Ontario Review Board
Re: Timothy Quinlan
ORB File No: 8870
Hearing held on: Friday, December 12, 2025
Place of hearing: Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care 401 Sunset Drive, St. Thomas
Pursuant to: Sections 672.47(1) and 672.48(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Weinstein
Members: Dr. R.D. Chandrasena Dr. L.O. Lightfoot Ms. C. Murray Ms. C. Plyley
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Timothy Quinlan Counsel: Mr. G.A.R. Grant
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Zamprogna
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. D. Rows
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated January 13, 2026)
Introduction:
On September 10, 2025, Mr. Timothy Quinlan was found unfit to stand trial, on multiple charges of sexual interference and sexual assault, and single charges of invitation to sexual touching under 16 years of age and fail to comply with a release order, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”).
That finding was based on a Court-ordered fitness assessment, prepared by Dr. Ardani, dated April 5, 2025.
The Court did not make a Disposition and referred this matter to the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”) for an initial Disposition, pursuant to s. 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code.
On December 12, 2025, the Board convened a hearing at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care – St. Thomas (“Southwest”) to make an initial Disposition.
Mr. Quinlan was not present at the hearing, as he did not wish to attend. Accordingly, an order was made allowing Mr. Quinlan to be absent from this hearing, pursuant to s. 672.5(10)(a). Mr. Quinlan was represented by his counsel, Mr. G. Grant.
A Hospital Report, dated November 21, 2025 (the "Hospital Report"), was entered as Exhibit 1.
A revised report, dated December 12, 2025 (“Revised Report”), was entered as Exhibit 2.
In accordance with s. 672.48(1) of the Criminal Code, the Board must decide whether Mr. Quinlan is unfit to stand trial on the day of the hearing, within the meaning of s. 2 of the Criminal Code. Specifically, is Mr. Quinlan unable, on account of mental disorder, to understand the nature of a trial and the possible consequences of the proceedings and to meaningfully communicate with counsel? If Mr. Quinlan is found fit, he must be sent back to court. If he is found unfit, the Board must make a Disposition that is necessary and appropriate, considering the criteria set forth in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
For the reasons set out below and based on the expert evidence before us, the Board has found that Mr. Quinlan is unfit to stand trial and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Conditional Discharge Order, requiring him to reside in a Long-Term Care facility in Southwestern Ontario.
Psychiatric Diagnosis:
- Major Neurocognitive Disorder
Outstanding Charges
- Full details of the Outstanding Charges are set out in the Hospital Report. They can be summarized as follows: Mr. Quinlan is a 74-year-old male accused of multiple historical sexual offences, including sexual interference, sexual assault and invitation to sexual touching involving underage victims. The allegations span decades, with incidents occurring between 1984 and 2016, all in Ontario. Specific acts include inappropriate touching, masturbation, fellatio, anal sex, and other forms of sexual assault.
Course Prior to Being Found Unfit
- Mr. Quinlan’s course prior to being found unfit is set out in detail in the Hospital Report. The following extracted paragraphs are relevant:
“On March 31, 2025, Mr. Quinlan was admitted to Victoria Hospital in London. He was certified on a Form 1 and transferred to the care of the psychiatry service. He had reportedly been aggressive with the staff at the LTC facility where he was residing and attempted to leave the premises, resulting in police involvement. In the Emergency Department, he was described as “combative” and required both physical and chemical restraint.
On April 1, 2025, Mr. Quinlan was transferred to the PICU. He remained disoriented and did not know why he was in the hospital. His treatment team received information from the Geriatric Mental Health Program’s Behavioural Response Team regarding his presentation before admission. Notably, the Behavioural Response Team expressed concern regarding Mr. Quinlan’s “unpredictable tendency to try to physically harm anyone he finds annoying or perceives as a threat, especially other male residents who may simply be walking by him.”
Since March 31, 2025, Mr. Q has remained in Victoria Hospital under involuntary admission, certified under Forms 3 and 4. After demonstrating some behavioural stabilization, he was transferred from the PICU to the care of the Geriatric Psychiatry service. However, following episodes of aggression toward co-patients, he was transferred to a locked Adult Mental Health Unit. During his hospitalization, he underwent medication optimization, which led to improvement in his agitation. However, his cognitive impairment has remained largely unchanged since then.
Mr. Quinlan was incapable of making decisions regarding his treatment. The office of Guardian and Trustee is acting on his behalf.
I understand that Mr. Quinlan completed a cognitive screening assessment, the MoCA (Montreal Cognitive Assessment), on April 9, 2025, while at Victoria Hospital. According to his psychiatrist, Dr. Michelle McLean, a Geriatric psychiatrist, he scored 9 out of 30, indicating significant cognitive impairment. This result indicated a decline in his cognitive functioning compared to the previous assessment, dated March 20, 2025.”
Position of the Parties
- Counsels for the hospital, for the Attorney General and for Mr. Quinlan advised that this was a joint submission: all were adopting the hospital’s position that Mr. Quinlan is unfit to stand trial and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Conditional Discharge, on the terms recommended on pages 16 and 17 of the Hospital Report, and as set out in our formal Disposition.
Evidence at the Hearing
- The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence from Dr. Ardani. Dr. Ardani is the assessing psychiatrist. He co-authored the Hospital Report and the fitness assessment. He testified as follows:
a) Mr. Quinlan suffers from a major neurocognitive disorder, with severe memory problems and impaired executive functioning.
b) Mr. Quinlan’s condition is progressive and permanent, with significant decline as noted in his multiple cognitive screening tests since 2022. The most likely diagnosis is Fahr’s Disease, a rare genetic disorder causing calcium deposits in the brain.
c) Mr. Quinlan is currently hospitalized in the psychiatric unit of London Health Sciences.
d) During his current hospitalization, Mr. Quinlan’s medication was optimized, which led to improvement in his agitation and combative behaviours. According to his treating psychiatrist, Mr. Quinlan had been experiencing akathisia as a side effect of his antipsychotic medication. Following a tapering of his medication, Mr. Quinlan presented with a significant improvement in his agitation and disruptive behaviours.
e) Mr. Quinlan is eligible for a long-term care (“LTC”) placement.
f) Mr. Quinlan’s mental condition is currently stable, and he is no longer as agitated or aggressive.
g) A referral to an LTC facility has been made, and Mr. Quinlan is awaiting a bed.
h) Mr. Quinlan’s risk can be managed in a community setting if he remains in 24/7 supervised accommodation, with medication administration, behavioural supports, and monitoring.
i) The Public Guardian and Trustee acts as Mr. Quinlan’s substitute decision maker.
j) Mr. Quinlan is unable to consent to placement in a LTC facility due to incapacity, based on previous assessments.
k) Mr. Quinlan is unfit to stand trial. He cannot recall the charges, the allegations, or the roles of court officials without prompting. He lacks a basic understanding of the proceedings. He is unable to meaningfully participate in court, or to instruct counsel, because of severe cognitive, and emotional, impairments.
l) Mr. Quinlan lacks the capacity to contact the complainants of the Outstanding Charges.
m) The hospital will ensure ongoing assessment of Mr. Quinlan’s fitness status and communicate directly with the LTC facilities. All other aspects of Mr. Quinlan’s care will be managed by his LTC physician.
n) Mr. Quinlan cannot tolerate the courtroom environment because of his mental illness. For example, Mr. Quinlan starts to cry if his interaction with his psychiatrist lasts longer than 10 minutes. This response is part of Mr. Quinlan’s dementia.
- No other evidence was called.
Analysis and Conclusions
Fitness to Stand Trial
- The first issue for the Board to decide is whether Mr. Quinlan remains unfit to stand trial.
Applicable Law
- The Supreme Court of Canada addressed the fitness test, most recently in R v Bharwani, 2025 SCC 26 (“Bharwani”). In this decision, the Supreme Court emphasized the following with respect to the fitness test:
a) Fitness to stand trial does not require an accused to make decisions in their best interests. Instead, “it requires making decisions based on an understanding of reality that is not overwhelmed by delusions, hallucinations, or other symptoms of their mental disorder.”1
b) The accused is fit to stand trial if they can: “make and communicate reality-based decisions in the conduct of their defence or instruct counsel to do so”2 and: “intelligibly communicate these decisions to counsel or the court.”3
c) Conducting a defence involves: “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.”4
d) The “capacity” required to make these decisions includes: “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.”5
e) “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.”6
f) The fitness to stand trial test is “contextual,” and the inquiry: “focuses on the decisions that form part of an accused’s defence in a specific case, and not in the abstract.”7
g) The same test for fitness to stand trial applies to all accused, whether they are represented by counsel or not.8
The Court further stated at paragraph 67 in Bharwani the following:
“The text of the statutory definition of “unfit to stand trial” provides some guidance on the requisite capacity threshold that an accused must possess. The definition notes “in particular” that an accused is unfit if they are unable to (1) understand the nature or object of the proceedings, (2) understand the possible consequences of the proceedings, or (3) communicate with counsel. The use of “or” between these requirements suggests that if the court is satisfied that the accused is unable to meet one of them, they are unfit to stand trial, as they lack the capacity to “conduct” a defence.”
Determination on Fitness
Having heard and considered all the evidence and submissions from the parties, the Board agrees with the joint submissions of the parties: Mr. Quinlan is unfit to stand trial. He is unable to: understand the nature and object of the proceedings; understand the possible consequences of the proceedings, or to communicate meaningfully with counsel; or meaningfully participate and instruct counsel in a criminal proceeding. Mr. Quinlan’s mental health symptoms cannot be described as transient.
Mr. Quinlan suffers from a degenerative neurological disorder, which will progress, and for which there is no known cure. As set out in the Hospital Report, Mr. Quinlan completed a cognitive assessment, the MoCA. He scored a 9 out of 30, indicating significant cognitive impairment. This result indicated a decline in his cognitive functioning compared to his previous assessment, dated March 20, 2025.
In particular, the Board relies on the following paragraph extracted from the Hospital Report:
“While Mr. Quinlan was able to articulate a general understanding of how the court functions, he lacked a reality-based understanding of the nature and purpose of his proceedings. He presented with significant memory difficulties and, consequently, had no awareness of the allegations against him or the incidents from which they arose. As a result, he would be unable to provide his defence lawyer with any details that might mitigate or support his innocence. Additionally, he demonstrated an impaired ability to retain information long enough to engage in a meaningful conversation, making it unlikely that he could communicate effectively with his lawyer or provide coherent instructions.”
Mr. Quinlan’s mental health disorder compromises his ability to conduct a defence, and it would impair his understanding of reality when making or communicating decisions in his defence.
In Clayton (Re), 2025 ONCA 308, the Court of Appeal for Ontario held that: “the nature of the charges and allegations” facing an accused is important context when applying the fitness test. In particular, paragraph 11 states: “the simpler the case is, the easier it is to understand, appreciate and talk about.”9
The Board finds that Mr. Quinlan’s criminal charges are reasonably complex and serious and are decades old. There are numerous sexual assault charges and multiple victims.
Necessary and Appropriate Disposition
The Board finds the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances is a Conditional Discharge, with the requirement that Mr. Quinlan reside in an LTC facility in Southwestern Ontario, upon his discharge from his current LTC institution.
Mr. Quinlan suffers from a major mental disorder, notably cognitive impairment, and from behavioural disturbances. As set out in his Course Prior to Being Found Unfit, he has engaged in serious aggressive behaviours. Mr. Quinlan presents with affective instability and is unable to regulate his emotions. He has a history of cannabis and alcohol use.
Given the nature of his cognitive impairment, Mr. Quinlan will require external controls indefinitely.
Mr. Quinlan’s risk of violence can be managed in the community setting, if he remains in a 24/7 supervised accommodation, without access to the community. The Mental Health Act is sufficient to manage Mr. Quinlan's violence risk, as he would meet the criteria set out in Box B of the Mental Health Act. Therefore, neither a Detention Order, nor a Warrant of Committal, is necessary in these circumstances.
In consideration of all the evidence, submissions of the parties and the criteria set forth in s. 672.54, the paramount consideration being the safety of the public, in addition to the mental condition of Mr. Quinlan, his reintegration into society and his other needs, the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Conditional Discharge Order. As set out in our formal Disposition.
DATED this 13th day of January 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Mr. J. Weinstein Alternate Chairperson Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board