Re: Claudette Harriott
ORB File No: 3331
Hearing held on: Monday, November 24, 2025
Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. C. Finley
Members: The Hon. B. Allen
Dr. Y. Alatishe
Dr. L. O. Lightfoot
Mr. J. Cyr
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Claudette Harriott
Counsel: Ms. S. Feldman
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. M. Warner
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. V. Culp
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated January 21, 2026)
Introduction
On March 22, 2001 Ms. Claudette Harriott was found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder on a charge of assault, contrary to the Criminal Code.
Pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code, a panel of the Ontario Review Board (“the Board”) was convened on November 24, 2025, at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (“CAMH or the Hospital”) to review Ms. Harriott’s threat to public safety and to consider the appropriate disposition pursuant to s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
Ms. Harriott did not attend the hearing and her counsel, Ms. Feldman, indicated that Ms. Harriott provided instructions for her to proceed in her absence. Ms. Feldman submitted that Ms. Harriott, as a practice, has not attended Board hearings in the past. She indicated that Ms. Harriott has expressed confidence in her as counsel and in her case manager at the hearing to represent her interests. The other parties and the Board had no objection. Pursuant to s. 672.5(10)(a) of the Criminal Code the Board permitted the hearing to proceed in Ms. Harriott’s absence.
Ms. Harriott’s existing disposition dated November 22, 2024, orders that she be detained at the General Forensic Unit at CAMH with provision for community living in accommodation approved by the person in charge of the Hospital.
At the start of the hearing the parties provided the Board with their respective positions on disposition and significant threat. The parties took a joint position that Ms. Harriott be subject to a conditional discharge under a condition among others that she continue to reside at LOFT St. Anne’s Place high support community housing.
The parties maintained their joint position at the close of the evidence.
Disposition
- For the reasons set out below the Board concludes, pursuant to s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, that Ms. Harriott continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and that the necessary and appropriate disposition, that is the least onerous and the least restrictive to mitigate threat to public safety, is a conditional discharge on condition among others that she continue to reside at LOFT St. Anne’s Place high support housing.
Current Diagnosis
- Ms. Harriott’s current diagnosis is schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type.
The Evidence
- The Board has before it the Hospital Report dated November 10, 2025, which contains an account of Ms. Harriott’s personal and psychiatric background which needs not be repeated in detail here. The Board also has the oral evidence of Dr. Artemis Igoumenou, a co-author of the Hospital Report.
The Index Offence
The circumstances of the index offence are described in the Hospital Report and are summarized as follows.
On October 31, 1999, Ms. Harriott punched a store clerk one time in the face resulting in a bloody nose and bruising under her eye. The background to this offence is that on October 31, 1999, Ms. Harriott selected two brassieres from an outdoor display table at a clothing store and entered the store to pay for the items. The victim, who was standing at a cash register outside the store, asked Ms. Harriott to pay for the items outside and not inside the store. This led to Ms. Harriott assaulting the store clerk.
Criminal History
- Ms. Harriott does not have a criminal record or involvement with illegal drugs.
Ms. Harriott’s Psychiatric and Personal History
Before the Current Reporting Year
Ms. Harriott is 55 years old. She was born in Canada. She is not married and has three children. Her children have been cared for by family members due to Ms. Harriott’s psychiatric condition.
Ms. Harriott completed Grade 10 and reported to also having obtained some Grade 11 and 12 credits. She left school at the age of 18 or 19. She worked for one year at a factory in 1993 until she was laid off. Ms. Harriott has not been employed since that time and has been supported on ODSP since then.
Ms. Harriott was first diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, when she was a teenager. She attended various psychiatrists over the years but did not maintain contact with them. Her typical presentation when ill involved a concern that people are saying unkind things to her and that people are jealous of her. This has often led her to lash out verbally and physically at others without provocation. There is no information in her file that she has ever been abused or been dependent on substances of any kind.
Before the index offence Ms. Harriott was hospitalized more than 20 times from the onset of her illness. She had been generally non-compliant with medication and psychiatric follow up. Most of her hospitalizations were involuntary in circumstances where she had been brought to hospital by the police. From 1991 to she was admitted to hospital 12 times and from 1995 to 1996, a further 7 times.
As noted, earlier Ms. Harriott was found not criminally responsible on March 22, 2001. She was hospitalized for one month after this finding at which time she was discharged to her own apartment in the community. Over the years Ms. Harriott has experienced a number of unsuccessful discharges to community housing interspersed with re-admissions to hospital due to her inability to cope with independent living.
In 2014, Ms. Harriott received a conditional discharge. However, in 2017, after hospitalizations following periods of decompensation, her disposition was changed to detention in a general forensic unit with privileges up to living in approved accommodation. At the time Ms. Harriott demonstrated poor insight into her mental illness, treatment needs and risk of violence.
Ms. Harriott initially resided at CAMH in a hybrid forensic/non-forensic unit. In December 2017, she was transferred to a general forensic unit due to problems managing her interpersonal relationships with the more acute patients on the hybrid unit. In September 2018, she was discharged to Canadian Mental Health Association (“CMHA”) transitional housing. But she was re-admitted to the Hospital within days of discharge.
On September 4, 2019, Ms. Harriott was discharged to supervised high support housing. She had difficulty coping with residing in her own independent unit where she was required to attend to her activities of daily living without assistance. On October 10, 2019, she was re- admitted to CAMH due to concerns about her inability to cope in the community. She was transferred to a general forensic unit on October 21, 2020. On February 24, 2021, she was discharged to LOFT high support transitional housing at White Squirrel Way.
On February 7, 2022, Ms. Harriott moved to LOFT high-support permanent housing at St. Anne’s Place. She was re-admitted to CAMH from June 16, 2023, to July 19, 2023. As of the date of the May 2024 Hospital Report Ms. Harriott has remained in LOFT housing from July 16, 2023, under the weekly supervision of CAMH Forensic Outpatient Services (“FOPS”).
Over the reporting period 2022/2023 Ms. Harriott attended various hospital emergency departments for abdominal problems. She did not disclose this to the CAMH clinical team. She was not a good historian as to what medical condition she was experiencing. So, she was admitted to CAMH for an investigation of her physical problems on July 16, 2023. She was found to have a stomach infection. Ms. Harriott was displaying paranoid symptoms and her medication was adjusted. She was discharged to her home on July 19, 2023.
Over the 2022/2023 reporting year there were no incidents of aggression, violence or medication non-compliance. However, Ms. Harriott reported delusions about celebrities trying to contact her and about seeing celebrities around town in unlikely settings.
The clinical team concluded during that period that re-offence would likely occur with medication non-compliance and the presence of life stressors if she did not have adequate supports and rapid intervention. Her mental stability was fragile and affected adversely by stressors making her susceptible to periods of increased irritability, paranoia and impulsivity in spite of ongoing treatment compliance. Ms. Harriott’s risk of re-offending at that time was considered low if subject to a detention order but would rise to moderate – high if she were placed on a conditional discharge.
Ms. Harriott had a successful reporting period during April 2023 to March 2024. She continued to reside in her own bachelor unit, a LOFT residence at St. Anne’s Place, a 24- hour supervised apartment building located close to the Hospital. The following factors pointed to Ms. Harriot’s success during that period: there were no re-admissions to Hospital required; she maintained stability in the community; she was compliant with supervision and treatment; and her reporting obligations remained unchanged.
On the less positive side Ms. Harriott’s insight into her illness and risk management required improvement. She denied knowledge of the potential adverse effects of discontinuing her medication and her insight into her Board status and legal obligations remained limited. Nonetheless she indicated that she was content with the existing disposition and was not seeking change.
Ms. Harriott was followed by the FOPS case management team until August 2024 when her case manager retired, and she was transitioned to the Reconnect Case Management team. She continued to meet with her FOPS psychiatrist, Dr. Hanna Meng, approximately once per month.
Regarding Ms. Harriott’s living arrangements, her situation at St. Anne’s Place remained stable with no management concerns. Her FOPS case manager found her unit appropriately maintained on their regular visits to her residence. While Ms. Harriott was content at St. Anne’s Place she hoped to eventually move from her bachelor unit to a one-bedroom unit. She remained on the wait list for this.
Ms. Harriott’s mental state and presentation remained stable. But she continued to display some residual disorganization and susceptibility to transient paranoia and perceptual disturbances when emotionally distressed. Those symptoms however had no meaningful impact on her daily functioning or her compliance with supervision. There were no changes to her psychiatric medication.
Ms. Harriott remained incapable of making decisions regarding her treatment and relied on her mother as her substitute decision maker. Ms. Harriott maintained regular communication with her parents by phone and spends nights at their residence on occasional holidays. In person contact was limited because of her parents’ distance from Toronto and the fact that they spend part of the year in Jamaica.
During the previous reporting year, considering the option of a conditional discharge in contrast to detention, the clinical team opined that Ms. Harriott’s ability to cope with stress in the community and her access to professional services would be adversely affected if the clinical team lacked the ability to approve suitable supported housing, enforce treatment compliance and rapidly re-admit Ms. Harriott to the Hospital should dynamic risk factors intensify before she could be certified under the Mental Health Act.
Ms. Harriott had stable mental status during the reporting year 2023/2024. However, she continued to have delusions about celebrities and to venture out at night to a restaurant and not return home until early morning. This disrupted her medication regimen.
Ms. Harriott was incapable of managing her finances and the responsibility was transferred to the Public Guardian and Trustee. Her financial incapacity was a source of stress and destabilization for her. Financial control by the Public Guardian and Trustee removed that stressor and ensured that Ms. Harriott had steady access to funds to meet her needs.
Current Reporting Year – November 2024 – November 2025
There are several factors during the current reporting year that stand in Ms. Harriott’s favour: she has remained stable during the reporting year; there have been no incidents of violence or aggression; there have been only two emergency visits and no hospital admissions; her tenure in her LOFT accommodation is stable; she has been independent in her self-care needs; her case manager regularly visited her residence and found it appropriately maintained; and she has maintained stability in the community, compliance with supervision and treatment, owing to the high supervision provided to her.
Ms. Harriott has continued to require reminders of appointment dates for appointments with her psychiatrist. On the further less favourable side, her insight into the potential effects, if she were to discontinue her medications, her understanding of her Board status and legal restrictions have been limited; and she is financially incapable and dependent on the Public Guardian and Trustee to manage her finances.
The Hospital Report at pages 82 and 83 outlines the following potential risk regarding re- offence:
If Ms. Harriott were to reoffend, it would likely occur in the context of medication non-compliance and/or exposure to destabilizers and stressors, absent ongoing access to adequate supports and enforceable rapid interventions Ms. Harriott’s mental state has historically exhibited fragility in response to stress, and she has been susceptible to periods of increased irritability, paranoia, and impulsivity despite ongoing treatment adherence. When more unwell, her compliance with treatment and follow-up has historically deteriorated. Absent an ongoing high level of external support and enforcement, and access to rapid interventions during periods of instability, she is likely to discontinue treatment longitudinally and suffer an acute decompensation of her mental state. When unwell, she has exhibited prominent paranoid and grandiose delusions, severe behavioral dyscontrol, disorganization, hostility, and agitation. As evidenced at the time of the index offence, she is susceptible in this context to aggress against those around her as a result of misinterpretation of environmental stimuli and/or interpersonal sensitivity.
Oral Evidence of Dr. Artemis Igoumenou
Dr. Artemis Igoumenou testified at the hearing. She provided no material updates on Ms. Harriott’s circumstances since the date of the Hospital Report prepared on November 10, 2025. Dr. Igoumenou testified that she took over as Mr. Harriott’s treating psychologist in May 2025.
Dr. Igoumenou emphasized some positive areas in Ms. Harriott’s circumstances during the current reporting year pointing to the following: Ms. Harriott has remained stable with no deterioration in her mental status; she is medication compliant; there have been no incidents of violence and aggression; there have been no hospital admissions for mental illness; she has stable tenancy in her LOFT housing where she has been for 3½ years and there have been no concerns there for the last two years; there is robust case management, her case manager visiting her residence regularly; Ms. Harriott enjoys these visits; and the case manager reports that Ms. Harriott’s apartment is well maintained.
The doctor stated that Ms. Harriott is very pleased with her accommodation. She pointed out that the most recent admission to Hospital was in 2023 and that admission was pertaining to her physical health, not her mental health.
Dr. Igoumenou pointed to a frailty in Ms. Harriott’s practice in relation to fulfilling attendance requirements for scheduled team appointments Ms. Harriott must be reminded about the times for appointments. It has been discovered that, if the case manager reminds her proximate in time to the appointments, Ms. Harriott attends the appointments as required. Dr. Igoumenou also pointed out that in view of Ms. Harriott’s progress over this reporting year, the team is confident that the reporting requirement can safely be decreased from at least once a week to at least once every two weeks.
Dr. Igoumenou testified that three main sources of stress for Ms. Harriott have been financial incapacity, housing and changes in team members. She testified however that the recent change to herself as Ms. Harriott’s team psychiatrist has presented with no concerns. The doctor indicated that she and Ms. Harriott have developed a positive rapport, so this has not been a source of stress.
The other two sources of stress have also been assuaged in Dr. Igoumenou’s observation. This is evidenced by both the mental stability she has experienced since the Public Guardian and Trustee has taken charge of her finances and her expressed contentment with her accommodation.
The question was raised as to whether there is confidence that if Ms. Harriott is granted a conditional discharge she will continue to comply with her treatment and medication requirements.
Dr. Igoumenou responded that Ms. Harriott lacks insight into the difference between the level of restriction under a detention order in comparison to a conditional discharge. For this reason, whether subject to a detention order or a conditional discharge, Ms. Harriott will in Dr. Igoumenou’s estimation comply with what is required of her on either disposition.
Dr. Igoumenou was asked about the application of the Mental Health Act (“MHA”) in Ms. Harriott’s current circumstances as compared to her circumstances last year when a detention order was needed on the view that the MHA would not allow a prompt enough response to meet Ms. Harriott’s urgent needs in the event of decompensation.
In her response Dr. Igoumenou referred to the fact that Ms. Harriott’s mental status is much improved over the current reporting year. She pointed to her medication compliance, stabilization on her medications, the removal of the housing and financial stressors and the fact she has not required hospitalization for mental illness since 2021. In her opinion those factors support the view that Ms. Harriott is not likely to require hospital admission, and if she did require this, the doctor is confident Ms. Harriott would present herself to the Hospital voluntarily.
Dr. Igoumenou testified that in any event she does not believe Ms. Harriott’s mental status at this stage is sufficiently serious that she would meet the certification criteria under the MHA. She expressed the hope that if Ms. Harriott does decompensate that her needs could be addressed in the community.
The Parties’ Positions
- The parties maintain their joint position that Ms. Harriott continues to be a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the least onerous and least restrictive disposition, that is necessary and appropriate in the circumstances, is a conditional discharge requiring Ms. Harriott, among other conditions, to reside in the highly supervised LOFT St. Anne’s Place housing.
The Board’s Conclusion
While mindful of the parties’ joint position the Board is required to come to an independent determination.
Based on the evidence before us, the Board unanimously accepts the opinion, as stated in the Hospital Report, that Ms. Harriott remains a significant threat to public safety within the criteria outlined in Winko v British Columbia, 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 SCR 625, and as defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code. The Board considered the criteria, as set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, namely, the paramount criterion of the safety of the public and Ms. Harriott’s community re-integration, her mental condition and her other needs and finds that these criteria are satisfied by the disposition.
We accept, pursuant to s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, that the least onerous and least restrictive disposition, that is necessary and appropriate in the circumstances, is an order discharging Ms. Harriott, among the other existing conditions, on the condition she reside under high supervision at LOFT St. Anne’s Place community housing.
The Board arrives at that decision for the following reasons.
Inability to cope with life stresses was a key underlying factor that often led to decompensatory behaviours. Looking at changes from the previous review year the Board is impressed with Ms. Harriott’s observable progress.
As Dr. Igoumenou testified, before and during the previous reporting year, Ms. Harriott was incapable of managing her finances and this was a great source of stress and instability for her. The transfer of that function to the Public Guardian and Trustee in the previous reporting year bore fruit for Ms. Harriott in the current reporting year. She has been able to meet living expenses she once had problems covering. Understandably this has made her life in her housing and in the community less stressful. Ms. Harriott is very content with her housing accommodation.
The other source of stress mentioned by Dr. Igoumenou was change in the members of her clinical team which could potentially have been the case with Dr. Igoumenou taking on Ms. Harriott’s case during the current reporting year. The evidence is however that Dr. Igoumenou and Ms. Harriott have developed good rapport. So that change has not been a source of stress. On the whole Ms. Harriott gets along very well with her treatment providers and respects their authority to make decisions about her treatment.
The problems with non-compliance with reporting requirements have also been remedied by Ms. Harriott being reminded proximate in time about appointments.
Overall Ms. Harriott’s mental status is much improved over the current reporting year. She has been medication compliant, stabilized on her medications, free of the housing and financial stressors and she has not been hospitalized for psychiatric issues since 2021.
In Dr. Igoumenou’s estimation Ms. Harriott would comply with either the forensic or civil system under the Mental Health Act because she does not appreciate the difference between the systems. This bodes in favour of reducing the risk that Ms. Harriott will become unstable in the community and pose a threat to public safety.
In keeping with the Criminal Code’s s. 672.5401 criteria, a conditional discharge allows Ms. Harriott to maintain her integration in the community and protects public safety given the Hospital’s authority to approve and monitor the accommodation where Ms. Harriott resides.
Based on the evidence in the Hospital Report and the evidence added in Dr. Igoumenou’s testimony, the Board finds, pursuant to s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, that Ms. Harriott remains a significant threat to public safety and that currently the necessary and appropriate disposition, that is the least onerous and the least restrictive to mitigate threat to public safety, is a conditional discharge on condition among others that she reside in the high support accommodation at LOFT St. Anne’s Place housing.
The Board wishes to extend our acknowledgement to Ms. Harriott for the progress she has made during this reporting year and hope her progress continues going forward. We are pleased that she is content with her housing and that she has great rapport with the treatment team.
DATED this 21st day of January, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
The Hon. B. Allen Legal Member
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board