Re: Shamar Bailey
ORB File No: 8598
Hearing held on: Tuesday, January 20, 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: Shamar Bailey
Counsel: Ms. S. Feldman
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. S. Rosales Zelaya
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. R. Weinberg
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated March 2, 2026)
On April 15, 2024, Mr. Shamar Bailey was found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder on two counts of attempt to commit murder. The trial judge signed an order on April 15, 2024, remanding Mr. Bailey to the Ontario Review Board and directing the Ontario Review Board to conduct the initial Disposition hearing. Subsequently, the Ontario Review Board conducted two Pre-Hearing Conferences and also directed that Mr. Bailey attend at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (“CAMH”) for the purposes of having a psychiatrist at CAMH complete a risk assessment.
On Tuesday, January 28, 2025, the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing at CAMH and after hearing the evidence and deliberating, that panel imposed a discharge with conditions.
On Tuesday, January 20, 2026, the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing at CAMH and conducted the annual review hearing for Mr. Bailey. For the reasons outlined below, the panel continued the Conditional Discharge.
Position of the Parties
Mr. Bailey’s sister appeared by Zoom as an observer at the hearing.
At the outset of the hearing, documents were filed including the Hospital Report dated January 5, 2026. The parties were canvassed as to their recommendations to the |Board.
Ms. Rosales Zelaya, representing the hospital, recommended no change to the current disposition, a Conditional Discharge. Ms. Weinberg, on behalf of the Attorney General of Ontario, agreed with the hospital. Ms. Feldman, acting for Mr. Bailey, indicated they were seeking an Absolute Discharge. Alternatively, should the Board find that the threshold for significant threat had been met, Mr. Bailey agreed with the hospital’s proposed disposition.
Index Offence
- “On Saturday, March 13, 2021, at 7:00 pm, the accused, Shamar Bailey, attended the victims’ residence located at 15 Dale Meadows Road, in the City of Brampton.
The victim, Bovell Williams works with the accused and has been mentoring him. The accused came over due to some ongoing personal issues and wished to confide in him. During the course of the evening the victim, his common-law wife, Maxine Woolery, and the accused were playing a board game. Unprovoked the accused became upset and slapped Bovell in the face, he was yelling “I am going to kill everybody.” The accused grabbed a meat cleaver from the kitchen and advanced toward Maxine, with the weapon raised, however, was struck by Bovell with a chair.
The accused attacked Bovell with the meat cleaver causing injury to the left side of Bovell’s forehead. The accused lost grip on the meat cleaver and grabbed a rum bottle. He struck Maxine in the back of her head with the bottle and struck Bovell multiple times in the head with the bottle. The parties fought and moved to the door of the basement, where Bovell pushed the accused down the steps and locked the door. Both victims ran from the residence and alerted a neighbour to contact police.
At 11:42 pm the accused was located by police, crossing the intersection of Sandalwood Parkway and Veterans Drive, in the City of Brampton. At this time, the accused was arrested for Assault With a Weapon, contrary to Section 267 of the Criminal Code and Aggravated Assault, contrary to Section 268 of the Criminal Code. The accused was read his rights to counsel and caution all of which he indicated he understood.
The accused was transported to 21 Division. On Sunday, March 14, 2021, at 1:27 am, the accused provided a video statement and was advised he was being charged with two counts of Attempt Murder, contrary to Section 239(1) of the Criminal Code. He was re-read his rights to counsel and caution all of which he indicated he understood. The accused will be held at 21 Division pending a bail hearing.
Bovell received medical attention for a laceration to the front left of his forehead and soreness to his right shoulder.
Maxine received medical attention for soft tissue to the back of her head, and an injury to her right knee.
CFRO & FIP checks were conducted.”
Evidence at Hearing
Dr. O’Sullivan testified for the hospital and was the only witness at the hearing. Mr. Bailey suffers from Bipolar Disorder 1. The doctor indicated that he outlined his opinion on the issue of significant threat on page 26 of the Hospital Report. He noted that the index offence was an attempted murder. In the period between February 2022 and March 2023, there were relapses and multiple instances of noncompliance with medication, leading to a decompensation in Mr. Bailey’s mental status. This reporting period, he has been compliant with this medication for the past 10 months. Nevertheless, Dr. O’Sullivan indicated that Mr. Bailey still has an underdeveloped understanding of his mental illness, and thus the risk of relapse.
Mr. Bailey lives with his multi-generational family in Brampton, and he goes to Etobicoke General Hospital for psychiatric treatment every three months. This community psychiatrist currently prescribes and administers his long-acting infectable medication. He sees the CAMH forensic psychiatrist once a month and the case manager weekly. Mr. Bailey also attends Forensic Outpatient Service groups on a weekly basis. His illness is in recovery on medication.
Previously, he did not have any coverage under ODSP and thus getting downtown from Brampton and paying for his medication was a real financial burden for him. However, he now has ODSP so he can get his medication and other help.
Mr. Bailey’s family is understanding of his circumstances.
Mr. Bailey’s memory of the index offence is quite unclear. Dr. O’Sullivan recommends his patient join a risk and recovery group, hoping that will improve Mr. Bailey’s insight.
Dr. O’Sullivan pointed out that (at page 23 of the Hospital Report), Mr. Bailey indicated to the doctor that he is ambivalent about whether he would continue his medication. Dr. O’Sullivan testified that Mr. Bailey does not appreciate relapse and the risk of reoffending. “He would not know what to look for,” the doctor stated. The doctor has recommended that Mr. Bailey attend groups that will provide him with a better understanding of signs of decompensation.
Dr. O’Sullivan indicated that Mr. Bailey spends too much time on Tik Tok, 10 hours a day. He works part-time at his family business, a restaurant, but he does not get paid for this (except perhaps in room and board). He works two or three shifts a week, often in the evening. Then he will sleep well into the afternoon the next day. The doctor said it would be really beneficial for him to have more structured time if he could live a more regulated life.
The doctor said Mr. Bailey is a pleasant patient who has been on a positive track for 10 months.
Ms. Feldman indicated that Mr. Bailey went with his sister to seek medical attention when she saw that his mental state was decompensating.
Dr. O’Sullivan has tried repeatedly to invite Mr. Bailey’s family to attend a meeting so they can better understand his illness, but Mr. Bailey has not consented. The Board notes Mr. Bailey’s father is his substitute decision maker, and would need to provide informed consent sufficient that he understands his son’s illness and need for medication. The treating physician therefore does not require Mr. Bailey’s consent to discuss Mr. Bailey’s illness and treatment with his substitute decision maker for this purpose.
Ms. Feldman brought out in questions that her client responds well to medications. He is living in a multi-generational home and has no plans to move. Mr. Bailey has obtained his forklift licence updates. He has not secured employment in that area yet, but he would like to.
A Board member asked about weekly contact. It appears that Mr. Bailey needs prompting to get to his appointments, hence one of the reasons he has weekly appointments. There is open communication between Etobicoke General and CAMH.
Submissions
Submissions by the Hospital are that Mr. Bailey remains a significant threat. He has Bipolar 1 disorder. He has strong supports including an external psychiatrist, but he still needs the support of the forensic outpatient team at CAMH. A good safeguard would be to educate the family so that they will be aware of his mental illness, the risk factors, and signs of decompensation. Most importantly, Mr. Bailey has shown a lack of insight into his illness. The Hospital is of the view that the Conditional Discharge should remain in place. Any consideration now of an Absolute Discharge would be premature.
Counsel for the Crown expressed concern that Mr. Bailey might get a forklift driver’s job, that this would affect his sleep schedule and would not be safe work. Ms. Weinberg remained in support of a Conditional Discharge.
Ms. Feldman maintained her position for an Absolute Discharge. She submitted that the threshold for significant threat had not been met. In her submission, Mr. Bailey has had a significant period of stability in the community and has strong support. In addition to his injectable medication, Mr. Bailey complies with his oral medications which he administers independently.
Analysis and Conclusion
The panel carefully considered Mr. Bailey’s request for an Absolute Discharge, but accepted the expert evidence and opinion of Dr. O’Sullivan. The Board considered the serious nature of the index offences and his continuing and persistent lack of insight into his illness, both of which contribute to the presence of significant threat. His incapacity to consent to treatment speaks to the fragility of his medication adherence. In his case, one of the critical contributors to his stability and wellness is his medication. Absent that he will likely decompensate and reoffend violently. His lack of insight in his case will make medication nonadherence likely. The Board is of the view that the continuation of the Conditional Discharge is the necessary and appropriate, and least intrusive, Disposition.
Mr. Bailey needs to do some work before he would be eligible for an Absolute Discharge. He could begin by involving his family as Dr. O’Sullivan has been urging him to do. He might consider getting more regular work and a regular sleep schedule.
The Board does acknowledge the positive steps Mr. Bailey has taken thus far, and we wish him a good year.
In arriving at our conclusion, the Board has considered the paramount factor of safety of the public, Mr. Bailey’s mental condition, his community reintegration, and his other needs, all as required by s.672.54 of the Criminal Code.
DATED this 2^nd^ day of March, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. M.L. Bridger
Legal Member
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board