Re: Andrew Ravenhill
ORB File No: 8637
Hearing held on: Monday, December 15, 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: Andrew Ravenhill
Counsel: Ms. M. Perez
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Mr. D. Blumenkrans
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. S. Cressman
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated March 4, 2026)
Introduction
On July 30, 2024, Andrew Ravenhill was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on a charge of aggravated assault, contrary to the Criminal Code. Following his initial Ontario Review Board hearing on December 6, 2024, Mr. Ravenhill was ordered detained on a general forensic unit at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (“CAMH”), with privileges extending to living in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
On Monday, December 15, 2025, the Board convened Mr. Ravenhill’s annual hearing to review that disposition, pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Ravenhill was present at the hearing, represented by counsel, Ms. Perez. The hospital was represented by Mr. D. Blumenkrans; the Crown by Ms. S. Cressman. Mr. Ravenhill’s mother was also present at the hearing.
The issues to be determined at the hearing were whether Mr. Ravenhill represented a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and, if so, what was the necessary and appropriate disposition which was also the least onerous and least restrictive, taking into account the factors set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
Position of the Parties
At the commencement of the hearing the parties were requested to provide their initial without prejudice positions with respect to the issues before the Board. Counsel for the Hospital advised that Mr. Ravenhill remained a significant threat to the safety of the public and the necessary and appropriate disposition was a detention order with privileges up to and including residence in the community in approved accommodation, as set out in last year’s Disposition, with appropriate revisions to allow Mr. Ravenhill to travel for up to 250 kilometres (indirectly supervised) for his employment as a roofer. As well, the Hospital supported travel passes for Mr. Ravenhill for up to 14 days, within Ontario, accompanied by an approved person.
Counsel for the Attorney General supported the Hospital’s position. Counsel for Mr. Ravenhill advised that she supported the hospital position and reiterated the request for travel. The issue of significant threat was conceded. The matter proceeded as a joint submission.
Findings
- For reasons that follow, the Board finds that Mr. Ravenhill continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and the necessary and appropriate disposition is a Detention Order on a General Forensic Unit at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (“CAMH”) with the same conditions and privileges as last year’s Disposition except for revisions to allow Mr. Ravenhill to travel within Ontario for employment purposes and family visits.
Index Offence
- The circumstances surrounding the index offence are taken from last year’s Reasons for Disposition, as follows:
“On December 23rd, 2023, at 3:02pm, the accused and victim were present at Tournament Drive and Wanless Road, Brampton.
At this time, unprovoked, the accused stabbed the victim with a knife multiple times, leaving him lying on the roadway before fleeing in an easterly direction. The victim suffered punctures to his left side, back, and left arm. He was transported to the hospital for his injuries.
At 7:08am [on December 24, 2023], police executed a criminal code search warrant at 26 Mapleshade Drive, Brampton, and located the accused. He was placed under arrest for Aggravated Assault, contrary to section 268(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Clothing worn during the commission of the offence was seized in the search warrant:
Black jeans (bag #1550773)
Red Lebron shoes (bag #1550774)
In addition, the following items were seized:
- Yellow box cutter, two large knives (bag #1550772)”
Background Information
- Mr. Ravenhill is currently 30 years of age; he was born and raised in Brampton, Ontario. He is the second in a sibline of two children with a sister three years his senior. His parents separated when he was 14 or 15 and subsequently divorced. His parents shared custody initially; however, when he was 17, Mr. Ravenhill moved in with his father full-time because of his mother’s more stringent enforcement of rules about substance use, cleanliness, and organization. He then refused to see his mother for a time, but they eventually reconciled in his early adulthood.
Substance Abuse History
Mr. Ravenhill has a long-standing history of polysubstance use. In grade 9 he began using cocaine, MDMA and cannabis. He continued using cannabis regularly until approximately one year preceding the index offence, but stopped because he did not enjoy it anymore and it made him “too quiet” in social settings. He preferred to use stimulant drugs (cocaine and crystal methamphetamine) instead because they helped him to be more conversational and develop relationships. He stopped using powdered cocaine when he was 25 because he developed a deviated septum, and the drug was becoming too expensive. He then started smoking crack cocaine but quit after approximately a year because it started making him feel paranoid.
Mr. Ravenhill reported that he first tried heroin about two years before the index offence. His use rapidly escalated and he used in conjunction with crystal methamphetamine. He began to use crystal methamphetamine daily approximately two years ago. He reports that approximately three months before the index offence he began “seeing ghosts and stuff – talking to spirits” and by the beginning of December 2023:
Mr. Ravenhill’s perceptual disturbances had become intense, distressing and increasingly driving his behaviour. He started to hear voices screaming for help. The voices were always female. Sometimes, he could identify voice as his ex-girlfriend Veronica, while at other times, he could not tell who was calling him. He would hear his name being called from the distance and he would go out to look for who was there, but find no one…. On three occasions, he phoned the police to report that he could hear someone screaming for help, but they did not believe him. He would call from country roads near his house to report that someone out there needed help, but the police would just look at him like he was “crazy.” …. He acknowledged that officers once gave him a number to call for mental health services, but he never used it because he did not think that he needed help.
- Mr. Ravenhill reported that the voices continued until about two months after the index offence. They stopped after antipsychotic treatment and abstinence from substances.
Legal History
In 2015, Mr. Ravenhill was convicted of impaired driving and unauthorized possession of a prohibited or restricted weapon, was fined $1000 on each count and received a one-year driving prohibition as well as a weapons prohibition order for five years.
According to last year's Reasons for Disposition, in October 2023, approximately three months prior to the index offence, Mr. Ravenhill was charged with fail to stop and drive while prohibited. The circumstances surrounding those charges were that he was observed operating a motorcycle while following vehicles too closely, weaving in and out of traffic and cutting off other drivers while revving the bike engine excessively. A traffic stop was conducted after he attempted to flee from police; police determined that he was prohibited from driving. On August 14, 2024, Mr. Ravenhill entered a plea of guilty to a charge of drive disqualified and was sentenced to one day custody and a driving prohibition of 15 months. Other charges arising from that incident were noted as withdrawn. This information does not appear in the hospital report.
Psychiatric History
Mr. Ravenhill had no history of formal psychiatric contacts prior to the index offence. However, he did have several medical emergencies in the context of substance use including two occasions when he was found unresponsive and only became responsive after administration of Narcan.
Mr. Ravenhill’s current diagnoses are:
Stimulant Induced Psychosis;
Stimulant Use Disorder, in remission, in a controlled environment.
Evidence at the Hearing
The evidence at the hearing was provided by Dr. A. Igoumenou. In addition, a Hospital Report dated December 6, 2025, was filed as Exhibit 1.
Mr. Ravenhill has been residing on a Forensic General Unit (“FGUA”) since January 7, 2025. He has enjoyed a stable year with no incidents of violence or aggression. There has been no use of drugs with all urine drug screens being negative. Mr. Ravenhill has attained level 9 passes to enable him to attend work and visit both his mother and father. There have been no overtly psychotic symptoms.
Mr. Ravenhill began working in the community as a roofer in September 2025. Dr. Igoumenou advised that the treatment team had attached conditions to him working in the community, including that he: i) provide addresses for his work sites; participate in substance abuse counselling on a 1:1 basis; submit urine drug screens on a daily basis from Monday to Frida, when requested; and consent to his team communicating with his employer.
As of about mid-January, it is expected that Mr. Ravenhill will be residing with his father. He is currently working five days a week as a roofer. Dr. Igoumenou stated that he manages very well with his full-time employment. His boss is prosocial and is a great support for Mr. Ravenhill. His risk can be well managed if he is allowed to travel for employment purposes, and for up to 14 days with staff or an approved person. His employer has been driving him to his job sites, and it is expected that this will continue.
Dr. Igoumenou testified that she has no concerns with the expansion of travel privileges for up to 250 kilometers for employment, and up to two weeks within Ontario for family visits. Mr. Ravenhill has a grandfather in Cobourg and his mother’s family live outside of Timmins. His father’s residence has been approved for his discharge in mid-January. Mr. Ravenhill has agreed to continue to report to the hospital no less than once per week.
In answer to questions from Ms. Perez, Dr. Igoumenou stated that the diagnosis on page 1 of the Hospital Report should be revised to remove the reference to antisocial personality traits. This was made in error even though the Hospital Report makes a reference to it at page 30.
There have been no concerns about Mr. Ravenhill’s use of passes this year; these have been extended for up to 72 hours recently.
Dr. Igoumenou stated that Mr. Ravenhill does not require any antipsychotic medication. He is still on Suboxone (to reduce his substance use) but is capable and wants to reduce his medication and eventually be off it entirely. The treatment team is very gradually reducing the medication and Mr. Ravenhill has continued to deny any cravings or withdrawal symptoms. It was also stated that Mr. Ravenhill’s father would likely contact the hospital if Mr. Ravenhill used substances. Mr. Ravenhill’s father has engaged in psychoeducational programming.
In answer to a question from a Board Member, Dr. Igoumenou stated that the use of substances could induce psychosis; this is why the hospital requires random and frequent drug testing.
As far as significant threat is concerned, Dr. Igoumenou refers to the re-offence scenario which is found at page 39 of the Hospital Report and states:
“In risk assessment, one of the best predictors of future violence is a patient’s history of violence.
If Mr. Ravenhill were to reoffend, it would likely be in the context of substance use and poor coping. Mr. Ravenhill has a history that suggests that, in the absence of a structured environment and significant professional supervision, he is at high risk of decompensation. Without ongoing abstinence and engagement in treatment, Mr. Ravenhill may relapse and become psychotic again. Mr. Ravenhill’s substance use may lead to destabilization of his illness, misinterpretation of his surroundings, and violence towards others. This may also impact his insight into his illness and decrease the likelihood of him seeking services.”
Dr. Igoumenou believes that Mr. Ravenhill, at times, overstates his ability to remain well. She also expressed a concern that Mr. Ravenhill is overconfident about his ability to abstain from substance use without the use of Suboxone.
- No further evidence was called.
Submissions
- The parties maintained their initial positions. Ms. Perez submitted that Mr. Ravenhill has had a good relationship with his team since September 2024. He has been involved in programming and will continue. He has had negative drug screens this past year and has had continuous access to the community with no concerning incidents. Ms. Perez submits that the travel expansion that is sought supports Mr. Ravenhill’s reintegration into society and that his travels will be at the discretion of the person in charge.
Conclusion
Although the issue of significant threat was not disputed at the hearing, the Board must make its own finding.
Mr. Ravenhill has had a fairly lengthy history of polysubstance abuse resulting in psychotic symptoms which were the primary driver of the index offences. The Board adopts the expert evidence of Dr. Igoumenou and the opinion in the re-offence scenario, which has been previously set out, and finds that Mr. Ravenhill remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.
Having found that Mr. Ravenhill is still a significant threat to the safety of the public, the Board must fashion a Disposition for the upcoming year. Based on the evidence at the hearing, the Board finds that the joint submission for a Detention Order on the same terms as last year’s Detention Order is necessary and appropriate and the least onerous and least restrictive order to manage Mr. Ravenhill’s risk. However, given the evidence of Mr. Ravenhill’s stable year, and as the team sees his work as a motivating and protective factor for him, the Board agrees that the conditions suggested by the parties should be framed to allow Mr. Ravenhill to travel in Ontario for up to 14 days in the company of an approved person and up to 250 kilometers from the hospital for employment purposes, indirectly supervised. These expanded privileges will replace paragraphs 2(e), 2(f) and 2(g) in last year’s Disposition.
In arriving at our conclusion for the appropriate disposition, the Board has considered the paramount factor of the safety of the public, Mr. Ravenhill’s community reintegration, his mental condition, and his other needs, all as required by s. 672.54 of the Code.
DATED this 4^th^ day of March, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Hon. C. Nelson
Legal Member
__________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board