Re Andrew W. Davidson, 2026 CanLII 18259

Re: Andrew W. Davidson

ORB File No: 8180

Hearing held on: Thursday, February 12, 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: Mr. J. Weinstein Members: Dr. P.L. Darby Dr. L.O. Lightfoot Ms. C. Murray Mr. A. Mete

Parties Appearing: Accused: Andrew W. Davidson Counsel: Ms. J. Boissonneault

The person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. K. DeFreitas

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. N. MacDonald

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated March 3, 2026)

Introduction:

1. On November 9, 2022, Mr. Andrew W. Davidson was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, on charges of: fail to comply with probation order (x3), common nuisance – endangers the lives, safety or health of the public, arson: reckless disregard for human life, assault and assault with a weapon, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”).

2. Mr. Davidson is subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”), dated January 22, 2025, which orders that he be detained at the Forensic Program at Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (“Ontario Shores”). This Disposition provides him with the privilege to live in the community, in accommodation approved by the person in charge.

3. On February 12, 2026, the Board convened a hearing at Ontario Shores to conduct the annual review of the current Disposition.

4. Mr. Davidson (who wished to be addressed as Mr. Hawk), was present at the hearing and was represented by his counsel, Ms. J. Boissonneault.

5. A Hospital Report, dated January 20, 2026 (the "Hospital Report"), was entered as Exhibit 1.

6. On August 1, 2025, a previous panel of the Board held a Restriction of Liberty (“ROL”) hearing. On March 24, 2025, Mr. Davidson had been transferred from the General Forensic Psychiatric Rehabilitation Unit (“FPRU”) to the Secure FRU, following decompensation related to medication nonadherence and cannabis use.

7. In a Decision dated August 11, 2025, that panel found that the hospital’s decision to significantly increase the restriction of Mr. Davidson’s liberty was warranted in the circumstances of this case; it represented the least onerous and least restrictive decision at the time of initiation, on March 25, 2025, and it continued to do so until the date of that hearing.

8. The issues at this hearing were whether Mr. Davidson is a significant threat to public safety, as defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code, and, if so, what is the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances, bearing in mind the factors enunciated in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

9. For the reasons set out below and based on the expert evidence and opinions before us, the Board concluded that Mr. Davidson continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board found that the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances is a continuation of the existing Detention Order.

Current Psychiatric Diagnoses:

10. Schizoaffective Disorder

Cannabis Use Disorder (in remission, within a controlled environment)

Antisocial and Paranoid Personality Traits

Position of the Parties:

11. Dr. DeFreitas, as representative for the hospital and as the most responsible physician, recommended a continuation of the existing Detention Order.

12. Counsel for the Attorney General joined the hospital in their recommendation.

13. Counsel for Mr. Davidson stated his position was that he no longer represented a significant threat to public safety and should, therefore, be granted an Absolute Discharge. In the alternative, should this Board find that the threshold for significant threat has been met, he agreed with the hospital’s recommendation.

Index Offences:

14. The circumstances giving rise to the Index Offences are taken from last year’s Reasons for Disposition, as follows:

"On January 27, 2022, while inside the TD Bank located on Sheppard Ave E, in Toronto, Mr. Davidson approached Victim #1 and his actions caused the victim’s hat to catch fire. There is some discrepancy as to how the hat was set aflame —with the synopsis suggesting that Mr. Davidson first lit a piece of garbage on fire and then threw it at the Victim #1, while victim statements and surveillance footage captures Mr. Davidson approaching the victim from behind and held a lighter to her hat—all accounts suggest that the clothing did catch fire.

Mr. Davidson then proceeded to walk east on Sheppard Ave to the Agincourt mall located on Sheppard Ave E. Mr. Davidson was yelling out loud and randomly kicking numerous patrons. Mr. Davidson entered the Walmart store located within the mall and approached Victim #2, and began kicking him in the back of the legs. The victim called for help at which point Mr. Davidson held a lighter up to the victim's face. Police were called and attended a short time later and Mr. Davidson was arrested.

At the time of the index offences, Mr. Davidson was bound by three separate probation orders with terms to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, and not possess any weapons as defined by the Criminal Code of Canada.”

Background and History:

15. Mr. Davidson’s background and history are outlined in the Hospital Report, and they are accurately summarized in last year’s Reasons:

“Mr. Davidson began using substances at the age of 16 and has had an extensive history of polysubstance use including alcohol, cannabis, heroin, and mushrooms.

Mr. Davidson's young life did not begin easily. He was apprehended by the Children's Aid Society when he was a baby. He was eventually adopted by his foster parents at the age of 5. From an early time, he lacked motivation to do schoolwork. When he was 12 years old, he was diagnosed with attention deficit disorder and treated with medication, however, this did not stop his ADD symptoms.

Despite his adoptive mother arranging for private tutoring and enrolling him in a special school he could not keep up with his classes and dropped out of school before completing grade 9. He may have completed some credits later.

There is no record of Mr. Davidson ever being employed.

Mr. Davidson had a history of violence, particularly directed towards his father. In 2014 he had severely assaulted a young woman in the community believing she had an “evil aura” about her. Indeed, many of Mr. Davidson's hospital admissions were as a result of paranoid thoughts that people were trying to harm him. Daily cannabis use was common throughout these years. Noncompliance with antipsychotic medication was common throughout.

Mr. Davidson's criminal record of convictions between 2018 and 2021 includes uttering threats, assaults with weapon, assault, and failure to comply with probation orders.

Course Since Last Disposition:

16. Mr. Davidson’s course since his last Disposition is set out in detail in the Hospital Report. The following extracted paragraphs are relevant to this hearing:

“Mr. Davidson currently resides on the secure Forensic Rehabilitation Unit (FRU). He was transferred to the secure FRU from the general Forensic Psychiatric Rehabilitation Unit (FPRU) on March 24, 2025. Mr. Davidson was resistive to coming to FRU and required the presence of security during the transfer.

After Mr. Davidson’s transfer, he had difficulty adhering to FRU’s ward rules and regulations. He was often challenging towards staff, and he would test limits.

A Consent and Capacity Board Hearing was held on April 8, 2025, and the finding of Incapable to consent to treatment was upheld. Mr. Davidson did not appeal the decision. Consent was received from the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT), and treatment was initiated with the LAI Abilify Maintena.

There have been numerous incidents since his transfer to FRU where Mr. Davidson was escorted to the Quiet room at night and received as needed (PRN) medication, including intra-muscular injections, due to his agitated and disruptive behaviour.

Mr. Davidson has made some progress since he was transferred to FRU on March 24, 2025. There has been a significant decrease in clinically significant incidents since the end of September.

Staff reviewed anything Mr. Davidson wished to post to the internet, and he could not post anything related to Ontario Shores or staff working at Ontario Shores. This stemmed from an incident on June 18, 2025, where staff were alerted by the Shift Manager that Mr. Davidson went on Reddit and posted about a bomb threat at Ontario Shores.

Mr. Davidson stated that one of his favourite parts of being at Ontario Shores is attending the EPEC Program. He stated that he goes to as many groups as he can and he has received several diplomas. Mr. Davidson plans on attending two upcoming groups, Safe Space and Philosophies of Enhancing Life. Mr. Davidson said his goal is to receive as many certificates as he can.

Mr. Davidson has also met with Dr. Levi, Ph. D., Clinical Psychologist, on the unit. Since his transfer to FRU, Mr. Davidson would on occasion ask to reschedule his appointments with Dr. Levi, end his sessions prematurely, or he would not show up at the arranged time for a session. Mr. Davidson’s last session with Dr. Levi was on June 10, 2025. Dr. Levi has recently reconnected with Mr. Davidson due to his complaint of increased anxiety at night and Mr. Davidson agreed to resume sessions on November 18th.

Mr. Davidson has accompanied hospital grounds privileges, however they were recently placed on hold on January 20, 2026, after an incident where Mr. Davidson forced his way into the nursing station.

Mr. Davidson had used these privileges to attend Recovery College, attend EPEC Programming, participate in ground walks, and to go to the cafeteria.”

17. Pages 35 to 38 of the Hospital Report list approximately 34 notable incidents, and page 39 lists four examples of inappropriate behaviour.

Evidence at the Hearing:

18. The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence from Dr. DeFreitas and Mr. Davidson.

19. Dr. DeFreitas is Mr. Davidson’s treating psychiatrist and co-authored the Hospital Report. She testified as follows:

a) On January 17, Mr. Davidson forced his way into the nursing station, threatening staff that he would kill people. He said that jail would be better than being “in this place.”

b) On January 19, Mr. Davidson told staff that he wanted to beat her up but later changed his mind, stating that he had since become more enlightened.

c) She felt that Mr. Davidson was decompensating, possibly due to poor medication adherence. The decision was then made to crush his medication and give it to him in his apple sauce.

d) Mr. Davidson’s privileges were put on hold on January 20.

e) After January 20 he had only level 2 privileges, which allowed him access to the hospital and grounds, accompanied by staff.

f) On January 23, he became agitated and started banging on the nurse’s station door. He had to be secluded.

g) On January 26, he reported to staff that he attempted suicide on the weekend, but he was reluctant to discuss this event. Eventually, he told them that he had placed a chair on his neck, but he realized that it was not working.

h) On January 27, he again told staff that he had plans to harm someone, hoping that he would be transferred to jail, as he felt that jail was better than being in hospital. He told them that, even if they were to put him in a seclusion room, they would have to come in to feed him, and he would attack them when they entered his room. The staff noticed that Mr. Davidson was preoccupied with harming someone to precipitate a transfer to jail.

i) Mr. Davidson called police and informed them of his intention to kill staff. The police are familiar with him, and they declined to attend, after checking with staff to ensure that their presence was not required.

j) Mr. Davidson’s access to the internet was restricted because he posted a bomb threat on Reddit (full particulars set out in the Hospital Report) and because he was using it to threaten her and Dr. Wang.

k) On February 2, when told he could not have unrestricted access to electronic devices, Mr. Davidson threatened to kill people, hoping that he would be transferred to Waypoint. He balled his hands into a fist, so he had to be placed in seclusion.

l) Mr. Davidson had appealed his finding of incapacity to consent to psychiatric treatment to the Consent and Capacity Board (“CCB”), but the finding of incapacity was upheld. Mr. Davidson appealed a second time and was found incapable again.

m) Mr. Davidson refused to take his oral medications from February 6 to 10, 2026. At that time, he was advised that the hospital would use a long-acting injectable form of his antipsychotic medication if he refused to take it orally. Mr. Davidson resumed his medication, under protest.

n) In another incident, on February 11, Mr. Davidson charged into the quiet room, where another patient was situated, although he might not have known the patient was there. Mr. Davidson then approached the nursing station, yelling about his medications and violently kicking the nursing station door, hard enough to cause it to move on its frame. He told staff he “would like to go to Waypoint”.

o) Mr. Davidson has multiple risk factors, as set out in the Hospital Report: he has a significant history of violence, including the Index Offences; he has had multiple hospitalizations; and he has a history of a major mental illness, schizoaffective disorder.

p) When unwell in the past, Mr. Davidson has become violent.

q) Mr. Davidson also has a history of cannabis use, which has contributed to his violent behaviour, as noted in last year’s Reasons for Disposition. Mr. Davidson has significant, active antisocial personality traits, which have led to aggressive behaviours, as noted in her evidence today. Mr. Davidson has very poor insight into his illness and the need to remain adherent to his medication regimen.

r) If Mr. Davidson were not under the supervision of the Board, she is confident he would stop his medication immediately; within a week or less, his mental stability would start to deteriorate and he would become aggressive.

s) Mr. Davidson did have a psychologist assigned to him, but he missed many of their appointments.

t) Based on the constellation of risk factors, as well as his most recent pattern of behaviour, it is clear that Mr. Davidson remains a significant threat to public safety, and maintaining the existing Detention Order is necessary.

u) She had sent a Campbell letter to the Board, outlining that Mr. Davidson’s privileges were being reduced. No party requested a Restriction of Liberty hearing.

v) The treatment team has designed a behavioural plan for Mr. Davidson, which would allow him to proceed through the privilege ladder system at Ontario Shores.

w) The treatment team would increase Mr. Davidson’s privilege levels if he were able to use eight or more passes with staff successfully. Once this new privilege level was reached, they would consider moving him to a General Forensic Unit, if he could use another10 passes without incident.

x) The treatment team had been ready to move Mr. Davidson to a General Forensic Unit. However, his aggressive behaviour increased after his medication dose was decreased from 30 mg to 20 mg, at his request. She believes he may be engaging in self-sabotage.

20. In response to questions from counsel for Mr. Davidson, Dr. DeFreitas testified:

a) Besides the one physical incident in June, in which Mr. Davidson kicked another patient, his threats were mostly verbal, and physical violence was limited to environmental aggression.

b) Mr. Davidson did participate in several therapeutic programs, which he enjoyed. Such programming is important for him.

c) Mr. Davidson was on a positive trajectory from September to December 2025. The more access he had to his devices, the better he seemed to behave. It was a surprise to the treatment team that things went “off the rails.”

d) It is important to keep in Mr. Davidson’s current Disposition the hospital’s ability to transfer him to a General Forensic Unit and to eventually allow him to live in the community.

21. In response to questions from the panel, Dr. DeFreitas testified:

a) In retrospect, her decision to switch Mr. Davidson from a long-acting injectable to an oral medication might have been a mistake. She had believed that he would continue taking his medication, and she hoped the change would lead to a more positive therapeutic relationship with the treatment team.

b) Despite Mr. Davidson’s requests to be moved to Waypoint, he does not need that level of care; he can be managed safely at Ontario Shores.

c) She does not believe there is any psychotic element to his recent decompensation. Rather, it is a result of his antisocial personality disorder.

d) Mr. Davidson’s accommodations need to be supervised to maintain his adherence to his medication regimen and to ensure that he remains abstinent from substances. She was not opposed to having “his accommodation” changed to “supervised accommodation,” but she did not think it was necessary, as the hospital would always proceed in a very cautious manner.

e) If Mr. Davidson were to get an Absolute Discharge, he would stop his medication regimen immediately, and he would likely resume cannabis. Within a couple of weeks, his psychosis would worsen, leading to acts of aggression.

f) If Mr. Davidson were to cease his medication, there is a real and foreseeable and a substantial risk of serious physical, or psychological, harm. This risk would result in a very serious criminal act, similar to the Index Offences.

g) The threats of harm are real and not speculative.

h) Mr. Davidson would not return to hospital voluntarily if he were to experience decompensation, nor would he remain there.

i) There is a pattern of “self-sabotage”. Previously, when Mr. Davidson was ready to be moved to a general forensic unit, he asked for a medication reduction and his high-risk behaviours escalated. When he was again recently moving toward being transferred to a general forensic unit, his behaviours escalated.

Mr. Davidson’s Evidence:

22. Mr. Davidson testified as follows:

a) He has a history of significant trauma, including being orphaned, experiencing child abuse and becoming homeless. These experiences contributed to his mental health challenges and past behaviours. His current aspiration is to live peaceably, ideally in a Buddhist monastery or institute, seeking guidance and committing to a non-violent lifestyle.

b) If granted an Absolute Discharge, he would abstain from using cannabis and would not engage in aggressive behaviour, and would pursue a peaceful existence.

c) It is his strong belief that antipsychotic medications do not help him and, in fact, worsen his symptoms, including auditory hallucinations and abusive thoughts.

d) His mental health improves when he is off medication, as he can sleep better, maintain hygiene and feel calm.

e) He attributed his actions to high stress and trauma, rather than psychosis, and he maintains that his medication negatively affects his well-being.

f) He acknowledged that cannabis use has played a significant role in his criminal psychiatric history. However, he asserted that he has not used cannabis since March 2025 and that he has no intention to resume using cannabis.

g) He argued that his commitment to a peaceful lifestyle and the absence of recent cannabis use reduce his risk of being a significant threat to public safety.

h) The stress of living in the hospital, restrictions on his liberty and Board hearings have led to his behaviour.

23. No other evidence was called.

Analysis and Conclusions:

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

25. In Winko, the Supreme Court outlined that, in coming to the conclusion on the issue of significant risk, a Review Board should closely examine a range of evidence, including: the circumstances of the original offence; the past and expected course of the accused’s treatment; the present state of the NCR accused’s medical condition; the NCR accused’s own plans for the future; the support existing for the NCR accused in the community; and most importantly, the recommendations provided by experts who examined the NCR accused. In coming to our conclusion in this matter, the Board relies on the expert evidence of Dr. DeFreitas, in addition to the documentary evidence before us.

26. Mr. Davidson’s constellation of significant risk factors includes:

a) a documented history of violent behaviour, including the Index Offences;

b) recent incidents of physical assault, threats and violent outbursts;

c) a schizoaffective disorder, with limited insight into his condition;

d) limited appreciation of the benefits of antipsychotic medication;

e) a history of nonadherence;

f) antisocial, paranoid personality traits, which result in fraught relationships with the treatment team and the forensic system; and

g) in particular, multiple notable incidents and examples of inappropriate behaviour, which were noted in the Hospital Report and in the update given by Dr. DeFreitas.

27. In particular, the Board relied on Dr. DeFreitas’s testimony (summarized in paragraphs 21 (e)-(g) above) that, without supervision, Mr. Davidson would very likely stop taking antipsychotic medication and resume regular cannabis use. These actions would lead to significant psychotic deterioration, increasing the risk of harm to the public.

28. In particular, the Board relies on the Clinical Assessment of Risk, as set out in the Hospital Report:

"It is the unanimous opinion of the treatment team that Mr. Davidson remains a significant threat to the safety of the public. The most salient risk factors are as follows:

Mr. Davidson has a history of violence, including the index offenses. During the last reporting year, he has engaged in physical assault, including kicking a peer in the head, albeit this was in response to having first been assaulted by this peer. He has also attempted to spit on staff. He has also been violent to objects, including punching the nursing station window on multiple occasions. He has also made numerous threats to assault staff. As a result of these behaviours, he has on occasion required mechanical restraint, chemical restraint, and seclusion. To his credit, there has been improvement in his behavior towards the end of the reporting year.

He suffers from a major mental illness, namely schizoaffective disorder. His insight into this illness remains limited, and he does not appreciate the benefits of antipsychotic medication. In fact, he blames the medication for worsening his auditory hallucinations. He has a history of noncompliance with treatment, including outright refusing medication. In the past, periods of medication nonadherence have resulted in psychotic deterioration. To his credit, since having been found incapable of consenting to treatment, he has complied with antipsychotic treatment. He has requested changes in his antipsychotic medication but was accepting when told that these could only be made with a maximum frequency of once per month.

He has a diagnosis of cannabis use disorder, and cannabis use has contributed to worsening of his psychosis, which has in turn contributed to aggression. His insight into this is limited. When on the General forensic unit, he acknowledged using cannabis roughly once per week, and was at times duplicitous when providing urine samples for drug screening. He has not tested positive for cannabis while on the Secure forensic unit, but it should be noted that substances are very difficult to access from this unit.

He also exhibits antisocial and paranoid personality traits. These have resulted in a very fraught relationship with the treatment team and with the forensic system as a whole. Mr. Davidson has a litany of grievances, which have in turn led to various inappropriate behaviors such as climbing a tree, claiming to have a weapon, and refusing to come down, and urinating in public. Furthermore, he has made limited effort to move himself forward in the system. For example, he was told that if he used his accompanied hospital and grounds privileges ten times in December, the team would offer him accompanied community privileges in an effort to move him forward. However, despite encouragement, he only used his accompanied hospital privileges twice in December.

Absent the supervision of the Ontario Review Board and the hospital, it is highly likely that Mr. Davidson would stop his antipsychotic medication and resume regular cannabis use. This would result in a significant exacerbation of his psychotic symptoms, which would then result in physical and psychological harm to members of the public.”

29. In light of the Board's finding of significant threat, it is charged with shaping a Disposition for the coming year. It is clear from the Hospital Report and the evidence of Dr. DeFreitas that the hospital needs to retain the ability to approve Mr. Davidson’s housing, to monitor his mental stability, his adherence to medication and his ability to remain abstinent from substances. Should Mr. Davidson experience a decompensation in his mental state, the Mental Health Act would not be sufficient to protect the safety of the public. Because of the balance of significant static violent risk variables and ongoing dynamic risk variables, he is best managed under a Detention Order.

30. The Board did consider amending Mr. Davidson’s Disposition to require him to live in supervised accommodation. The evidence before us clearly indicates that he will not be in a position to move into the community within the coming reporting year, so this issue is moot.

31. The Board also agrees, for the reasons set out in the Campbell letter sent by Ontario Shores, that a restriction of liberty has not occurred. We note that no party has requested the Board to address this issue.

32. In consideration of all the evidence, 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. Davidson, his reintegration into society and his other needs, the necessary and appropriate Disposition is to continue with the Detention Order.

DATED this 3^rd^ day of March 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.

Mr. J. Weinstein

Alternate Chairperson

Office of the Registrar

Ontario Review Board