Ontario Review Board
Re: Darrell L. Bruder
ORB File No: 8900
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 672.47(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: Darrell L. Bruder Counsel: Mr. G. Grant
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Zamprogna
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. D. Rows
AMENDED REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated January 13, 2026)
Please see underlined changes to original reasons made January 19, 2026. Mr. C. Dobson has been replaced with “Mr. G. Grant” as Counsel for the Accused.
Introduction:
On October 29, 2025, Mr. Darrell Bruder was found unfit to stand trial, on charges of fail to comply with undertaking, break and enter dwelling house, assault, and make false fire alarm, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”). The Court did not make a disposition and ordered that Mr. Bruder be detained at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care – St. Thomas (“Southwest”) for an initial Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“Board”), pursuant to s. 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code.
On December 12, 2025, the Board convened a hearing at Southwest to make an initial Disposition.
Mr. Bruder was present at the hearing and was represented by his counsel, Mr. G. Grant.
A Hospital Report, dated November 17, 2025 (the "Hospital Report"), was entered as Exhibit 1.
In accordance with s. 672.48(1) of the Criminal Code, the Board must decide whether Mr. Bruder is unfit to stand trial on the day of the hearing, within the meaning of s. 2 of the Criminal Code. Specifically, is Mr. Bruder 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. Bruder 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 evidence before us, the Board has found that Mr. Bruder is unfit to stand trial and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Detention Order, with the highest privilege level being to enter Elgin County, indirectly supervised. The Board added a no-contact provision with the victim of one of the Outstanding Charges, as well as a clause that Mr. Bruder not attend within 500 meters of two specified addresses, all as set out in our formal Disposition.
Current Psychiatric Diagnosis:
- Schizophrenia
Outstanding Charges
- Full details of the Outstanding Charges are set out in the Hospital Report. The following is a summary:
a) Break and Enter Dwelling House (July 2, 2025)
Mr. Darrell Bruder broke into a dwelling at 1770 Seeley Drive, London, which he previously owned but sold in 2021. Despite having no legal right to the property, he attempted to live there multiple times and has previously trespassed and removed by police. On July 2, 2025, the current owner noticed changes in the residence, including a damaged and boarded-up second-story window. Police found Mr. Bruder hiding in a small bedroom closet. He was arrested and charged with breaking and entering and mischief.
b) Assault (May 21, 2023)
Mr. Bruder attempted to pull his neighbor and her six-year-old son into his apartment. He grabbed the neighbour’s left forearm with both hands, causing her to fear for her safety. Another neighbor intervened and freed the victim from Mr. Bruder’s grip.
c) Make False Fire Alarm (May 21, 2023)
After the assault incident, Mr. Bruder pulled the fire alarm without reasonable cause. His neighbour and her son fled to the lobby and called 911.
d) Fail to Comply with Undertaking (December 10, 2023)
Mr. Bruder was released and was ordered not to contact three individuals. On December 10, 2023, Mr. Bruder contacted the neighbour who was the victim of the assault charge, via an intercom buzzer, and identified himself. This individual reported the incident to the police.
Criminal Offence History
- In 1989, Mr. Bruder was charged with mischief under s. 387(4) of the Criminal Code in London, Ontario. He was fined $300, sentenced to 15 days in custody, and given 12 months’ probation.
Psychiatric History
- Mr. Bruder’s psychiatric history is set out in detail in the Hospital Report. His history can be summarized as follows:
a) On April 29, 2018, Mr. Bruder experienced his first hospitalization for psychiatric reasons. He was found mute in his apartment hallway, exhibiting symptoms of possible catatonia. He responded well to lorazepam and olanzapine, which resolved his psychosis after two and a half weeks. He was diagnosed with delusional disorder and schizoid personality disorder. He stopped taking antipsychotics after seven months of outpatient follow-up, believing he did not have a mental illness.
b) Mr. Bruder’s second hospitalization happened on May 21, 2023, following an arrest for assault. He exhibited delusional and uncooperative behavior, including grandiose and bizarre delusions. Trials of antipsychotics (olanzapine and risperidone) showed limited improvement, and he was discharged after nearly two months.
- Pursuant to a treatment order, Mr. Bruder was admitted to the Southwest on August 11, 2025.
Substance Abuse History
- Mr. Bruder has no known substance abuse history.
Course Subsequent to Admission to Southwest
- Mr. Bruder’s course in hospital is set out in detail the Hospital Report. The following extracted paragraphs are relevant to this hearing:
“Since admission in August 2025, Mr. Bruder displayed persistent grandiose and persecutory delusions, including beliefs that he was a high-ranking military and law enforcement agent, a physician, and a billionaire with hundreds of “wives” and extensive international property holdings.
The early course in hospital was also marked by high behavioural dysregulation, frequent incidents of verbal aggression and boundary violations, hoarding and rule-testing behaviours. He required seclusion on multiple occasions, most recently on October 16, for delusional, exit-seeking, and confrontational behaviour. He also made threats that staff would be killed if he were forced to take medication. At times, he refused to meet with his treatment team and remained isolative.
As ongoing treatment and inpatient support continued, Mr. Bruder demonstrated gradual behavioural stabilization, his delusions appeared less irritable, he became more cooperative, humorous and engaged with staff and peers and was more adherent to unit expectations.
As of November 5, 2025, he has refused all medications with the exception of mouthwash.
On admission, Mr. Bruder refused pharmacologic treatment, citing that he was a “pilot” and therefore could not take medication. Initial orders for risperidone were met with non-compliance, necessitating the use of intramuscular haloperidol. He soon began accepting oral risperidone, which was gradually titrated to 2.5 mg twice daily.
Mr. Bruder remained adherent with this regimen until November 5, 2025.
At this time, Mr. Bruder is able to attend hospital wide programs with the accompaniment of two staff, which is a standard measure for patients residing on the Assessment Unit (A3). On October 2, 2025, he was given escorted privileges off the ward to attend groups. Due to his current fragile mental status, his participation in recreational activities and groups has been limited.”
Position of the Parties
Counsel for the hospital presented the hospital’s position that Mr. Bruder is unfit to stand trial. The necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Detention Order, upon the terms recommended on pages 17 and 18 of the Hospital Report, including two additions: 1) a no-contact provision with the victim of the Index Offence and 2) a prohibition from attending within 500 meters of two addresses specified in our formal Disposition.
Counsel for the Attorney General joined the hospital in their recommendations.
Counsel for Mr. Bruder advised that his client felt that he was fit to stand trial.
Evidence at the Hearing
- The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence from Dr. Malka and Mr. Bruder. Dr. Malka co-authored the Hospital Report as well as the fitness report.
Testimony of Dr. Malka
- Dr. Malka testified as follows:
a) She confirmed Mr. Bruder’s diagnosis of schizophrenia.
b) Mr. Bruder’s has refused medication since his treatment order expired, which has led to a decline in his mental state.
c) Mr. Bruder lacks insight into his illness and is incapable of making treatment decisions. This finding of incapacity was upheld by a CCB hearing. Mr. Bruder is appealing this finding. A date for the appeal has not been set. As a result, Mr Bruder’s treatment stopped on November 5, 2025,
d) Mr. Bruder responded well to treatment during his first admission in 2018, but less so during his 2023 readmission.
e) Without supervision, Mr. Bruder would not be adherent to his medication regimen.
f) During Mr. Bruder’s recent admission, he was required to be secluded three times because of threats, noncompliance with rules, and inappropriate interactions with staff.
g) Mr. Bruder’s lack of adherence to treatment was a factor in the Outstanding Charges.
h) Mr. Bruder poses a risk of re-offending, particularly if he is not adherent to his medication and he continues to act on his delusional beliefs.
i) Mr. Bruder is currently on the assessment unit. He has been isolative and has continued to voice his delusions. He occasionally leaves the unit, accompanied by staff.
j) Mr. Bruder has no identifiable personal supports.
k) She last assessed Mr. Bruder’s fitness for trial on November 3, 2025. Since that date Mr. Bruder has refused any interaction with her. Mr. Bruder’s mental status has declined since the assessment.
l) Based on the last assessment, Mr. Bruder is not aware of the charges, nor can he describe the roles of various court participants. He lacks a reality-based understanding of the proceedings and their consequences. He cannot communicate with counsel rationally and meaningfully, nor can he participate in the process. In the past, Mr. Bruder could not tolerate the courtroom environment.
m) The deficits that cause Mr. Bruder’s unfitness are due to his illness, not to any lack of fitness training.
- In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Malka testified:
a) Mr. Bruder’s mental disorder is persistent and not transient, and it compromises his ability to conduct a defence. His disorder impairs his understanding of reality, his decision-making, and his ability to communicate regarding his defence and the charges.
b) Mr. Bruder’s impairments have been present for several years, indicating a long-standing psychiatric disorder.
c) Mr. Bruder’s mental disorder significantly impairs his ability to appreciate the nature and consequences of the proceedings, to instruct counsel, and to participate meaningfully in his defence.
d) The treatment team has been unable to locate Mr. Bruder’s brother, Scott, to determine if he might become a substitute decision maker. This lack of contact with any family members makes it difficult for the treatment team to fully appreciate whether Mr. Bruder also has a substance use disorder. Because of this uncertainty, the treatment team is requesting the inclusion of a term permitting Mr. Bruder to attend a residential treatment program, if they discover a substance abuse problem in his history. The team does not know whether substances were involved at the time of the offences.
e) Mr. Bruder’s threatening actions, such as raising a fist at staff, are due to his delusions, which causes him to act impulsively.
f) The recommended provisions to prevent contact with the victims of the offence, or attendance at the specified residences, are necessary and appropriate for their safety.
Testimony of Mr. Bruder
- Mr. Bruder testified as follows:
a) He had read the doctor’s report before the hearing. He claimed to have more than 185 wives, including the victim he is charged with assaulting. He insisted that the victim is one of his most important wives, despite her disagreement and her desire for him to stay away from her.
b) Regarding his employment history, Mr. Bruder described himself as having been Secret Agent 009, then Agent Q (Quarter Master) and now being an agent dealing with politicians and power brokers. He claimed to have worked in those roles since he was three years old.
c) Mr. Bruder denied having any mental illness and stated that he does not need medication. He explained his refusal to take medication by claiming that he is a marine pilot with the Canadian Airforce and the American military, and he would only take such medication if an American military doctor instructed him to do so.
d) He expressed plans to retire in France, specifically a palace in Cannes, which he claimed to own or intended to buy.
e) He insisted that all the above statements were true and not delusional. He denied any intention to harm anyone.
f) He concluded his evidence by expressing his intent to spend the rest of his life with his wives, who he said know how to take care of him.
- No other evidence was called.
Analysis and Conclusions
Fitness to Stand Trial
- The first issue for the Board to decide is whether Mr. Bruder 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 his or her 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 (s)he 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 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 of the evidence and submissions from the parties, the Board agrees with the joint submissions of the parties that Mr. Bruder is unfit to stand trial. Mr. Bruder is unable to: understand the nature and object of the proceedings; understand the possible consequences of the proceedings; communicate meaningfully with counsel; or meaningfully participate, and instruct counsel, in a criminal proceeding. Mr. Bruder’s mental health symptoms cannot be described as transient.
Mr. Bruder’s mental health disorder does compromise 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, at paragraph 11: “the simpler the case is, the easier it is to understand, appreciate and talk about.”9
The Board finds that Mr. Bruder’s criminal charges are complex and serious. The Board further finds that this is not a straightforward case. There are four different charges, two in May 2023 and one each in December 2023 and July 2025.
Necessary and Appropriate Disposition
The Board finds that the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances is a Detention Order at Southwest, upon the terms set out as agreed to by all the parties, as set out in our formal Disposition. The HCR-20 V3 prepared by Dr. Malka indicates that all six historical items are present and relevant to Mr. Bruder’s overall risk formulation. In addition, Mr. Bruder demonstrated clinical risk on all five items, which include recent problems with insight across all domains, symptoms of his major mental disorder, instability, poor treatment response, and violent intent and ideation.
In particular, the Board relies on the following paragraph extracted from the Hospital Report:
“Integrated Judgement of Risk - HCR-20 and SAPROF.
Results from the integrated risk assessment suggest that Mr. Bruder presents a moderate risk of violent reoffending in the next 12 months while residing in hospital. When considering reduced supervision (e.g., community setting with mental health supports), his level of risk would be considered high. Mr. Bruder has no protective factors, aside from his current external controls provided through the Forensic system and has yet to be optimally treated.
Re-Offence Scenario
Absent Forensic support and the controlled environment of the hospital, Mr. Bruder would not seek appropriate mental health treatment independently due to his lack of insight into his mental health needs and fragile mental state. He would likely resort to living in shelter or unsafely elsewhere. His persistent symptoms of his mental illness would exacerbate, believing his persecutory and grandiose delusions are real, and he would be unable to cope with this present situation. He would likely act out on these delusions causing serious psychological harm to others.
Overall Clinical Assessment of Risk
It is the opinion of the treatment team that Mr. Bruder poses a risk of serious physical or psychological harm to members of the public. The following evidence supports this opinion:
Mr. Bruder is not optimally treated. He continues to present with positive and negative symptoms of his mental illness (including psychotic features, elevated mood symptoms, behavioural instability, violent ideation, and isolating behaviours).
Mr. Bruder’s insight into his mental illness, need for treatment and risk of violence is absent. His overall insight is a considerable concern when factoring in his violence risk formulation;
Mr. Bruder is not connected with a community mental health team and there are current nonadherence issues while in a supervised setting at the Southwest Centre; and
Mr. Bruder’s overall risk and lack of protective factors (e.g., personal and community mental health supports, secure and stable living situation) increase his risk of recidivism in the absence of his current forensic support and the controlled environment of the hospital setting.”
Mr. Bruder’s treatment is in its early stages. He requires ongoing professional support in a supervised environment, to further assess his mental illness, insight, coping, independent living, personal supports and other factors. All these factors have been known to contribute to his risk of violence and his inability to live in the community. The hospital also requires the approval of future accommodations, to ensure they are appropriate to his needs and sufficient for public safety. Therefore, a Conditional Discharge Disposition is not realistic at this time.
Mr. Bruder is currently not optimally treated or receiving any medication for his major mental illness. In his own evidence, he indicated that he does not need medication and would not be adherent to any medication regimen in the community. Mr. Bruder continues to have fixed delusions with respect to the victim of the assault, as well as other delusions, which make him a significant threat to the public safety.
Based on Mr. Bruder’s evidence, his delusional beliefs do put the victim of the Outstanding Charges at risk, so a no-contact provision is necessary and appropriate. These delusional beliefs similarly make it necessary to include a prohibition of attendance at the two residences specified in our Disposition. These two additional clauses are necessary for the protection of the safety of the public.
In consideration of all the evidence, submissions of the parties and criteria set forth in s. 672.54, the paramount consideration being the safety of the public, in addition to the mental condition of Mr. Bruder, his reintegration into society and his other needs, the necessary and appropriate Disposition a Detention Order.
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
Footnotes
- Bharwani, supra, at para. 6.
- Ibid.
- Ibid at para. 77.
- Ibid at para. 6.
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- Ibid at para. 65.
- Ibid at para. 82.
- 40 Ibid at para. 11.