Re: Errol Taylor
ORB File No: 5870
Hearing held on: Wednesday, December 17, 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: Errol Taylor
Counsel: Mr. J.R. Collins
The person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. P.L. Darby
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. M. Yousuf
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated February 4, 2026)
Introduction
On May 11, 2011, Mr. Errol Taylor was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder of two charges of attempt abduction of a person under fourteen, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”).
Mr. Taylor is subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”), dated December 30, 2024, which orders that he be detained at the Forensic Service of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto (“CAMH”) with privileges extending to allowing him to live in the community in a 24-hour-a-day supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge.
On December 17, 2025, the Board convened a hearing at CAMH to conduct the annual review of the current Disposition.
Mr. Taylor was represented by his counsel, Mr. J.R. Collins, who advised that his client did not wish to attend this hearing and that he had instructions to proceed in his absence. As there were no objections, an order pursuant to s. 672.5(10)(a) was made, allowing Mr. Taylor to be absent from this hearing.
A Hospital Report, dated November 5, 2025 (the "Hospital Report"), was entered as Exhibit 1.
The issue at this hearing is whether Mr. Taylor is a significant threat to public safety, as defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code. If so, the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances must be determined, bearing in mind the factors enunciated in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
The hospital submitted that there should be no changes to last year’s Disposition. Both the Crown and Mr. Collins supported the hospital’s position and the matter, therefore, proceeded as a joint submission. Mr. Collins advised that the issue of significant threat was not in dispute.
For the reasons set out below and based on the expert evidence and opinions before us, the Board concluded that Mr. Taylor continues to present a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board ordered that the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances is the continuation of the existing Detention Order.
Current Psychiatric Diagnoses
Schizophrenia
Rule Out Paraphilic Disorder (pedophilia)
Index Offences
- The circumstances giving rise to the Index Offences are excerpted from last year's Board Reasons, as follows:
“In March, 2010, the accused attended a public park in the city of Brampton. Several young children were playing there. He approached an eleven-year-old girl and asked if she wanted to come home with him. The child began to scream and ran home. The accused then approached the other children and asked them the same question. They ran home and told their parents of the incident. Police were called. They were not able to find the accused at that time.
In April, 2010, the accused approached a thirteen-year-old girl on a sidewalk in front of a school, also in Brampton. He asked if she wanted to go home with him. The child said no, then walked home and advised her mother of the incident who then contacted police.”
- Mr. Taylor’s history is outlined in the Hospital Report, and is accurately summarized in last year's Reasons:
“Mr. Taylor’s personal history is set out in the hospital report, filed. He has both a criminal and psychiatric history. The hospital report indicates that Mr. Taylor has a history of violence. In 1989, he was charged with assault, although after involvement in the mental health system, this matter was resolved by way of a peace bond. In 1990, he entered a person’s home and threatened him, leading to charges of breaking and entering, and threatening. Mr. Taylor was found unfit to stand trial and was admitted to hospital. He was not co-operative with treatment and it was almost a year after the initial offences were committed when he was found fit to stand trial. These counts were also withdrawn, after several more months before the court.
In 1992, Mr. Taylor was found guilty of committing an indecent act, and placed on probation. Little information is known of this matter. The next two offences committed by Mr. Taylor were serious. In February of 1993, he committed a bank robbery, claiming to have a gun when he committed this offence. He was arrested in British Columbia about one month later and returned to Ontario. He was again placed in the mental health system, but unfortunately, he did not receive the support and structure needed. In October of 1993, he committed a further bank robbery, and forced a teller and another bank employee into the bank vault. He was initially found fit, then found unfit to stand trial for this offence. He remained in the mental health system until March of 1994. The disposition of these charges is unclear.
Mr. Taylor also has a significant psychiatric history (hospital report, page seven and following). He began to deteriorate in his late teens. He was admitted to hospital after engaging in violent behaviour toward his family, setting fire to papers in the home, and being unable to care for himself. He was reported by his mother to have been abusing cocaine, and he demonstrated disordered thinking and delusions.
Mr. Taylor was diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia. He absconded from hospital on more than one occasion, threatened violence to members of his family, and was unable to care for himself. By the time of the break and enter charge (noted above) he had been apprehended under the Mental Health Act eight times.
Unfortunately, not all of Mr. Taylor’s background has been documented. It is known that he had several psychiatric admissions in 1999 and 2000, including to the Scarborough.
Hospital, the Ajax-Pickering Health Centre and the Whitby Mental Health Centre. In late
2001, he was admitted to St. Michael’s Hospital for several weeks. He had been deteriorating, having not been medication compliant, and there were concerns that he would become violent. He was transferred to the Whitby Mental Health Centre after his time at St. Michael’s, and stayed in the Whitby Mental Health Centre for almost the entire year of 2002. He was resistant to medication and seldom participated in any supportive programming. However, his health did improve and eventually he was discharged to his mother’s home. He was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia as well as a personality disorder with antisocial traits.
Subsequent to this, Mr. Taylor was reportedly treated through the William Osler Health System. Again, records are not complete, but there were indications that a treating psychiatrist believed that Mr. Taylor was developmentally delayed and had exhibited symptoms compatible with schizoaffective disorder. In 2010, the psychiatrist resumed care for Mr. Taylor. The doctor indicated that Mr. Taylor engaged in impulsive behaviour, which he described as often being characterized by “inappropriate propositioning of females he does not know.” He noted Mr. Taylor suffered from significant lack of insight and could not understand why strangers would object to such approaches. The doctor opined that due to his intellectual level, Mr. Taylor was unable to benefit from psychotherapy alone, but could hopefully control his behaviour more effectively if he continued to receive his antipsychotic medication and attended for monitoring of his condition. He indicated Mr. Taylor had never exhibited hostile or aggressive behaviour to his knowledge and that his condition had never been associated with hallucinations of the command type.
As noted, the index offences took place in 2010. When interviewed by a psychiatrist after the offences, Mr. Taylor gave inconsistent answers regarding sexual attraction to children.”
Course Since Last Disposition
- Mr. Taylor’s course since his last Disposition is set out in detail in the Hospital Report. In summary, Mr. Taylor was discharged to a farm in a rural location on February 27, 2024. He resides in a supervised facility (24/7). He has done well in this environment. He is compliant with medication and appointments. He has had no concerning behavioural issues since he began living at his community residence.
Initial Position of the Parties
- The hospital submitted that there should be no changes to last year’s Disposition which was a Detention Order at the Forensic Service of CAMH with privileges up to living in the community in a 24-hour-a-day supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge. Both the Crown and Mr. Collins, counsel for Mr. Taylor, supported the hospital’s position and the matter, therefore, proceeded as a joint submission. Mr. Collins advised that the issue of significant threat was not in dispute.
Evidence at the Hearing
Dr. Darby, Mr. Taylor’s attending psychiatrist and author of the Hospital Report gave evidence. Dr. Darby told the Board that Mr. Taylor has had a good year even though he continues to require a high level of support. Frequently, staff is needed to support him in completing his chores; however, he has had no concerning behavioural issues since he began living at his current residence.
There is the potential for change in Mr. Taylor’s housing this year as his current residence is not permanent community housing. It provides transitional housing. It is the plan of the hospital to look for more permanent housing for Mr. Taylor in a rural community this coming year.
In answer to questions from the Crown, Dr. Darby testified that Mr. Taylor continues to have limited insight into his illness. He suffers from chronic psychosis even when on medication, as he has been diagnosed with treatment resistant schizophrenia. He has been treated with clozapine and has had ECT treatment. Dr. Darby stated that if a new medication becomes available, the team will likely try it.
Mr. Taylor has significant limited intellectual functioning. His ability to learn through program participation is limited.
In answer to questions from Mr. Collins, Dr. Darby stated that there has been no sign of any substance abuse, and that Mr. Taylor is adherent to medication. Although his insight into his conduct remains limited, he does understand that his conduct has consequences and that he is not to engage in maladaptive behaviour. There has been no evidence of any unlawful conduct in his supervised setting nor on his escorted passes into the community.
Dr. Darby also testified that in the search for permanent housing, the team would be looking for another rural placement. A rural placement will keep Mr. Taylor out of trouble. In addition, the team will look for an all-male residence with 24-hour supervision. This may take a while, but his current housing is not in jeopardy. The issue with finding a permanent residence is that there are limited resources available to deal with Mr. Taylor’s needs.
In answer to a question from a panel member, Dr. Darby testified that even though Mr. Taylor does not engage in many farm chores, his housing is not in jeopardy. The clinical team wants to make sure that Mr. Taylor does not lose his housing.
There was no further evidence.
Submissions
- All parties maintained their joint submission which is that there be no change to last year’s Disposition. Significant threat was not contested. The hospital requires time to identify appropriate permanent housing that manages Mr. Taylor’s risk. The Crown adopted the hospital’s position. Mr. Collins wanted the Board to know that Mr. Taylor, by his absence, was not showing any disrespect to the Board. His residence is quite a distance from the hospital and Mr. Taylor gets car sick. Although Mr. Taylor is content with his current housing, his long-term goal is to obtain permanent housing. Mr. Collins pointed out that there has been no substance abuse nor conduct issues in the community and Mr. Taylor remains compliant with his medication.
Conclusions
Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence, as well as the submissions from the parties, the Board agrees with the joint submission: Mr. Taylor remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.
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 uncontroverted expert evidence of Dr. Darby, in addition to the documentary evidence before us.
Mr. Taylor suffers from an ultra treatment-resistant form of schizophrenia, and it is expected that he will continue to suffer chronic psychotic symptoms, even when fully compliant with his antipsychotic medication. Mr. Taylor has limited insight into his illness, and he experiences chronic auditory, and visual, hallucinations.
Mr. Taylor appears to understand the consequences of his behaviour and enjoys his current residence. However, the Board finds that he still continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board adopts the risk factors set out in the Hospital Report and is mindful that Mr. Taylor continues to endorse delusions. It is the Board’s view, for this coming year, that the Disposition should be a Detention Order at the Forensic Service of CAMH as this is necessary and appropriate to manage Mr. Taylor’s risk. In particular, it remains necessary for the hospital to be able to approve any community residence for Mr. Taylor to ensure that his housing has the appropriate level of support, supervision, and consistent oversight that he continues to require to address his risk and meet his needs.
The Board congratulates Mr. Taylor on another positive year at his current residence and wishes him well.
In arriving at our conclusion for the appropriate disposition, the Board has considered the paramount factor of the safety of the public, Mr. Taylor’s community reintegration, his mental condition, and his other needs, all as required by s. 672.54 of the Code.
DATED this 4th day of February, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Hon. C. Nelson
Legal Member
__________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board