Re: Charles Joseph Horvath, 2026 CanLII 2087

Re: Charles Joseph Horvath

ORB File No: 1646

Hearing held on: Monday, December 8, 2025

Place of hearing: Thunder Bay Regional Health Science Centre

Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Goldenberg

Members: Dr. G. Chaimowitz Dr. G. Eayrs Hon. E. Kruzick Mr. S. Duffy

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Charles Joseph Horvath Counsel: Mr. U. Agostino

The Person in charge of Hospital: Representative: Dr. R. Sheppard

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. T. Boisvert

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated January 14, 2026)

Introduction

1. On June 5, 1993, Charles Joseph Horvath was found not criminally responsible (“NCR”) on account of mental disorder on charges of attempted murder and possession of stolen property. Mr. Horvath is presently subject to Disposition of Ontario Review Board (“ORB” or “the Board”) dated April 30, 2025, by which he was ordered to be discharged subject to a number of conditions. One of the conditions required Mr. Horvath to “reside at 219 Pearl Street, Thunder Bay, Ontario.” Another condition required Mr. Horvath to abstain absolutely from non-medical use of alcohol or drugs or any other intoxicant. The Disposition further provided for a Risk Assessment of Mr. Horvath and a review of the Disposition within six months.

2. As a result, on December 8, 2025, the ORB convened an in-person hearing at the Thunder Bay Regional Health Science Centre (“TBRHSC”) to review Mr. Horvath’s Disposition. Mr. Horvath was not in attendance. Mr. Agostino informed the Board that Mr. Horvath was aware of this hearing and his right to attend. On instructions from his client, Mr. Agostino requested that Mr. Horvath be permitted not to attend. Mr. Agostino informed the Board that he was fully instructed by his client. Under these circumstances, the Board exercised its discretion pursuant to s. 672.5(10)(a) permitting Mr. Horvath to be absent from the hearing.

Issues to be Decided

3. The questions for the Board to decide are whether Mr. Horvath poses a significant risk to the safety of the public and, if so, the necessary and appropriate disposition in the circumstances of the case.

Positions of the Parties

4. At the outset of the hearing the parties were canvassed to state their, without prejudice, positions with respect to Disposition.

5. On behalf of the hospital, Dr. Sheppard took the position that Mr. Horvath remains a significant threat to the safety of the public, and that if the Board so finds, that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Conditional Discharge with the same conditions set out in the Disposition dated April 30, 2025.

6. Counsel for the Attorney-General agreed with the position of the hospital.

7. Mr. Agostino informed the Board that his client was seeking an Absolute Discharge. In response to question from the Alternate Chair, Mr. Agostino stated that if the panel found his client to be a significant threat to the safety of the public, that he and his client supported a continuation of the Condition Discharge Disposition on the same terms as set out in the April 30, 2025, Disposition.

Findings

8. For the Reasons that follow, on the hearing the evidence at Mr. Horwath’s hearing, the panel found that the threshold for significant threat to the safety of the public is met and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a continuation of the Conditional Discharge on the same terms as set out in the Disposition dated April 30, 2025.

Index Offences

9. The allegations giving rise to the index offences are set out in the Disposition dated April 30, 2025, as follows:

The victim was home alone after midnight and the doorbell rang. He approached the front door by a darkened hallway and observed a male person standing on the porch facing the door. The subject fired a single shot from a small rifle held waist height, hitting the victim in the right shoulder. The victim raised his arm for protection and was struck in the left wrist by a second shot. As the victim fled, two other rounds were fired into the residence through another window, narrowly missing the victim. The victim fled to a nearby friend’s residence and was conveyed to a hospital. Police were notified by the friend’s wife. When police approached the scene of the crime, they saw a flash and heard the sound of another rifle shot. Mr. Horvath was subsequently apprehended after throwing away a .22 rifle which had been stolen from a residential break and enter a few days earlier. A search of the accused’s pockets revealed a large number of .22-calibre ammunition, along with 15 high powered .308 calibre shells. A check of the weapon at the police station revealed a spent .22 calibre round in the chamber with five live rounds in the magazine. When questioned with respect to the index offence Mr. Horvath has indicated no remorse. He has indicated that he was ‘ripped off’ by the victim in a previous drug deal, and that the victim deserved to be shot as a result.

Background Information

10. Pursuant to the Disposition of April 30, 2025, Mr. Horvath was referred to psychology for an assessment of his risk to violently re-offend. Mr. Horvath was aware of the Board’s Disposition however chose not to participate in the violence risk assessment. An assessment was therefore conducted by Dr. Kristine Lake without Mr. Horvath’s participation.

11. Dr. Lake prepared a Violence Risk Assessment Report, dated November 19, 2025, filed with the Hospital Report and as an exhibit at this hearing.

12. As such, the background information and the risk assessment were based on the discussions with Mr. Horvath’s treatment team and a review of Mr. Horvath’s file which included an earlier psychosocial assessment, psychiatric reports, nursing shift summaries and notes of various professionals who had contact with Mr. Horvath. The Violence Risk Assessment noted that historical information, particularly in terms of early/developmental history and behavioural data, was not sufficient to complete the Hare Psychopathy Checklist. As a result, the assessment was based solely on HCR-20 factors.

13. The assessment indicates that Mr. Horvath is likely at high risk for future violence based on the definition of “violence” employed by the HCR-20v3, primarily due to the severity of the index offences, Mr. Horvath’s longstanding risk-relevant history and his ongoing need for intensive supervision and professional support.

Current Diagnoses

14. Mr. Horvath’s Current Diagnoses is set out in the Hospital Report as:

• Paranoid Schizophrenia

• Substance Abuse – past history

Evidence

15. Dr. Sheppard, Mr. Horvath’s psychiatrist, testified. He also co-authored the Hospital Report dated November 24, 2025, which was made an exhibit at the hearing. Dr. Sheppard also referenced the Risk Assessment Report, which was requested by the Board, also made an exhibit. Dr. Sheppard stated that the Risk Assessment Report, which speaks for itself, confirms that Mr. Horvath continues to remain at a high risk for future violence.

16. Dr. Sheppard testified that he attempted to persuade Mr. Horvath to attend the risk assessment appointment and today’s hearing, however Mr. Horvath refused to attend because he finds it too difficult.

17. As set out in the Hospital Report, Dr. Sheppard testified that Mr. Horvath’s diagnostic considerations remain unchanged. Mr. Horvath suffers from chronic paranoid schizophrenia which is treated with anti-psychotic medication administered by long-acting injection as well as taking olanzapine orally. Despite treatment, Mr. Horvath exhibits positive symptoms of schizophrenia, notably disorganized thought processes, longstanding grandiose and persecutory delusions, and auditory hallucinations. For the most part, these do not interfere with Mr. Horvath’s ability to be functioning marginally and live in the community.

18. Dr. Sheppard testified that while Mr. Horvath lacks social skills, he functions adequately with his daily routines which have remained unchanged over the course of his many years of treatment and support from the hospital team. Nevertheless, Dr. Sheppard stated that Mr. Horvath is content with his life.

19. Mr. Horvath lives in an independent apartment in the Habitat for Humanity Complex operated by Thunder Bay Housing. Staff are on site to support and assist Mr. Horvath if necessary. With staff support and medication Mr. Horvath has shown no signs of aggression or behavioural concerns. He is disengaged from structured social activities that are offered and prefers to spend time alone.

20. Aware of Mr. Horvath’s desire for an Absolute Discharge, Dr. Sheppard opined that the request is unrealistic because, without oversight, Mr. Horvath poses a significant threat to the safety of the public as set out in the Violence Risk Assessment Report.

21. Although Mr. Horvath is able to live safely in the community, Dr. Sheppard opined that it is only possible with the high level of supervision and support which he receives in the current living arrangement and with the support of the hospital team. The risk-related concerns flow from Mr. Horvath’s lack of insight into his illness and his lack of understanding of his need for the prescribed medication.

22. Dr. Sheppard testified that if left on his own, Mr. Horvath would likely stop taking his medication, start drinking alcohol and using substances. Dr. Sheppard reported that Mr. Horvath has expressed that he does not believe he needs the medication he is prescribed.

23. In response to a question from counsel for the Attorney General, Dr. Sheppard stated that while Mr. Horvath has not been aggressive and complies with taking his medication, it is because he had the oversight of a structured environment as provided by the residence with the support of the hospital team.

24. In response to Mr. Horvath’s counsel, Dr. Sheppard confirmed that Mr. Horvath last consumed alcohol some 10 years ago. However, in Dr. Sheppard opinion alcohol continues to be a risk factor. Dr. Sheppard also confirmed that Mr. Horvath’s last admission into the hospital was in 2009. Dr. Sheppard repeated that Mr. Horvath has remained stable because of the structure imposed by the current Disposition. Dr. Sheppard testified that Mr. Horvath has stated that in the event he is granted an Absolute Discharge, he intends to start drinking alcohol and stop taking his medications. Without the oversight of the ORB, Dr. Sheppard opined that Mr. Horvath remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.

25. In response to counsel for Mr. Horvath, Dr. Sheppard confirmed that Mr. Horvath has expressed that he would continue to consult with Dr. Sheppard if he was granted an Absolute Discharge. Under an Absolute Discharge Disposition Dr. Sheppard testified that Mr. Horvath would be referred to a non-forensic team. In Dr. Sheppard’s many years of treating Mr. Horvath, Dr. Sheppard regretted to report that he has seen no improvement in Mr. Horvath’s insight into his major mental illness or the need to be on medication for it and that Mr. Horvath’s condition will likely not change.

26. In response to questions from the Board about removing the alcohol restriction, Dr. Sheppard maintained his opinion that if allowed to drink alcohol, because of his illness, Mr. Horvath would drink to excess and that drinking alcohol would then lead Mr. Horvath to re-offend, thereby posing a threat to the public as in the index offences.

27. In Dr. Sheppard’s opinion, Mr. Horvath does not understand the dangers involved with the use of alcohol given his major mental illness. Drinking alcohol would lead to Mr. Horvath to discontinue taking his medication which would cause significant destabilization and aggressive behaviour.

28. No other evidence was called.

Submissions

29. At the conclusion of the evidence, counsel were canvassed for their submissions.

30. The hospital and counsel for the Attorney General maintained their original position that Mr. Horvath remains a threat to the safety of the public and that the current disposition should remain in place.

31. On behalf of his client, Mr. Agostino submitted that his client is no longer a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board was referred to the fact that Mr. Horvath follows the Board’s disposition and has not exhibited any violent conduct for many years. Counsel for Mr. Horvath emphasized that his client has now been on a Conditional Discharge for many years and should be granted an Absolute Discharge because of his history of compliance with the conditions imposed upon him. Mr. Agostino repeated that his client was seeking and should receive an Absolute Discharge.

Analysis

Absence of the Patient

32. The Board accepts the submission of Mr. Horvath’s counsel that the hearing proceeds in the absence of his client. The Board accepts the evidence of Dr. Sheppard that Mr. Horvath finds attending the hearing stressful and that Mr. Horvath refused to attend the Violence Risk Assessment which was ordered by the Board. In the circumstances, the Board relies on the provision of s. 672(10)(a) and proceeded in the absence of Mr. Horvath, and as represented by Mr. Agostino.

Significant Threat

33. The Board considered the issue of significant threat. As defined by the Supreme Court in Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625, the threat must be; (1) more than speculative in nature and must be supported by the evidence; (2) significant , in the sense of being a real risk of physical or psychological harm to the safety of the public and in the sense that this potential harm must be serious; and (3) the conduct creating the harm must be criminal in nature.

34. In coming to our conclusion on the issue of significant threat to the safety of the public, the panel accepts the evidence of Dr. Sheppard that Mr. Horvath suffers from a major mental illness, namely schizophrenia. The evidence supports that Mr. Horvath lacks insight into his illness. The findings of the Risk Assessment Report dated November 19, 2025, were adopted by Dr. Sheppard in his testimony. The Board relies on the findings of the Risk Assessment Report which the Board requested in its Disposition of April 30, 2025.

35. The Board accepts the conclusion of the risk assessment which indicates that Mr. Horvath is likely at high risk for future violence based on the definition of “violence” employed by the HCR-20v3. The evidence supports that this is primarily due to Mr. Horvath history of violence and the severity of the index offences. The Board relies on Mr. Horvath’s longstanding risk-relevant history, and his need for intensive supervision and professional support which controls his risky behaviour.

Disposition

36. The Board considered the submission of Mr. Horvath’s counsel for an Absolute Discharge and considered the fact that Mr. Horvath has been on the current disposition for a long time. Nevertheless, the panel unanimously finds that Mr. Horvath remains a significant threat to public safety and requires oversight. The evidence of Dr. Sheppard, which we accept, is that Mr. Horvath requires ongoing intensive supervision and close monitoring of his mental health, medication, and substance use.

37. The panel accepts the evidence of Dr. Sheppard that if Mr. Horvath was granted an Absolute Discharge, it is likely that Mr. Horvath would resume the use of alcohol which would lead to discontinuing his medication and his mental status deteriorating. Violence would follow.

38. The evidence supports that medication adherence and prompt intervention at the first indication of deterioration are essential to the management of Mr. Horvath’s risk which can only occur with the continuation of the current disposition.

Conclusion

39. On the evidence which we accept, the jurisdictional threshold of significant threat to the safety of the public is met.

40. We conclude that the necessary and appropriate disposition, pursuant to s.672.54 of the Criminal Code, is a Conditional Discharge with the same terms as set out in April 2025. These remain the least onerous and least restrictive while recognizing public safety as our paramount consideration.

DATED this 14th day of January 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

Mr. E. Kruzick

Legal Member

__________________

Office of the Registrar

Ontario Review Board