Re Robert Scott, 2026 CanLII 18297

Ontario Review Board

Re: Robert Scott

ORB File No: 8914

Hearing held on: Wednesday, January 21, 2026

Place of Hearing: Providence Care Hospital

Pursuant to: Sections 672.47(1) & 672.48(1) of the Criminal Code

Before: Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Hanbidge Members: Dr. S. Hucker Dr. W. Loza Ms. K. Weisbaum Mr. A. Bouvier

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Robert Scott Counsel: Mr. M. Rodé

Person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. T. Tom Representative: Dr. M. Chan

Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. G. Skerkowski

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated March 3, 2026)

Introduction:

1. On November 4, 2025, Mr. Robert Scott was found unfit to stand trial on account of mental disorder on two charges of utter threat to cause death/bodily harm and fail to comply with probation order, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”). Following a Disposition hearing conducted at court, the Court referred the matter to the Ontario Review Board (‘the Board”).

2. On January 21, 2026, the Board convened at the Providence Care Hospital, hereinafter referred to as “PCH or the hospital”, to conduct Mr. Scott’s initial hearing. Mr. Scott was in attendance at his hearing and represented by his counsel, Mr. Michael Rodé. The following documents were entered into the record:

• Psychiatric Consult Report – Oct 30, 2025
• Criminal Code information
• Warrant of Committal
• Disposition hearing outcome, dated November 4, 2025
• Hospital Report, dated December 19, 2025

3. The issues for this hearing are whether Mr. Scott remains unfit to stand trial and, if so, to determine the Disposition that is necessary and appropriate in the circumstances.

4. For the reasons set out below, the Board found that Mr. Scott is unfit to stand trial. Overall, the evidence showed that Mr. Scott is not able to be meaningfully present and meaningfully participate in a trial. The Board also came to the unanimous conclusion that Mr. Scott meets the threshold for significant threat and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances is a Detention Order, as set out in the Board’s formal order.

Initial Positions of the Parties

5. Ms. Tom stated the hospital’s position that Mr. Scott remains unfit and is a significant threat to the safety of the public. The appropriate Disposition is the continuation of a Detention Order with the terms and conditions as listed at page 12 of the Hospital Report. (See page 15 of the PDF package, November 4, 2025, a Disposition hearing was held at court and the Court found Mr. Scott unfit to stand trial and ordered he be held in hospital pursuant to 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

6. On behalf of the Attorney General, Mr. Skerkowski stated that the Crown joined the hospital in its submission to the Board.

7. Mr. Rodé stated that he did not anticipate taking issue with what was before the Board, or with the position of the hospital.

Index Offences

8. The circumstances surrounding the finding of fitness are described in the Hospital Report as follows:

"On August 19, 2025, at approximately 2:50 pm Alessia COLUCCI and her girlfriend Alex SMITH were standing outside the Dollarama, situated at 176 Princess St. when they were followed by the accused in this matter, Robert SCOTT. At approximately 2:55 pm, while walking westbound on Princess St, SCOTT started spitting on the ground in their direction and shouting slurs such as "nigger", "faggot" and "queer bitch". SCOTT told the victims they were "living in sin" and threatened, "I'm going to shoot you in the fucking head if you don't stop being queer". SCOTT continued to follow in their direction and COLUCCI told the male to "fuck off. SCOTT got in her face and both partied shouted at each other. SCOTT left COLUCCI and her girlfriend alone and they continued westbound on Princess St to their destination.

COLUCCI and SMITH feared for their safety during the incident and were extremely uncomfortable with the threats directed at them as they perceived them as genuine. COLUCCI and SMITH wished for SCOTT to be located and apprehended by police, as such a call for service was placed to Kingston police at 3:20 pm.

At approximately 10:45 pm Kingston Police officers ENGELBERG and CURRIE located male Robert SCOTT, matching the provided description by COLUCCI, at Princess and Clergy St. At approximately 10:49 pm SCOTT was placed under arrest for Uttering Threats Cause Death/Bodily Harm. Upon further investigation, it was discovered SCOTT was also in breach of his adult probation order.

SCOTT was subsequently transported back to 705 Division St where he was booked into cells and fingerprinted to be held for bail hearing."

Background

9. The Hospital Report, dated December 19, 2025, sets out Mr. Scott’s background in detail and has been considered by the Board. Briefly, Mr. Scott is presently 31 years of age. He was placed in foster care at the age of six due to neglect and physical abuse. He remained in care until he turned 18, at which point, he reconnected with his mother and went to live with her. After about two years, he was asked to leave his mother’s home as he was threatening violence against both his mother and her pet.

10. After leaving his mother’s home, Mr. Scott remained homeless and transient in the city of Kingston. Mr. Scott has no social or familial supports.

Current Diagnoses

11. Mr. Scott’s current diagnoses are:

• Chronic schizophrenia disorganized type
• Substance Use (stimulant and cannabis)
• Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (history)
• Antisocial Personality Disorder

Evidence at the Hearing

12. The hospital’s evidence was presented through the Hospital Report, as well as through the oral evidence of Dr Michael Chan, Mr. Scott’s treating psychiatrist.

13. In response to questions from Ms. Tom, Dr. Chan stated that he is Mr. Scott’s treating psychiatrist, as he was previously from September 2023 until Mr. Scott was found fit to stand trial in June 2025. Dr. Chan became Mr. Scott’s psychiatrist again when he was again detained in hospital in August 2025. With respect to Mr. Scott’s current case, Dr. Chan also provided the court with the opinion in respect of Mr. Scott’s unfitness.

14. Dr. Chan had met with Mr. Scott on the morning of the hearing; Mr. Scott was irritable, not cooperative, not sure of what was happening, with disorganized thinking. He did not know what happens in court with respect to pleas. He was better the day before the hearing when he had a longer conversation with Dr. Chan, however, as Dr. Chan stated, “today he is totally off.” The problem might be that Mr. Scott cannot remember, for example, he is disputing the charges against him. With respect to his understanding of the court system, he fluctuates; even on a good day, Dr. Chan stated that he did not believe that Mr. Scott would be able to give instructions to counsel.

15. Dr. Chan stated that Mr. Scott’s thought disorder impacts his fitness, as well as his ability to retain information in order to have discussion with an assessor. His thought disorder is related to his disorganized schizophrenia.

16. In June 2025, Mr. Scott was found fit to stand trial, having been previously found unfit to stand trial. When released into the community in mid-July 2025, he did not seek follow up treatment. He did not have housing. On the day before the index offence, he was found on the steps of a downtown church; he said he did not want medication. His last time taking his medication would have been around late June when he was released from the hospital. He is now on the same medication he was receiving prior to his release. He receives his injections every two weeks. Once back on the medication, he “settled down faster this time.”

17. Mr. Scott’s team will work with him around understanding the court system. When he was previously in hospital, psychologist Dr. Rose used extensive teaching aids.

18. The last time Mr. Scott was found unfit to stand trial, it took almost two years for him to be found fit to stand trial. Dr. Chan stated that he hoped it would not take as long this time, as the team will have prior experience and knowledge of Mr. Scott.

19. Dr. Chan stated that his assessment that Mr. Scott is a significant threat to the safety of the public is based on his diagnosis. When Mr. Scott is in relapse of his schizophrenic illness, he becomes thought disordered and irritated. His behaviour can escalate. There are some accusations that Mr. Scott has been threatening, however, there have not been any recent concerns about him being threatening on the ward. He can throw things when he gets upset, but there have been no other incidents.

20. With respect to the terms and conditions listed at page 12 of the Hospital Report, Mr. Scott has exercised the extent of his current privileges. The hospital is seeking a term that allows Mr. Scott to be indirectly supervised, staying close by the hospital. Mr. Scott would like to be able visit the smoking area just off hospital property. Depending on his mental state and how he interacts with staff, this might happen soon after the issuance of the Board’s Disposition Order.

21. Mr. Skerkowski stated that, according to the Crown’s notes, Mr. Scott’s most recent court appearance, charge and guilty plea occurred on July 14, 2025; he received time served. He was arrested on the current offence on August 19, 2025. Mr. Skerkowski described Mr. Scott’s release, offence, time served and detention in hospital as “a bit of a rotating door” pattern. He asked if there is a different plan in place this time so that Mr. Scott will remain in the community. In response, Dr. Chan stated that Mr. Scott does not cooperate with his after-care plan; he is chronically homeless; he has been consistently clear he will not change his approach to using crystal methamphetamine and will use again once he is back in the community; his addiction is so strong that he does not care about the risks.

22. Dr. Chan agreed with Mr. Skerkowski’s statement that if not for the mental health component, the index offence had components of a hate crime. With respect to Mr. Scott’s behaviour, such as at the time of the index offence, it may be related to his attitudes, his mental illness, or both, however, “It’s hard to tease them apart.

23. Mr. Rodé had no questions.

24. In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Chan stated that the props and methods that Dr. Rose had used during Mr. Scott’s previous detention in hospital and finding of unfitness could be used again to help him to again learn about the court system and related processes.

25. Dr. Chan stated that the Public Guardian and Trustee used to be Mr. Scott’s substitute decision maker (“SDM”), but that role is now undertaken by his sister. She lives in Kingston. He also has other family members.

26. Dr. Chan stated that Mr. Scott has possible violent attitudes and displays antagonism related to attitudinal and antisocial personality traits

27. In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Chan stated that the methods created by Dr. Rose and used previously with Mr. Scott to teach him about the court system are still available and could be used again by the team.

28. Clozapine has been considered for Mr. Scott; however, his severely disorganized personality makes him very difficult to treat. His prior charges included breaking into apartment lobbies to get food (“mischief charges”), but his behaviours are now more worrisome, because they are more aggressive.

29. There were no follow up questions.

30. No further evidence was presented.

Submissions of the Parties

31. Relying on the evidence in the Hospital Report and the oral evidence of Dr. Chan, Ms. Tom submitted that Mr. Scott remains unfit to stand trial. During the assessment on January 20, 2026, Dr. Chan found some improvement in Mr. Scott and some level of fitness, however, as of the day of the hearing on January 21, 2026, there was deterioration compared to the day before. Dr. Rose (who had worked with Mr. Scott when he was previously detained at the hospital on a finding of unfit to stand trial) no longer works at the hospital, however, Dr. Chan had expressed a commitment to return to Dr. Rose’s approach and methods. When he worked with Dr. Rose previously, it took almost two years for Mr. Scott to become fit to stand trial. Mr. Scott has chronic schizophrenia. He is now back on his medication regimen. It may take time for him to become fit to stand trial. In the interim, he remains a significant threat to the safety of the public. A Detention Order Disposition is appropriate, with the terms and conditions as set out in at page 12 of the Hospital Report.

32. Mr. Skerkowski submitted that the Crown agreed with the hospital.

33. Mr. Rodé submitted that he joined the hospital and had nothing further to add.

Analysis

i) Unfit to stand trial

34. The definition of “unfit to stand trial” is found at s. 2 of the Criminal Code:

“’unfit to stand trial’ means unable on account of mental disorder to conduct a defence at any stage of the proceedings before a verdict is rendered or to instruct counsel to do so, and, in particular, unable on account of mental disorder to:

(a) understand the nature or object of the proceedings;

(b) understand the possible consequences of the proceedings; or

(c) communicate with counsel.”

35. The Board carefully considered the documentary evidence and oral evidence of Dr. Chan and found that Mr. Scott is unfit to stand trial. In making its finding, the panel considered the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in R v Bharwani, 2025, SCC 26, at paragraph 6:

“[A]n accused is fit to stand trial when they are able to make and communicate reality-based decisions in the conduct of their defence or instruct counsel to do so. Conducting a defence includes making decisions that an accused must always make personally and those which relate to the exercise of their right to full answer and defence, such as decisions about pleas, the mode of trial, selection of counsel, whether to testify, whether to call or cross-examine witnesses, and closing submissions, among others. The capacity required to make those decisions is a reality-based understanding of the nature or object of the proceedings and their possible consequences, an ability to understand the available options and their consequences, and an ability to select between those options when making decisions. Fitness to stand trial does not require an accused to make decisions in their best interests. Rather, it requires making decisions based on an understanding of reality that is not overwhelmed by delusions, hallucinations, or other symptoms of their mental disorder. Transient mental health symptoms do not necessarily compromise an accused’s ability to conduct a defence. The focus is always on assessing the extent to which an accused’s mental disorder impairs their understanding of reality when making and communicating decisions in their defence.”

36. The panel was cognizant of the serious consequences of a finding of unfitness to stand trial, including the loss of the accused’s liberty, and appreciates that such a finding must not be made lightly (Bharwani, paragraph 73.)

37. The panel accepted Dr. Chan’s opinion that Mr. Scott lacks the ability to meaningfully participate in a court process, due primarily to his mental illness with all of the concurrent features described in the evidence, including that his thought disorder contributes to the significant challenge of treating him. These features are directly tied to preventing Mr. Scott from achieving a reality-based understanding of the court process as it relates to him personally.

38. Currently, Mr. Scott’s ability to understand as relates to the court system fluctuates. On the day of the hearing, Dr. Chan described Mr. Scott as “totally off”. Even on days when his abilities are better, such as the day before the hearing, Mr. Scott would not be able to instruct counsel. His thought disorder is related to his disorganized schizophrenia and impacts his fitness. When released into the community in June 2025, Mr. Scott did not seek treatment. The combination of medication non-adherence and use of substances led to his relapse. Once he was detained in the hospital and receiving medication again, he “settled down faster” than previously. Nevertheless, he is not yet stable and, as a result, unfit to stand trial.

39. The treatment team is already familiar with Mr. Scott and will be able to use the props and methods developed by Dr. Rose to help him learn about the court system and related processes. This hopefully bodes well for his progress towards fitness.

ii) Significant Threat to the Safety of the Public

40. Having considered all the evidence tendered at the hearing and the submissions of the parties, the Board finds that Mr. Scott meets the threshold of significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and as further defined in Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625. In coming to its decision, the panel considered the four factors set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code, namely, the protection of the public, which is the paramount consideration, the mental condition of the accused, their reintegration into society and their other needs.

41. Dr. Chan stated that his assessment that Mr. Scott is a significant threat to the safety of the public is based on his diagnosis. The factors underlying this finding include that when Mr. Scott is in at relapse of his schizophrenic illness, he becomes thought disordered and irritated and his behaviour can escalate. Mr. Scott has possible violent attitudes, as noted in the new psychological risk and as reflected in the statements made by Mr. Scott in the course of the index offence. His displays of antagonism are related to attitudinal and anti-social personality traits. While Clozapine has been considered and might be helpful for Mr. Scott, his severely disorganized personality makes him very difficult to treat. As Dr. Chan stated, Mr. Scott’s behaviours are now more worrisome, because they are more aggressive.

42. The panel noted Mr. Skerkowski’s description of Mr. Scott’s past pattern as “a bit of a rotating door”; when released into the community, Mr. Scott does not cooperate with his after-care plan; he is chronically homeless; he has been consistently clear to Dr. Chan that he will use crystal methamphetamine again once he is back in the community. In addition to his major mental illness, his addiction to crystal methamphetamine, thought disorder, recent relapse and propensity to treatment non-adherence are all factors underlying his risk to the public.

43. On a positive note, Mr. Scott has exercised the extent of his current privileges. The terms and conditions of the Detention Order Disposition, consistent with those sought by the hospital, allow Mr. Scott to be indirectly supervised, staying close by the hospital.

Conclusion

44. Taking into account the definition of “unfit to stand trial” in the Criminal Code, the test in Bharwani and all of the evidence, the Board found merit in the joint submission of the parties and found that Mr. Scott is unfit to stand trial. Overall, the evidence showed that Mr. Scott is not able to be meaningfully present and meaningfully participate in a trial.

45. The threshold of significant threat to the safety of the public is met, as defined in section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and as further defined in Winko considered the four factors at s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, namely the protection of the public which is the paramount consideration, the mental condition of the accused, his reintegration into society and his other needs, the Board came to the unanimous conclusion that Mr. Scott meets the threshold for significant threat and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances is a Detention Order, as set out in the Board’s formal order.

46. The Board anticipates that for Mr. Scott’s next hearing there will be a transcript of the court proceedings from the finding of unfit to stand trial included among the hearing documents, which will be of use to the next panel in determining fitness.

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

Ms. K. Weisbaum Legal Member

__________________

Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board