Re: Craig R. Lee
ORB File No: 3765
Hearing held on: Monday, October 27, 2025
Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before: Alternate Chairperson: Mr. B. Garrow Members: Dr. B. Sheppard Dr. L.O. Lightfoot Ms. J. Ferguson Mr. S. Duffy
Parties Appearing: Accused: Craig R. Lee Counsel: Mr. L. Dimitry
The Person in charge of Hospital: Counsel: Mr. D. Blumenkrans
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. R. Mushlian
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated February 4, 2026)
Introduction
[1]. On May 2, 2003, Craig Lee was found not criminally responsible (“NCR”) on account of mental disorder on one charge of assault with a weapon, four charges of failure to comply with probation order, and one charge of harassing telephone calls, all contrary to the Criminal Code, (the “Code”).
[2]. Mr. Lee is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board, (the “Board”), dated October 22, 2024, detaining him at the Forensic Service of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (“CAMH”/the “hospital”), with discretionary privileges up to and including the ability to reside in the community in approved accommodations.
[3]. On October 27, 2025, the Board convened a hearing, pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Code to conduct the annual review of the current Disposition. Mr. Lee was present at the hearing and represented by counsel.
[4]. The issues before the Board are whether Mr. Lee continues to pose a significant risk to the safety of the public, and if so, what is the necessary and appropriate disposition to manage that risk having regard to the criteria set out in s. 672. 54 of the Code.
[5]. On behalf of the hospital, counsel submitted that there be no change to Mr. Lee’s current Disposition. Counsel for the Attorney General of Ontario supported the hospital’s position. Counsel for Mr. Lee requested that his client be conditionally discharged. The issue of Mr. Lee’s significant threat was conceded.
[6]. For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that Mr. Lee continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public and that his care should continue on the same terms as his current Disposition.
Evidentiary Record
[7]. Dr. Valoo co-authored the hospital report dated, October 6, 2025, exhibit 1, and testified on behalf of the hospital. No further evidence was adduced at the hearing.
Background
[8]. Mr. Lee’s personal and psychiatric history, including the details of his mental disorder and treatment since being found NCR, are described in detail in the hospital report. Briefly, Mr. Lee is 49 years of age, single with no dependents. He lives in the community in 24 hour supervised accommodation located at 96 Dowling Street, Toronto. He is unemployed and financially supported by Ontario Disability Support Program (“ODSP”). He is capable of consenting to psychiatric treatment and management of his personal property. He is followed by the Expanded FOPS team under the care of Dr. Valoo. Mr. Lee was discharged to the community and his current residence in December 2021. Since that time there have been multiple positive urine drug screens for cannabis, including the reporting period.
[9]. Mr. Lee’s current diagnoses are Schizophrenia, Polysubstance Use Disorders and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. He is treated with clozapine.
[10]. The circumstances surrounding the index offences are reproduced from last year’s Reasons for Disposition:
“Assault with a Weapon/Breach of Probation
According to the police records, “On December 1, 2002, police responded to a report of family trouble at 114 Aberdeen Ave. Police received information that a male was hit with a brick by his son. Police were advised that the son, Craig Lee, had fled the scene on foot last seen W/B on Markland. Lee was described as male/white, 26 yrs, wearing a beige coat with a hood. Police searched the area with negative results.
This complainant, David Lee, advised that Lee was his son and was currently on probation with conditions to stay away from him. On this date David was outside working in the garage and observed Lee at the end of the driveway when he exited the garage. Lee began swearing at David when he questioned why he was there. David could see that Lee had something in his hands, which was hidden under the front of his shirt. David questioned Lee as to what he had in his hands and Lee began walking N/B on Hilton St. David continued asking Lee what he had in his hands as he walked behind Lee. Lee then turned around and hit David over the head with a brick stating, “Here’s your fucking brick, I’m going to put it through your head”. David attempted to move back and advised that the assault was a glancing blow due to that fact. Lee then threw the brick at David, but it missed him.
A short time later a call was dispatched from 186 Duke St. where a brick had been thrown through a window. This address is listed as a stay away condition on Lee’s probation order. The brick was seized and submitted to property.
Harassing Phone Calls
On 1999.11.01 the accused Lee was convicted of being Unlawfully in a Dwelling House, which was owned by David Hume at the time, and placed on probation for three years by Justice Bennett, one of the conditions of the probation order being to have no direct or indirect contact with David Hume or his family. On 2002.12.01 the accused was charged with Assault with a Weapon and Breach Probation x2. The accused is presently incarcerated at Hamilton Detention Centre where he is waiting to resolve these charges. On 2002.12.09 the accused made several harassing phone calls to the residence of David Hume.
The complainant David Hume stated that on 2002.12.09 at approximately 15:15 hrs the phone rang three times. Hume stated that he picked it up and a Bell telephone operator stated that there was a collect call for him. During the time that the individual can respond with their name to see if the receiver will accept the call or not, the accused left a threatening message. The accused again called at 1545 hrs and left a message for the complaint's daughter, Caitland Hume. At 15:47 hrs another message was left and again at 16:00 hrs and 16:01 hrs phone messages were left. The complainant Hume stated that he has known the accused for approximately ten years, coaching him in hockey and was also his neighbor. The accused is also familiar with the complainant's daughter Caitland Hume, who now resides in New York City, U.S.A.
Writer and Officer Mckee 384 responded to Hamilton Detention Centre to speak with the accused, as he is presently waiting to answer to resolution of Assault with a Weapon and Breach Probation x2 from 2002.12.01. Writer cautioned the accused and again gave the accused a secondary caution. The accused stated that he had been calling the complainant and was aware that he was to have no direct or indirect contact with him.”
Course Since Last Annual Review
[11]. Mr. Lee remained on a detention order while living in the community in approved housing, except for a brief period of hospitalization in November. He saw his EFOPS manager three to four times a week, and his psychiatrist every one or two weeks.
[12]. Dr. Valoo confirmed that Mr. Lee denies experiencing paranoid thoughts or hearing voices when at his baseline mental status. His interactions with others, as reported, were usually brief and superficial. When engaged for longer periods however, he was more likely to demonstrate disorganization and delusional thoughts. On 13 occasions over the reporting period, Mr. Lee exhibited brief episodes of psychotic deteriorations lasting up to a few hours. To manage these deteriorations, Mr. Lee’s clozapine dose was gradually increased.
[13]. Mr. Lee’s last annual review took place on October 2, 2024. According to the hospital report, on November 6, 2024, Mr. Lee was observed by housing staff sitting outside his room, staring at the ceiling. He appeared to be “spaced out”. He went to the fire escape on the third floor of the house, raising concerns that he intended to jump. Housing staff called 911 and Mr. Lee was brought to the CAMH emergency department and admitted to the hospital on November 7. He admitted to smoking cannabis. It took Mr Lee, four days to return to his baseline.
[14]. Dr Valoo testified that Mr. Lee’s readmission demonstrates a clear ongoing concern between his use of cannabis and the triggering of psychotic symptoms, putting him at risk of decompensation. Moreover, in Dr. Valoo’s opinion, if Mr. Lee had been assessed by a non-forensic team in hospital, he may not have met the criteria for readmission under the Mental Health Act, due to the fact that the clinicians would not have been familiar with his presentation at baseline.
[15]. Over the course of the reporting year, Mr. Lee tested positive for cannabis on nine occasions. He was tested frequently, and the positive screens were more spread out, typically occurring after a long weekend or on a Sunday, following his volunteer shift at the Salvation Army on Saturdays.
[16]. Between October 12 and 17 last, Mr. Lee underwent three drug screens and tested positive for cannabis on each occasion. Dr Valoo is concerned that the recent positive screens reflect a higher level of consumption and/or frequency of use. Since October 17, there have been no further positive screens period.
[17]. The incidents of cannabis use and psychotic deteriorations notwithstanding, Mr. Lee’s mental status has been manageable since November 2024. There have been no episodes of violence or aggressive behaviour. However, Mr. Lee’s insight remained partial, as he had a limited understanding of his history of psychosis, the role of cannabis in exacerbating his psychotic symptoms and early warning signs for a psychotic episode.
[18]. Mr. Lee has been working one four-hour shift per week at the Salvation Army, a volunteer position he obtained through an employment agency. The treatment team has encouraged him to increase his hours or seek employment in or der to bring more structure to his daily activities. However, Mr. Lee claims that his days are fully occupied with the psychotherapeutic programs he attends. In fact, this is not the case and there is considerable downtime in Mr. Lee’s normal daily routine.
[19]. Dr. Valoo testified that a conditional discharge is not appropriate at this time and would not be sufficient to manage Mr. Lee’s risk to the public. The Mental Health Act would not be sufficient to treat and/or return Mr. Lee to hospital, as exemplified by his sustained psychotic symptoms in November 2024. Currently Mr. Lee is seen three to four times a week by the EFOPS team. And, without continuing close supervision, the treatment team would not be able to monitor his behaviour and return him to hospital if psychotic symptoms reemerged. Dr. Valoo also noted that the staff at the housing complex where Mr. Lee currently resides are not clinicians. They can observe his behaviour and note changes, but they are not capable of providing medical assistance when his psychotic symptoms are triggered, or in the event he decompensates.
[20]. The treatment still needs to approve Mr. Lee’s housing. He is able to stay at 96 Dowling presently, but if his risk becomes unmanageable, he faces potential eviction. While his current housing provider has not indicated that eviction is on the horizon, the hospital has been asked to increase monitoring of his behaviour and screening for substance use.
[21]. Dr. Valoo was equivocal when asked whether in her opinion Mr. Lee would return to hospital voluntarily, citing an incident in the summer of 2024 when police were called by housing staff to deal with Mr. Lee’s troubling behaviour. Mr. Lee said he did not want to return to hospital and the police declined to intervene. Dr. Valoo reiterated that in her opinion, Mr. Lee would not have met the criteria for admission under the Mental Health Act in November 2024.
[22]. To be considered for a conditional discharge Mr. Lee must become more forthcoming and transparent, to improve his insight into what triggers his psychotic symptoms, his desire to use cannabis and the correlation between substance use and the exacerbation of his symptoms. The team also needs to see less use of cannabis and more negative screens, to allow a reduction in his reporting frequency and increase their confidence that he is capable of maintain psychotic stability and managing his risks on his own. The treatment team will consider whether a residential substance use prevention program would assist Mr. Lee’s recovery over the coming year.
Analysis and Conclusions
[23]. Having considered all of the evidence and the joint submission presented by the parties, the Board finds that Mr. Lee continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public. We decline to order that Mr. Lee be granted a conditional discharge. Rather, his care should continue on the same terms as his current Disposition.
[24]. We accept the uncontroverted evidence that the Mental Health Act is insufficient to manage Mr. Lee’s risks given his current mental status. We agree that a clinician unfamiliar with Mr. Lee’s baseline would probably not be able to detect his level of decompensation should he present as he has on the occasions, he has used cannabis over the past reporting year.
[25]. Mr. Lee’s mental status remains fragile. He is optimally treated with antipsychotics and still experiences psychotic symptoms. And, in combination with his use of cannabis, he runs the risk of serious deterioration of his mental status. He remains in a highly supervised setting, his medication is monitored, and the treatment team has been unable to reduce his reporting level. Furthermore, the treatment team still needs to approve his accommodation. We agree that Mr. Lee requires more structure in his daily activities and needs to demonstrate a commitment towards abstinence before a conditional discharge can be considered.
[26]. An issue surrounding the removal of the no contact clause arose during the hearing. While there was no objection per se, we agree with counsel for the Attorney general that the victim’s family should be notified of this development, before the matter is considered further.
[27]. In coming to these conclusions, the Board has considered its responsibility pursuant to s. 672.54 of the Code to make a disposition that is necessary and appropriate in the circumstances, taking in to account the safety of the public, which is the paramount consideration, the mental condition of the accused, his reintegration into society, and his other needs.
DATED this 4th day of February, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. B. Garrow Alternate Chairperson
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board