) would be sufficient to return Mr. Young to hospital in a timely way, should that be necessary. Mr. Young is capable to consent to treatment. As such, Box B of the MHA is inapplicable. His history indicates that as he is becoming unwell, Mr. Young becomes more oppositional, argumentative, and resistant to psychiatric care; his self-awareness and insight regarding his mental state and symptoms can also be distorted. In that state, Mr. Young is not likely to agree to a voluntary admission. While Dr. Benassi agreed that, given his history, if Mr. Young was acting out in a way that was physically aggressive he could be brought back into hospital involuntarily under Box A, he stated (correctly in our view) that the concern is how to manage Mr. Young’s risk and to intervene when there are early signs that he is becoming unwell, before he acts out.
We agree. The last time that Mr. Young was manic (in the late summer and fall of 2022), the episode started slowly but then sped up. He was gradually making it more and more difficult for the DTE to provide psychiatric care to him. He became increasingly oppositional, irritable, and paranoid, and eventually made the decision to disengage with the DTE altogether, which ultimately manifested in a full-blown manic episode and the commission of the index offences. However, as described by Dr. Benassi, the early subtle clues that Mr. Young was becoming more unwell would/could not be addressed under the MHA. It is only through the use of a warrant associated with a detention disposition that subtle changes in his behaviour/presentation could be addressed early (as they need to be) before they escalate.
We are also not convinced that the addition of a so-called “Young 1” condition – as suggested by Ms. Perez – would assist in managing Mr. Young’s risk under a conditional discharge. Such a condition would require Mr. Young to return to the hospital for an assessment, but he could only be admitted to CAMH if the conditions of the MHA allowing for involuntary detention were met or if he agreed to be admitted voluntarily.
Having found that a detention disposition remains necessary and appropriate, we agree with the joint position of the parties that the clause permitting Mr. Young to travel indirectly supervised within Ontario (with an approved itinerary) should be increased from 7 to 14 days. The treatment team is aware that Mr. Young has other family in Ontario, including an uncle in Sudbury who has been ill, and he has expressed a wish to visit with them. Given the further location, an increase in the duration of the pass is warranted. The plan of the treatment team would be to reach out to Mr. Young’s family members, figure out a plan for a visit and then consider how that visit would occur. The fact that a detention disposition would allow the team to return Mr. Young directly to CAMH under the warrant should he have any difficultly while exercising a longer travel pass makes it more likely that the team will approve such a pass with an appropriate plan in place.
Finally, on the question of a change to the reporting provision, we agree that based on Mr. Young’s positive transition to the community and the fact that he is generally working well with the outpatient team, a reduction in his reporting frequency is warranted. This will allow the team to monitor him on a regular basis, but will also give Mr. Young some greater autonomy and the chance to prove that he can continue to do well with less frequent oversight.
We also agree with the clinical team that based on Mr. Young’s history, it is important to be cautious and to gradually and incrementally introduce reduced reporting and supervision requirements. In our view, the appropriate reduction is to require Mr. Young to report not less than once every two weeks. The view of the treatment team is that this level of reporting is necessary and that Mr. Young will not likely be suitable for monthly reporting this year. Moreover, as set out in last year’s Board reasons, “Mr. Young will push for the upper limits of the terms of his disposition before the team sees evidence that he can manage at the upper limits. …This causes friction between Mr. Young and the treatment team.”
As there is no evidence that it remains necessary, and on the agreement of all parties, we have also removed the condition prohibiting Mr. Young from attending at his former apartment building on Davenport Road.
Accordingly, considering public safety, which is paramount, as well as Mr. Young’s mental condition, his reintegration into society and his other needs, we order that the current detention disposition continue with the changes outlined above.
DATED this 4th day of March, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Ms. S. Kert Alternate Chairperson
__________________
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board