Re Thomas Russell Carlisle, 2026 CanLII 2102

Re: Thomas Russell Carlisle

ORB File No: 6798

Hearing held on: Friday, December 12, 2025

Place of hearing: Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care 401 Sunset Drive, St. Thomas

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

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Weinstein

Members: Dr. L.O. Lightfoot Dr. R. Chandrasena Ms. C. Murray Ms. C. Plyley

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Thomas R. Carlisle Counsel: Ms. C. Francis

The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Zamprogna

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. D. Rows

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated January 14, 2026)

Introduction:

1. On May 22, 2014, Mr. Thomas Carlisle was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on charges of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, flight from police officer, fail to comply with probation order and criminal harassment, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (the “Criminal Code”).

2. On December 12, 2025, a panel of the Ontario Review Board (“Board” or “panel”) convened to review Mr. Carlisle’s current Disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. At the time of the hearing, Mr. Carlisle was subject to a Detention Disposition with outer limits of privileges including passes for up to 72 hours, for up to six times per year in Southwestern Ontario, with an Approved Person.

3. Mr. Carlisle was present at the hearing. He was represented by counsel, Ms. Crystal Francis, appearing via Zoom technology, throughout the proceedings.

4. A Hospital Report dated September 29, 2025, was entered as Exhibit 1. The Board also heard viva voce testimony of Dr. Mokhber, Mr. Carlisle’s treating psychiatrist.

5. The issues to be determined are whether Mr. Carlisle continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public, and if so, the necessary and appropriate Disposition to manage that risk having regard to the criteria set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

6. For the reasons set out below and based on the evidence and opinions before us, the Board found that Mr. Carlisle continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board finds that a Detention Disposition at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care (“Southwest” or “the hospital”) with no change to the terms is the necessary and appropriate Order having regard to the safety of the public, which is the paramount concern, and also having regard to Mr. Carlisle’s mental health, reintegration into society, and his other needs.

Current Psychiatric Diagnosis

7. Schizophrenia

Position of the Parties

8. At the commencement of the hearing, the parties were canvassed for their without prejudice positions. The hospital, represented by Ms. J. Zamprogna, supported by counsel for the Attorney General, Mr. Rows, took the position that Mr. Carlisle continues to represent a significant threat to the public and the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Detention Order on the same terms as last year.

9. Counsel for Mr. Carlisle submitted that Mr. Carlisle challenges the position of the Hospital and Attorney General, and believes that he does not represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. Mr. Carlisle’s counsel noted that there was an EEG report done in 2001, which stated that Mr. Carlisle is not paranoid, schizophrenic, or depressive and he wishes to contest his NCR finding. If the Board finds that Mr. Carlisle represents a significant threat to the safety of the public, then he agrees to the terms proposed by the Hospital.

Index Offences

10. The Hospital Report contains a detailed description of the index offences. The offences are briefly summarized as follows:

Mr. Carlisle was arrested by the Quebec Provincial Police on January 31, 2014, after a police chase that began in Rigaud and ended in Montreal. Mr. Carlisle braked and blocked the path of a complainant on several occasions, coming very close to causing a collision and losing control of his vehicle. Shortly afterwards, Mr. Carlisle stopped on the shoulder of the road. When the police, who had been summoned, stood behind his vehicle, Mr. Carlisle started the car and fled the scene despite the beacons and directional arrow of the police vehicle. That was the start of a police chase on Highway 40 involving nine patrol vehicles of the Quebec Provincial Police for about forty-five kilometers in total. Mr. Carlisle refused to stop despite the beacon lights, sirens, horns and orders given by the police. Mr. Carlisle drove at speeds ranging from 15 to 170 kilometers per hour, using all traffic lanes. He attempted on several occasions to deliberately hit the police vehicles, using his own to block the road. He swerved in the direction of a patrol car. There was contact with two patrol vehicles with damage to one of them.

Mr. Carlisle ultimately was stopped by the fourth of four roadblocks. At the time of his arrest, Mr. Carlisle had to be physically pulled out of his vehicle. When he was searched, he was found to be wearing a protective shell to protect himself from people who wanted to harm him.

Background and History

11. The Hospital Report contains extensive information regarding Mr. Carlisle’s background and history, the entirety of which need not be repeated here in detail. Briefly, Mr. Carlisle is 72 years of age. Prior to the NCR finding he had been married for 35 years and had three children. In 2012, Mr. Carlisle and his wife separated. He worked as a medical laboratory technician for 37 years until he retired in 2011.

12. Mr. Carlisle’s prior criminal record began in 2013 and included charges for assault (x2), dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, flight while pursued by peace officer, failure to attend court, theft under $5000, and mischief/damage under $5000.

13. Mr. Carlisle self-reports psychiatric issues beginning at 40 years of age. He was treated as an outpatient at Victoria Hospital in London. His ex-wife reported that he had been hospitalized for psychotic episodes on at least two occasions since the 1990s. He had a psychiatric hospitalization in December 2012, shortly after he and his wife separated.

Course Since Last Disposition

14. The Hospital Report provides information regarding Mr. Carlisle’s course in hospital since his last Disposition.

15. Mr. Carlisle continued to be significantly impacted by symptoms of schizophrenia, specifically bizarre, fixed delusions with psychotic content and concrete thought process, which fluctuated in intensity. His underlying psychosis impacted his day-to-day functioning and decision-making. He remained mistrustful, suspicious, and hypervigilant of treatment team members, which created difficulties when providing treatment-related support. He consistently believes that he could do “head-to-head communication”.

16. Mr. Carlisle was transferred from the A2 treatment unit to B2 treatment unit on May 2, 2025, due to administrative reasons. Mr. Carlisle felt this move was related to Stephen Harper. Throughout the reporting period, he denied that Dr. Mokhber was his psychiatrist. He remained fixated on the belief that Dr. Mori was his psychiatrist and that he could communicate with him telepathically.

17. Mr. Carlisle has continued to have negative symptoms of schizophrenia over the reporting period. He was often isolative and seclusive, with a flat affect. Poor personal hygiene was noted.

18. Since his transfer to unit B2, Mr. Carlisle has usually chosen not to participate in therapeutic activities, due to his delusional belief that he would be beaten up off the unit. He has not attended any community outings. His privileges remain at level 0.

19. Mr. Carlisle has poor insight into his index offence. He does not talk about the index offence when approached about it. He has no insight into his mental illness and has stated that he does not have a mental illness. He has no insight into his need for treatment. His compliance with medications is passive. He has no insight into his future risk of violence. He feels justified for his previous behaviours related to the index offence on the basis that people were chasing him in the community.

20. Mr. Carlisle does not have any significant personal supports. He may have some limited phone contact with his sister. His sister and brother-in-law are Approved Persons, but the team does not have consent to talk to them.

21. Mr. Carlisle does not have any professional supports outside of the forensic system.

Oral Evidence at the Hearing

22. Dr. N. Mokhber, Mr. Carlisle’s attending psychiatrist and signatory of the Hospital Report, provided oral evidence at the hearing.

23. Dr. Mokhber testified that she has not ruled out a diagnosis of sexual disorder yet. Mr. Carlisle does not believe that she is his doctor and will not let her examine him or talk with him, has refused vital signs monitoring and lab investigations, and has refused an electrocardiogram. Mr. Carlisle has not been rude to Dr. Mokhber; he simply believes she is not his doctor. Mr. Carlisle believes that he communicates with Dr. Mori telepathically.

24. Dr. Mokhber testified that hospital administration has told her that they do not consider Mr. Carlisle’s refusal to accept her as his psychiatrist to be a treatment impasse. Therefore, Dr. Mokhber is collecting information from staff for the purpose of treatment. On September 12, 2025, after a consult with the pharmacist, Mr. Carlisle’s medication was switched from olanzapine to Nozinan. Mr. Carlisle would not let the treatment team monitor his vitals, which caused Dr. Mokhber to have concerns about cardiac issues that could arise. Dr. Mokhber chose to switch him to Nozinan because Mr. Carlisle has not tried this medication previously and it is an injectable medication. After introducing Nozinan, the treatment team noticed that Mr. Carlisle increased participation in programs. In May 2025 when Mr. Carlisle was transferred to Dr. Mokhber’s unit, he was only participating in five programs. By the time that Nozinan was optimized in October 2025, Mr. Carlisle participated in 20 programs, including a combination of recreational, spiritual, and behavioural programs. In November 2025, he participated in 14 to 15 programs. In May 2025, the longest that Mr. Carlisle was able to participate in programs was 15 minutes; he now participates for a full hour. This increase in program participation is a huge step forward in Mr. Carlisle’s treatment. Since Mr. Carlisle has been on Nozinan he has not been violent.

25. Mr. Carlisle’s sister and her husband are Approved Persons. However, Mr. Carlisle does not wish to see them. He believes he contacts them telepathically.

26. Dr. Mokhber testified that Mr. Carlisle has late onset schizophrenia, which makes his prognosis poor. He will not cooperate with ECT or clozapine therapy.

27. Mr. Carlisle had an EEG at age 21. Contrary to Mr. Carlisle’s belief, an EEG cannot rule out or diagnose schizophrenia. In this regard, an EEG can only identify illnesses like epilepsy and a few neurological conditions.

28. The behavioural therapist is attempting to establish a therapeutic rapport with Mr. Carlisle. She has been able to encourage him to manage some of his hygiene tasks, has encouraged him to be more social, and has scheduled programs for him. She is attempting to encourage Mr. Carlisle to accept Dr. Mokhber as his physician.

Analysis and Conclusions

29. Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence as well as the joint submissions from the parties, the Board independently finds that Mr. Carlisle remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.

30. Mr. Carlisle’s risk arises from his treatment refractory schizophrenia and ongoing positive and negative symptoms. He continues to experience symptoms that were present at the time of the index offence.

31. Mr. Carlisle’s negative symptoms remained prominent throughout the reporting year and severely impacted his ability to participate in structured programming. To Mr. Carlisle’s benefit, since the introduction of Nozinan he has exhibited far greater participation in programming. The Board would like to see him continue with this level of participation moving forward.

32. In coming to its conclusion regarding significant threat, the Board relies on the Overall Clinical Assessment of Risk starting at page 156 of the Hospital Report.

33. In light of the Board’s finding of significant threat, it is charged with shaping a Disposition for the coming year.

34. Mr. Carlisle refused all assessments relating to risk management and he continues to have no insight into his need for treatment. He has refused medications on many occasions while residing in a highly supervised hospital setting. He would likely not continue with his medication regimen absent forensic supervision within a Detention Disposition.

35. Mr. Carlisle’s mental health remains very fragile, as is demonstrated by his ongoing positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia. The Board accepts the hospital’s evidence that a Detention Disposition is necessary. Ongoing support and monitoring in hospital are essential to managing Mr. Carlisle’s risk to the safety of the public. He has not exercised the upper limit of his current privileges and, as such, there is no change to the terms of the Disposition.

36. For the above reasons, the Board finds that the necessary and appropriate, least onerous and least restrictive disposition is a Detention Disposition with no change to the current terms as set out in our formal Disposition.

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

Ms. C. Murray Legal Member Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board