Ontario Review Board
Re: Autumn Red Farrington
ORB File No: 8917
Hearing held on: Wednesday, January 21, 2026
Place of Hearing: Providence Care Hospital
Pursuant to: Sections 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Hanbidge
Members: Ms. K. Weisbaum Dr. S. Hucker Dr. W. Loza Mr. A. Bouvier
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Autumn Red Farrington Counsel: Mr. M. Rodé
Person in Charge of Hospital: Counsel: Ms. T. Tom Representative: Dr. A. Bickle
Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. G. Skerkowski
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated February 4, 2026)
Introduction
On November 12, 2025, Ms. Farrington was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder ('NCR') on charges of assault peace officer (x3), assault with a weapon, and possession for purpose dangerous, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada.
In rendering its finding of NCR, the Court did not proceed to make a Disposition but referred the matter to The Ontario Review Board (‘the Board”) to make a Disposition pursuant to s. 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code.
On January 21, 2026, this panel of the Board convened at Providence Care Hospital (“the hospital”), Kingston, Ontario, to conduct the Ms. Farrington’s initial Disposition review.
The Issues, Evidence Introduced, and Parties’ Positions at the Hearing
The issues to be decided were whether Ms. Farrington poses a significant threat to the safety of the public at this time, and, if so, what is Disposition is necessary and appropriate for her for the coming year. In deciding the second issue, the Board is required by s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code to consider four factors, being the safety of the public, as the paramount consideration, and Ms. Farrington's mental condition, reintegration into society, and other needs.
The evidence presented at the hearing included the viva voce evidence of Dr. Andrew Bickle, Ms. Farrington’s current treating psychiatrist, as well as a list of documents as follows:
(1) Warrants of Committal (x 2);
(2) Crown Brief Synopsis;
(3) Criminal Information;
(4) Transcription of Court Proceedings;
(5) Fitness to Stand Trial Assessment, dated June 19, 2025;
(6) Preliminary NCR Assessment, dated July 9, 2025;
(7) Final NCR Assessment, dated September 25, 2025;
(8) Transcription of NCR Court Proceedings;
(9) Hospital Report, dated December 31, 2025
- At the outset of the hearing, Ms. Tom, on behalf of the hospital, advised that the hospital was submitting that, at the time of the hearing, Ms. Farrington continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public, and that the recommended Disposition for the Board’s consideration was that Ms. Farrington be subject to a Detention Order with the necessary and appropriate conditions and privileges as stated in the Hospital Report at page 19 of the Report. Mr. Greg Skerkowski, on behalf of the Attorney-General, supported the hospital’s recommendations. Mr. Michael Rodé, on behalf of Ms. Farrington, also agreed with the position taken by hospital counsel, without exception. Essentially, the Board was being presented with the joint position of the parties.
Index Offences
- The index offences are described in the Crown Brief Synopsis, which was also referenced in the Court Transcript, and summarized as follows:
On June 1, 2025, Police were called to 8587 Old Hastings Rd in Tudor and Cashel Township, ON. The caller, Andrew Farrington, reported a family dispute involving he and his wife and their daughter, Autumn Farrington. The caller described his daughter as having a psychotic episode. Autumn had a knife and was said to be attacking the caller with it. The caller was attempting to restrain Autumn and take the knife away. The caller's wife, Carla Farrington, locked herself in the bathroom for safety. The caller described Autumn stabbing at him with a knife that she retrieved from the kitchen. Andrew defended himself against the swings of the knife with a laundry bag he held, that Autumn stabbed at instead. The caller was eventually successful in getting the knife away from Autumn.
The caller and his wife left Autumn inside as they exited the residence. Police were on route to the call as the caller and his wife waited for their arrival. PC Smillie from the Bancroft detachment coincidentally was traveling South on Highway #62 when the call came in, and offered his assistance. Smillie arrived first on scene and made contact with Autumn. Smillie spoke with Autumn. The conversation between Autumn and the officer was limited. Autumn went to the kitchen and collected a knife from a drawer. Autumn turned around in the direction of Smillie. The officer stepped back and drew his gun with commands to drop the knife, in an attempt to have Autumn drop the knife. Smillie stepped back out the doorway to create distance for safety. Autumn dropped the knife and went to the living room. Smillie followed Autumn into the living room to speak to her. PC Saini and PC Preston from Central Hastings arrived on scene a few moments later.
The officers entered the residence and joined Smillie in the living room. Autumn was sitting quietly on one end of the couch. Autumn was asked questions to encourage her to speak to the officers. Autumn remained quiet until she had an outburst saying that she didn't want anything from anyone. At that moment, Autumn jumped up from the couch and ran at the officers, swinging her fists. Smillie and Preston were struck by Autumn. Autumn was restrained by the officers and put face down on the couch. Autumn was hand cuffed and told that she was under arrest for assault. Autumn was led out to a Police cruiser to be transported back to the Central Hastings detachment. While standing next to the cruiser waiting to be seated in the cruiser, Autumn lashed out again. Autumn kicked PC Saini in his leg. Autumn had to be held against the cruiser for a moment to prevent any further assaults
Autumn was loaded into the cruiser and was given right to counsel and cautioned. Autumn advised that she understood both. When asked if she wished to speak to a lawyer, she replied that she didn't know.
Autumn was transported to the detachment and held for a bail hearing.
Current Diagnoses
- Ms. Farrington’s current psychiatric diagnoses are set out in summary on the cover page of the Hospital Report as follows:
(1)Schizophrenia;
(2)Alcohol Use Disorder probably moderate, in sustained remission;
(3)Fibromyalgia
Family History & Personal History
Ms. Farrington is currently 29 years old. She was born and raised for the first years of her life in England. At age seven, Ms. Farrington and her family moved to Ontario, Canada, to be close to her mother’s biological mother.
Ms. Farrington reached early developmental milestones without delay. Her mother described her as very friendly and able to make a lot of friends.
Ms. Farrington did not report suffering any sexual or physical abuse, or other major trauma during her childhood years living in England. She also denied any childhood history of setting fires deliberately or being cruel to animals.
Ms. Farrington has two siblings, a sister, and a brother. In October 2024, Ms. Farrington returned from living in a trailer at her sister’s property in Bancroft, Ontario, to live with her parents and brother in the family home situated in a rural location in Eldorado, Ontario, and continued to do so until her arrest for the index offences. Ms. Farrington has described herself as always having had a good and close relationship with her parents since childhood.
Ms. Farrington’s father works with disabled people as a community career facilitator at a day unit, while her mother does not work outside the family home.
About fourteen years ago, Ms. Farrington’s mother suffered an acquired brain injury from hemorrhagic strokes caused by aneurysms.
Ms. Farrington previously disclosed that her sister suffers from bipolar disorder or depression but subsequently stated that instead her sister has autism.
No other family history of psychiatric illness has been reported.
Ms. Farrington did not complete her high school credits and did not graduate due to her experiencing severe anxiety leading to her absenteeism.
Ms. Farrington has only one week of employment history at a fast-food outlet.
Ms. Farrington reported having portrayed herself as living a very isolated existence over the past couple of years by choice as she preferred to avoid social contact due to anxiety, paranoia, and apathy.
It was reported by Ms. Farrington’s mother that Ms. Farrington had been previously sexually assaulted (raped) leading to an abortion. Her mother felt that Ms. Farrington had been victimized by her various romantic heterosexual partners physically, sexually, emotionally, and financially. Ms. Farrington claims to have a boyfriend at present.
Medical History
- Ms. Farrington was diagnosed with likely fibromyalgia by a rheumatologist and is medicated for this condition. She described this as causing global muscle soreness and has described pacing about to alleviate the pain.
Substance Use History
Ms. Farrington endorses a limited history of using drugs, but a more extensive history of problematic alcohol use. However, she is briefly described in earlier health care records as using a large amount of marijuana daily from grades 9 to 11, regularly using cocaine around the age of 18 years, and as having a period of heavy drinking at the age of 19 years.
Ms. Farrington disclosed that she was established in a pattern of heavy drinking between the ages of 20 years and 25 years when she would drink most days, including soon after waking in the morning, because she felt she needed it. She mentioned starting drinking as a way to cope with the constant pain from fibromyalgia. She recognized having experienced significant features of alcohol withdrawal, including tremors and blackouts. She felt she was not OK without alcohol and that she craved alcohol.
For two years Ms. Farrington drank heavily whilst also taking clonazepam (i.e. a benzodiazepine sedative) as prescribed, which she knew accentuated the effects of alcohol.
Ms. Farrington claimed she stopped drinking heavily at age 25 years when she became shocked at her own behaviour when intoxicated, culminating in one significant argument with her mother when she took a swing at her mother, which she regretted.
Ms. Farrington has had no treatment or formal intervention to reduce her alcohol consumption.
Offending History
- Ms. Farrington has no previous criminal convictions.
Psychiatric History
Ms. Farrington has a history of mental health challenges that began around adolescence and progressed into her adulthood. Ms. Farrington reported struggling with anxiety since high school, which later impacted her ability to complete her schooling, and her ability to form friendships and function in an occupational setting.
She was previously treated for ADHD with a psychostimulant medication.
In early adulthood Ms. Farrington started to present to mental health services with positive psychotic symptoms, and by early 2025, if not earlier, she was diagnosed with psychotic mental illness that attracted several different diagnostic labels, in part recognizing that
assessment of symptoms was evolving, as well as her need to be psychiatrically admitted for treatment and stabilization, and with outpatient follow-up.
- Before her last psychiatric contact prior to the material time, Ms. Farrington had been hearing voices, having delusions, and experiencing intrusive thoughts. At the last outpatient review on May 13, 2025, she denied experiencing any of the above-noted symptoms but was having trouble focusing at home and pacing back and forth. At that appointment, Ms. Farrington’s diagnosis was recorded as likely Schizophrenia exacerbated by insomnia and cannabis use, and she was prescribed psychostimulant medication to aid her concentration.
Finances
- Ms. Farrington has been the recipient of the Ontario Disability Support Program since she was approximately 18 years old.
Housing
- Ms. Farrington’s parents were willing to have Ms. Farrington return to live at the family home albeit only temporarily following her current hospitalization, as they hoped to push Ms. Farrington to be less isolated and maybe find some form of community in the future.
Commentary from Ms. Farrington’s Father (Andrew Farrington) & Ms. Farrington
- Detailed accounts from both Ms. Farrington’s father and Ms. Farrington herself of the events and surrounding circumstances that arose on June 1, 2025, the date of the commission of the index offences, is set out in the Hospital Report and not repeated herein.
Course at Hospital – July 2025 to December 2025, Risk Assessment
While at PCH, Ms. Farrington has presented with few behaviours, if any, to challenge security or safety on her unit. She has also not been involved in any violent incidents or other behavioral disturbances warranting her placement in seclusion. Instead, Ms. Farrington is typically observed as being quite reclusive, except when granted yard access.
Ms. Farrington frequently discloses feeling anxious in social settings, as well as feeling bored on the ward. She has engaged with nursing staff to relate when she has been feeling lower in mood. As a result, her antidepressant medication was increased in recognition that she was experiencing some sustained mood depression.
In mental state examinations, Ms. Farrington’s positive psychotic symptoms have gradually decreased during the course of her admission. In the earlier part of her hospitalization when reporting hallucinations, Ms. Farrington described not having insight into them being symptoms of mental illness until a little while after they occur.
Most recently, the hallucinations have been tactile in nature, specifically sensations that her limbs are wet and that her arms are being touched by a human hand when there is no one present. Her report of having perceptual disturbances indicative of hallucinations gradually diminished. She reported auditory hallucinations as last having occurred in October 2025. She has reported tactile hallucinations as last having occurred in October 2025. The tactile hallucinations she described were never sexual in nature.
Ms. Farrington is accepting of having a psychotic illness (diagnosed as Schizophrenia during the current admission), and of advice that she should continue with consenting to the use of long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication in the longer term, rather than having brief, discrete periods of treatment like she had been prescribed in the past. She also agreed that she ought to avoid psychostimulant medication, the medication that quite likely the contributing factor leading to the relapse of her mental illness in May/June 2025, including at the time of the index offences.
Apart from Ms. Farrington’s primary diagnosis of schizophrenia, she also has a diagnosis of alcohol use disorder (moderate) in sustained remission. Ms. Farrington also has a history of insomnia. Her history and self-reporting are also consistent with social anxiety disorder. Additional diagnostic queries for further exploration include ADHD, generalized anxiety disorder, and benzodiazepine use disorder. Ms. Farrington also has a history of generalized body pains that have previously been diagnosed as fibromyalgia, although her symptoms have at times been interpreted as a somatic delusion.
Ms. Farrington has regular visits from several family members, including her father, mother, and her sister. These have gone well. Ms. Farrington expresses warm feelings towards her family. There have been no concerns about violence or other hostility towards her family members during these visits.
Following a Psychological Risk Assessment of Ms. Farrington conducted by Dr. Douglas on December 17, 2025, is structured assessment of static and dynamic risk and protective factors suggests that Ms. Farrington is at moderate risk of violence in the longer term, with the most likely targets of physical violence being her family members.
Ms. Farrington’s primary predisposing factors for violence are, most importantly her major mental illness, as well as her history of substance use, with possible precipitating factors of medication nonadherence and use of prescribed stimulant medication. More specifically, the nature of Ms. Farrington’s symptoms is of key relevance, as they involve higher-risk psychotic phenomena.
Ms. Farrington’s delusional misidentification beliefs (i.e., Capgras delusions – delusional beliefs that people have been replaced by imposters) and command hallucinations, pertaining to harm from others (i.e., family, police officers), coupled with a belief that she was compelled in her actions (i.e., threat/control override symptoms) were key factors contributing to her index offences. Insomnia/Sleep disturbance also appears to have been a perpetuating factor for her symptoms. As the Hospital Report notes, the more serious (unproven) violence perpetrated by Ms. Farrington appears not to be the index offences but the attempted stabbing of her parents shortly before the material time. That violence was thought to be fundamentally caused by positive psychotic symptoms, including delusional beliefs that these people had been replaced by imposters (i.e., Capgras syndrome) and auditory hallucinations.
As such, at the present stage, Ms. Farrington continues to represent a significant threat to public safety. Ms. Farrington’s risk appears to be well managed in an inpatient setting with her current level of supervision and support. As many of her risk factors are dynamic in nature, it is anticipated there will be a decrease in risk with a sustained period of structured intervention, support, and professional oversight which would be available while Ms. Farrington ought to be subject to a Detention Order Disposition of the Board.
Ms. Farrington’s level of risk is not likely to be adequately managed in the context of a Conditional Discharge Disposition. Without the oversight of the Board, Ms. Farrington may be at risk of resuming substance use and/or medication nonadherence which could be destabilizing to her mental health. Ms. Farrington requires ongoing monitoring and supervision. As well, there may be scenarios in which Ms. Farrington’s clinical team would likely, for her safe management and successful reintegration, wish to readmit her to hospital, but she would not meet criteria for detention under the MHA and/or Ms. Farrington’s inability to voluntarily agree to readmission. These might include relapse into substance use or the reemergence with distress of delusional misidentification about her family or threat/control-override symptoms.
Ms. Farrington would benefit from gradual and structured rehabilitation. So far, she has responded well to inpatient treatment since July 2025. Her positive psychotic symptoms have remitted, and she has adhered to treatment. However, she continues to struggle with negative symptoms of Schizophrenia which will require considerable support in rehabilitation. Given her current legal restrictions, she has been unable to have off-ward privileges, either under direct or indirect supervision. Clinically, this next stage of treatment privileges is being considered, if permitted by the Board.
Viva Voce Evidence of Dr. Bickle
While at court and since her presentation at the hospital, Ms. Farrington’s mental healthcare has been overseen by Dr. Andrew Bickle.
Dr. Bickle testified that he has been Ms. Farrington’s treating psychiatrist for approximately six months. He is the co-author of the Hospital Report and adopts its contents, including the opinion therein that Ms. Farrington continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public, which includes the members of her family.
Dr. Bickle noted that, despite Ms. Farrington’s very good progress while at PCH, there remain a number of factors demonstrating her continued significant risk. First and foremost, Dr. Bickle noted that the most important risk factor was Ms. Farrington’s diagnosed major mental illness: schizophrenia.
Dr. Bickle also referenced some of Ms. Farrington’s mental health history, including Ms. Farrington as early as her high school days complaining of anxiety, which Dr. Bickle opined served as a precursor to her current mental health condition. Dr. Bickle added that, thereafter, Ms. Farrington sought out mental health services when she was 18 years old. Afterwards, Ms. Farrington experienced a number of psychiatric admissions, although for a lengthy time she was never prescribed any psychotropic medications.
Given this history, Dr. Bickle testified that it has now become clear that Ms. Farrington’s underlying mental illness at play is schizophrenia.
According to Dr, Bickle, when Ms. Farrington becomes mentally unwell, her symptoms include the delusional belief that her family are not who they appear to be but are made up of imposters. She also becomes paranoid, feeling persecuted and threatened by others. She has voices telling her that her family members would not suffer any pain if harmed.
Dr. Bickle further noted concerning Ms. Farrington’s psychiatric history, she required a psychiatric admission at Belleville hospital in February 2025, following Ms. Farrington having made threats to kill members of her immediate family. She also assaulted her brother when he was not in possession of his identification documents. Following these events were the circumstances leading to Ms. Farrington’s threatening behaviour towards her parents and the subsequent commission of the index offences.
Dr. Bickle also testified about other factors adding to Ms. Farrington’s continuing risk, such as her previous substance use (i.e., cocaine, cannabis, and alcohol).
As for the history concerning Ms. Farrington’s previous community living arrangements, Dr. Bickle noted that she had left the family home in the past, initially to live with roommates (who apparently took advantage of her). This led Ms. Farrington to tentatively live at her sister’s residence, then finally to return home to live with her parents and brother in the family residence. Dr. Bickle testified that, given that Ms. Farrington had not achieved any long-term living independence, she will require lots of support to transition back to community living when deemed appropriate. Dr. Bickle added that, at present, Ms. Farrington’s parents are reluctant to have Ms. Farrington resume living at the family home.
Dr. Bickle testified that, while currently an inpatient at the hospital, Ms. Farrington has accepted and is compliant with her prescribed medication regimen.
Dr, Bickle noted that during the first three to four months of Ms. Farrington’s current admission, Ms. Farrington reported experiencing psychotic (auditory and tactile) hallucinations, with her having no insight into whether these experiences were delusional or real. At present, however, Dr. Bickle testified that Ms. Farrington is now receptive to undergoing psychoeducation concerning her diagnosed mental illness and its relationship to acts of violence.
Dr. Bickle indicated that he was supportive of the hospital’s request to include in Ms. Farrington’s initial Disposition a provision permitting her “to live in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge.” According to Dr. Bickle, Ms. Farrington is doing all the right things at the hospital. While it is possible in the next reporting period that she may be permitted to live in the community, Dr. Bickle advised that Ms. Farrington first needs to be tested when off the ward. Thereafter, perhaps with months or in the next year, community living may be an option for Ms. Farrington, with the Kingston Transitional Rehabilitation Housing Program (“TRHP”) (i.e., 24 hr./daily supervised accommodation) being the realistic option to be considered.
Dr. Bickle reported that Ms. Farrington does have contact with her family while currently hospitalized, with there being direct contact on the ward, as well as indirect supervision using a camera otherwise.
In response to questions posed by some panel members of the Board, Dr. Bickle testified that, at present, no formal intervention programs addressing Ms. Farrington’s previous substance use issues have been undertaken by Ms. Farrington at the hospital, but discussions with staff concerning such programming are taking place.
Dr. Bickle agreed that other opportunities should be extended to Ms. Farrington, including engaging in recreational activities, volunteering, and meeting new friends.
It was noted that, as part of Ms. Farrington current medication regime, she is prescribed two separate antidepressant drugs, with Dr. Bickle noting that one of these medications is administered to address Ms. Farrington’s anxiety condition.
In the past Ms. Farrington was diagnosed with anxiety disorder; however, at present, it is Dr. Bickle’s professional opinion that Ms. Farrington’s anxiety may be more accurately described as a premonitory symptom of her major mental illness diagnosis of schizophrenia.
As for the psychotic symptoms Ms. Farrington was experiencing during her initial three to four months following her admission, Dr. Bickle indicated that no changes were made to Ms. Farrington’s medication regimen to address these concerns given that these symptoms eventually resolved.
Dr. Bickle further advised that he has had discussions with Ms. Farrington’s immediate family members about the circumstances surrounding the index offences, but not as of yet with Ms. Farrington. Dr. Bickle indicated that PCH’s social worker staff will need to become involved with Ms. Farrington and her family. As it currently stands, Dr. Bickle’s impression of Ms. Farrington’s family was that they are extremely concerned about Ms. Farrington’s mental health and are fearful of her returning to live at home before being adequately treated.
Closing Submissions
- Counsel for all parties maintained their joint position as outlined at the commencement of the hearing, as noted previously in paragraph 6 of these Reasons.
Analysis & Decisions
On the first issue, this panel of the Board find that Mr. Oliveira presents a significant threat to the safety of the public at this time, as there is a risk of serious physical and psychological harm occurring to individuals in the community from conduct that is criminal in nature. This was not contested, and the finding is well supported by the evidence.
The term “significant threat” is defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code as “a risk of serious physical or psychological harm to a member of the public … resulting from conduct that is criminal in nature but not necessarily violent.” A significant threat finding must be guided by the principles of law established in Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625, as applied and elaborated in numerous judicial decisions since then. To state this jurisprudence in only a nutshell: A finding of significant threat cannot be speculative; it must be based on evidence. It requires positive findings, supported by the evidence, that the threat that a person would engage in criminal conduct is a “real” threat, and that the harm this conduct would cause would be “serious”. Both findings are required: Neither a miniscule risk of grave harm, nor a high risk of trivial harm, is sufficient to find a real threat of serious harm.
The evidence is that Ms. Farrington has a diagnosis of schizophrenia, coupled with alcohol use disorder, probably moderate, in sustained remission. The Board agrees and accepts the findings of the hospital that Ms. Farrington’s primary predisposing factors for violence are, most importantly her major mental illness, as well as her history of substance use, with possible precipitating factors of medication nonadherence and use of prescribed stimulant medication. More specifically, the nature of Ms. Farrington’s symptoms is of key relevance, as they involve higher-risk psychotic phenomena.
The Board finds that Ms. Farrington’s delusional misidentification beliefs (i.e., Capgras delusions – delusional beliefs that people have been replaced by imposters) and command hallucinations, pertaining to harm from others (i.e., family, police officers), coupled with a belief that she was compelled in her actions (i.e., threat/control-override symptoms) were key factors contributing to her index offences. Insomnia/Sleep disturbance also appears to have been a perpetuating factor for her symptoms. As the Hospital Report notes, the more serious (unproven) violence perpetrated by Ms. Farrington appears not to be the index offences but the attempted stabbing of her parents shortly before the material time. That violence was thought to be fundamentally caused by positive psychotic symptoms, including delusional beliefs that these people had been replaced by imposters (i.e., Capgras syndrome) and auditory hallucinations.
A Psychological Risk Assessment of Ms. Farrington conducted on December 17, 2025, suggests that Ms. Farrington is at moderate risk of violence in the longer term, with the most likely targets of physical violence being her family members.
Ms. Farrington’s risk appears to be well managed in an inpatient setting with her current level of supervision and support. As many of her risk factors are dynamic in nature, it is anticipated there will be a decrease in risk with a sustained period of structured intervention, support, and professional oversight which would be available while Ms. Farrington ought to be subject to a Detention Order Disposition of the Board.
The Board agrees with the Hospital’s position that Ms. Farrington’s level of risk is not likely to be adequately managed in the context of a Conditional Discharge Disposition. Without the oversight of the Board, Ms. Farrington may be at risk of resuming substance use and/or medication nonadherence which could destabilize her mental health. Ms. Farrington requires ongoing monitoring and supervision. As well, there may be scenarios in which Ms. Farrington’s clinical team would, for her safe management and successful reintegration, wish to readmit her to hospital, but she would likely not meet criteria for detention under the Mental Health Act of Ontario and/or Ms. Farrington be unable to voluntarily agree to readmission. These might include relapse into substance use or the reemergence with distress of delusional misidentification about her family or threat/control-override symptoms.
Accordingly, for the upcoming reporting period, the Board orders that Ms. Farrington be subject to a Detention Order with the necessary and appropriate conditions and privileges as set out in the Board’s formal Disposition.
In making this Disposition, the Board carefully considered the joint position of the parties, the evidence of Dr. Bickle, and the contents of the Hospital Report entered as an exhibit at the hearing and is satisfied that this determination is both necessary and appropriate. The Board reviewed the provisions of sections 672.54 and 672.5401 of the [Criminal ]Code and carefully considered the need to protect the public from dangerous persons (with the public’s safety being the Board’s paramount consideration), Ms. Farrington’s mental condition, and her reintegration into society and her other needs.
We wish all the best to Ms. Farrington in this year ahead, in her work with her treatment team, and in her time with her supportive family members.
DATED this 4th day of February 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. J. Hanbidge
Alternate Chairperson
__________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board