Re: Andrew Wakeling
ORB File No: 6567
Hearing held on: Wednesday, October 29, 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: Ms. J. Ferguson Dr. R. Sheppard Dr. L. O. Lightfoot Mr. S. Duffy
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Andrew Wakeling Counsel: Mr. Nicholas Xynnis
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Mr. D. Blumenkrans
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. R. Mushlian
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated March 10, 2026)
Introduction
On July 3, 2014, Mr. Andrew Wakeling was found not criminally responsible (“NCR”) on a Criminal Code charge of criminal harassment. Since his NCR finding, Mr. Wakeling has been subject to Dispositions of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB” or the “Board”), most recently a Disposition dated October 2, 2024, granting him a conditional discharge subject to certain terms and conditions including that he continues to reside at 96 Dowling Avenue, Toronto.
On October 29, 2025, a panel of the ORB convened at CAMH to hold a hearing for the purposes of an annual review of Mr. Wakeling's Disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Wakeling was present and was represented by his counsel, Mr. Xynnis.
The issues at the hearing are whether Mr. Wakeling represents a significant threat to the safety of the public, and if so, what is the necessary and appropriate Disposition having regard to the criteria set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
For the reasons set out below, this Board has concluded that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a discharge on the same terms and conditions as are currently in place.
Index Offences
- The circumstances giving rise to the index offences are extracted from last year’s ORB Reasons, as follows:
“In December 2013, Mr. Wakeling begin attending at a Subway food shop where Ms. G worked, sitting at a table watching her, and then following her to her second job at a Tim Hortons coffee shop about 2 miles away. The two were strangers to each other. This behaviour escalated from about once a week to about every other day.
“On January 22, 2014 at about 8P. M., Mr. Wakeling was at the subway shop and had been staring at Ms. G for approximately an hour. Feeling uncomfortable, she went to the back of the shop. On the security camera there, she saw him take a bag of chips and On January 22, 2014 at about 8P. M., Mr. Wakeling was at the subway shop and had been staring at Ms. G for approximately an hour. Feeling uncomfortable, she went to the back of the shop. On the security camera there, she saw him take a bag of chips and can of pop and leave without paying. She followed him out, told him he had to pay for the items and grabbed one of them, whereupon he spat in her face and took off. The next morning, January 23, Ms. G was at her job at Tim Hortons, when Mr. Wakeling entered the shop.
Miss G called the police and Mr. Wakeling was arrested on charges of left, assault, and criminal harassment. She stated to police that she was terrified of him, and she was described as visibly upset over the harassment. Mr. Wakeling reported that he was living on the street and panhandling at the time. He said he stole the food because he was hungry, and he spot on Ms. G because he was angry and tired of being hungry. He denied following her, and said she thought she would welcome his contact and thought “everything was fine” when he went to Tim Hortons the next morning. He was vague and evasive about his previous behaviour since December. Both his mother and sister reported that during this time he had been falling into a sort of trance in which he would stare off into space for extended periods of time.”
- At the time of the index offences, Mr. Wakeling was homeless, and his illness was untreated.
Positions of the Parties
At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as to their recommendations to the Board. Counsel for the hospital recommended that Mr. Wakeling’s current disposition be continued, which is a discharge on the same conditions as are currently in place.
Counsel for the Attorney General supported the continuation of the existing Discharge Disposition, subject to the same conditions.
Mr. Xynnis, counsel for Mr. Wakeling, indicated he was seeking an absolute discharge.
At the conclusion of the hearing, all parties maintained their initial positions.
Personal Background
Mr. Wakeling’s background and personal history are set out in detail in the Hospital Report dated August 29, 2024 (the “Hospital Report”) and need not be repeated here. Briefly summarized, he is a 41-year-old man who, at about 15 years of age, exhibited unusual behaviours, including, social withdrawal, ritualistic mannerisms regarding his music and a significant deterioration in academic achievement. He became truant, verbally aggressive and easily angered. He began to smoke cannabis. His parents took him for counselling. He lived with his grandmother on various occasions. After graduating from high school, he worked in jobs from which he was frequently let go. He had numerous sexual engagements and some brief relationships.
As for his substance use, Mr. Wakeling reported cannabis use going back to high school, smoking approximately one joint per day, and spending most of his money on cannabis and music; he bought cannabis with the money he made panhandling when he was homeless. He reported drinking alcohol since high school or his early twenties, generally a one-litre bottle of beer a couple of nights per week, and using crack cocaine, methamphetamine, and ecstasy on a few occasions.
Mr. Wakeling is single, with no known dependents. He is unemployed and supported by Ontario Disability Support Program (“ODSP”) benefits. He is considered capable with respect to property and treatment decisions. Sadly, Mr. Wakeling has lost his parents, his mother having died in 2015 from cancer, and his father in 2020, also from cancer. He has a sister who has maintained some contact with him.
Following his NCR finding, Mr. Wakeling was admitted to CAMH on a General Forensic unit on a Detention Order. He remained detained in the hospital until his discharge to the community on August 4, 2022. He currently resides in the community at 96 Dowling Avenue, Toronto. This is a subsidized, supportive residence.
Criminal History
- Mr. Wakeling has a criminal record. An examination of his record, spanning from 2006 to 2010, indicates that the offences occurred during the period when Mr. Wakeling was ill or becoming mentally ill. He has numerous convictions for failing to comply with probation. Significantly, when one considers his index offence, he has three prior convictions for criminal harassment. Mr. Wakeling’s probation orders extended to three years, with the final one ending in 2013 prior to the index offence.
Psychiatric History
Mr. Wakeling’s first psychiatric attendance was apparently in 2007 or early 2008. He was living with his grandmother at the time, and under house arrest following criminal charges in 2007. His thought and behaviour became very disturbed. At some point, he was brought to hospital, examined, found not to be certifiable under the Mental Health Act, and then discharged. He had several court-related psychiatric assessments in 2008 and 2009. He was convicted on several charges, and then had successive probations, during which he regularly saw a psychiatrist and a probation officer. When his probation ended in 2013, he severed all connections with his psychiatrist and stopped taking medication.
Mr. Wakeling was frequently and increasingly experiencing symptoms of mental illness from 2007 to 2013. This history comes from many reports from psychiatrists and probation officers, as well as collateral information from his mother and sister, as extracted and compiled in the Hospital Report. He received a variety of diagnoses, including schizoaffective disorder, cannabis abuse, and paranoid schizophrenia.
A consistent theme in Mr. Wakeling’s psychiatric history is his lack of insight into his illness and need for treatment, refusing or only pretending to take medication, and not attending treatment follow-up. His symptoms included paranoid and persecutory delusions and hallucinations. At times, these symptoms incorporated family members. The themes included thinking that people who disagreed with him were possessed by devils and that people were trying to poison him. There are recurring descriptions of his agitated, impulsive, bizarre, unsanitary, and “very scary” behaviour when ill. On one occasion, he barricaded himself inside his grandmother’s basement. Another time, his threatening and aggressive behaviour towards hospital staff led to his being placed in seclusion for a week.
Mr. Wakeling was reported by multiple sources, including his mother, as very good at masking his symptoms and knowing what to say and not say, to convince others he was not ill. It is reported that his behaviour improved when compliant with his medication, but he generally resisted taking it and failed to show up for treatment appointments. The Hospital Report indicates that Mr. Wakeling’s history demonstrates that when consistently medicated and closely monitored on oral medications or when on a long-acting injectable (“LAI”) antipsychotic medication, he does well.
Mr. Wakeling completely disconnected himself from mental health care by the time he was arrested for the index offence in January of 2014. He had been homeless for two weeks, after being kicked out of his grandmother’s house. He was brought to a hospital emergency department on January 12th due to his alarming state, and discharged the next day, with a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia and a list of shelters. He was living on the streets, panhandling, smoking cannabis, and drinking beer.
Current Diagnoses
- Mr. Wakeling’s current mental health diagnoses are:
Schizophrenia;
Cannabis Use Disorder, Severe; early remission;
Alcohol Use Disorder, Moderate, early remission; and
Fetishistic Paraphilic Interests.
Evidence at the Hearing
The evidence at this hearing consisted of the Hospital Report and the oral testimony of Dr. A. Igoumenou who is Mr. Wakeling’s treatment psychiatrist and Mr. Wakeling, who gave evidence on his own behalf.
Since August 4, 2022, Mr. Wakeling has lived in a subsidized, co-ed, mental-health supportive residence at 96 Dowling Avenue, Toronto, in close proximity to CAMH. The housing provides on-site staff support 24/7 and medication oversight as well as meal preparation. During the reporting year from September 2024 to September 2025, Mr. Wakeling continued to be assessed as capable of consenting to treatment. His treating psychiatrist was Dr. Paul Benassi and the CAMH Expanded Forensic Outpatient Service (“EFOPS”) until February 11, 2025, when his care was transferred to FOPS under Dr. Artemis Igoumenou.
The Hospital Report provided the following information regarding the reporting year, of which evidence was confirmed by Dr. Igoumenou:
“During the reporting year, Mr. Wakeling remained stable and compliant with all reporting requirements in the community. There have been no incidents, no emergency department visits or psychiatric hospitalizations in the past year.
“Mr. Wakeling remained compliant with his antipsychotic medications (zuclopenthixol decanoate injection 75mg every two weeks). He was not prescribed any other psychotropic medications or medications for physical health issues. Mr. Wakeling remained capable of consenting to treatment.
“During the reporting year, Mr. Wakeling continued presenting at his baseline (at times anxious, overtalkative, overinclusive and restless) without any evidence of mood or psychotic symptoms. He denied experiencing any auditory hallucinations in the last year. There were no incidents of sexual or physical violence while in the community requiring intervention.
“Regarding substance use and breach of conditions, there were no incidents in the last year, and all of Mr. Wakeling’s UDS were negative for cannabis. Mr. Wakeling’s abstinence from substances continued to be motivated by his fears of re-admission to hospital. He disclosed to the team that while under the ORB he would abstain from cannabis, but once discharged he would resume using it socially. He requested from the FOPS team that the cannabis use restriction was removed from his ORB.
“Regarding rehabilitative programming, Mr. Wakeling participated in substance relapse prevention counselling (group-based) for a few sessions, before deciding that he did not want to complete the course, the WRAP group (a wellness and recovery group) and weekly community recreational activities organized by the hospital (mainly the waking group at FOPS). FOPS team continued to encourage Mr. Wakeling to maintain structure in the community as part of his risk management plan. In his leisure time, Mr. Wakeling socialized with some of his peers at his housing, and created and recorded his own music songs. There have been no conflicts observed by staff at FOPS or his housing.
“Considering relationships, Mr. Wakeling did not pursue any romantic relationships. He continued using the services of a sex trade worker who he paid to have her masturbate him using her feet. He used their services on several occasions (maximum on a monthly basis) without incident. He was open about those sexual encounters with the FOPS team and receptive to questioning about risks and health concerns.
“With regard to family connections and personal supports, Mr. Wakeling had not been in regular contact with his sister in the last year and more recently he had been in contact with his paternal aunt. He avoided discussing with his sister finances related to their father’s inheritance.
There were no major concerns regarding Mr. Wakeling’s physical health. He was connected to a family physician in the community but did not seek them out in the past year.
“Mr. Wakeling had overall a stable year. He continued showing awareness and understanding of his mental disorder and its symptomatology. He continued minimizing the risk of relapse if he was to stop taking his psychotropic medications. His compliance with psychotropic medications was admittedly attributable to being under the auspices of the Ontario Review Board. He reported to staff that although he was agreeable to take his mediations, he would stop once achieved an absolute discharge. He did not believe that psychogenic substances posed a risk of mental decompensation, and his abstinence was due to his external legal conditions. His insight and narrative around the index offence remained unchanged from previous years.”
- With respect to Mr. Wakeling’s risk of re-offending, the Hospital Report provided the following summary of the pertinent risk factors:
Overall Strengths:
Has consistently abstained from substances (out of fear for hospitalization)
Stable mental state
Adhering to medications
Reliable with appointments
Open to team’s suggestions and ideas
Has inherited approximately $200k but family (sister) is holding
Some outings, WRAP, unlimited SRP group
Avoids potential problems and misunderstanding seeking to develop sexual relationships with unknown women by seeking out sex workers regarding paraphilic foot fetish and sexual needs.
Salient Challenges:
Unclear if there is an awareness or acceptance of need for support while living in the community if he was provided the opportunity to choose his own housing.
Plans to return to cannabis use in the future and once not under the ORB
Some potential for misunderstanding or challenges in developing relationships with women.
Recommendation of a continued conditional discharge
Continue current housing. Mr. Wakeling would like to live more independently in the future (not in the next year) and FOPS planned to explore options to transition to independent living with a transition through a step-up type housing that provides less support that Dowling Street and offer of more independence
Mr. Wakeling stated he planned to return to cannabis use once no longer under the ORB. The FOPS team considered removing the cannabis abstinence clause and more safely observing for any changes in mental status/risk and ability to control cannabis use.
Encourage the development of structured leisure/work activities
Encourage the expansion of social network.
Clinical Risk Factors
The following criminogenic risk factors are important in the understanding of Mr. Wakeling’s current and future risk:
A. Major Mental Illness
Mr. Wakeling suffers from a major mental illness, schizophrenia. When unwell, he presents with delusions, agitation, mood disturbances and behavioural dyscontrol that can result in conduct that poses a real risk of physical and/or psychological harm and is criminal in nature. With appropriate psychotropic treatment and compliance, he has demonstrated improvement in his mental condition.
B. Substance Use
Mr. Wakeling has a history of problematic alcohol and cannabis use, including during his time under the Review Board. Despite completing therapeutic programming in this regard, when experiencing cravings, he will act impulsively without considering the consequences (e.g., absconding). Based on his history, psychoactive substances have rendered him more impulsive and disinhibited, in addition to exacerbating his underlying psychotic disorder. He last used alcohol and cannabis in August 2023. Mr. Wakeling communicated with the FOPS team his intention to resume cannabis use in the future and when no longer under the Review Board.
C. Problems with Insight
Mr. Wakeling has historically demonstrated a lack of awareness, understanding and appreciation of his mental disorder, its symptomatology, the consequences of his illness, the role of psychiatric treatment, the effects of substance use and the factors that increase his risk for violence/reoffence. In the reporting year, he has demonstrated fluctuation in his insight into his psychotic disorder and treatment. It is unclear if this represents a change in insight, positive impression management, or a combination of both.
D. Compliance and Response to Treatment and Supervision
Mr. Wakeling has a history of non-compliance and resistance to psychiatric treatment and services. There is evidence of prior supervision failures (i.e., breaches of probation) and non-compliance to medical supervision except under duress. File reports indicate that he has taken medication orally and intramuscularly only when supervised and when mandated to do so. There is also evidence that he has often been guarded or defensive about his symptoms when ill and reluctant (or incapable) of finding and accepting treatment when needed. He has engaged in covert attempts to avoid detection of substance use and medication non-compliance, including while under the auspices of the Review Board. His compliance to treatment and supervision is externally driven and negatively impacted by his lack of insight into same.
Despite Mr. Wakeling having participated in therapeutic programs, his ability and/or willingness to integrate and apply such knowledge and skills has been limited. His motivation for participating in such interventions have been likely driven by his own impression management (i.e., to create a positive image to attain discharge).
E. Paraphilic Interests
Mr. Wakeling endorses paraphilic interests of a fetishistic nature (i.e., feet). His past criminal conduct is not overtly sexual in nature, yet involved becoming fixated and stalking adult women who he likely was sexually or romantically interested in. He is currently using the services of sex trade workers to meet his paraphilic needs in a consensual manner. There is evidence that he experiences increased sexual preoccupation and disinhibition during periods of mental decompensation and/or when using substances.
F. Limited Personal Supports
Mr. Wakeling lacks significant personal supports that can be reasonably expected to help manage his violence risk by facilitating his psychological and social adjustment. His social network in the community is limited to his immediate family, i.e., his sister and paternal aunt.
- With respect to Mr. Wakeling’s likelihood of reoffending, the Hospital Report provided as follows:
Re-offence Scenario
In risk assessment, one of the best predictors is a patient’s history of violence. Mr. Wakeling’s history of violence involves engaging in behaviour that has caused physical and/or psychological harm to others that is criminal in nature (i.e., multiple charges of criminal harassment and assault). Based on the evidence, Mr. Wakeling has exhibited agitation (i.e., verbally aggressive and intimidating behaviour, spitting at others) and harassing behaviour when mentally unwell. Mr. Wakeling’s criminal harassment charges (i.e., stalking behaviors) were directed at adult female targets and demonstrated a level of forethought and planning. His stalking behavior in the current offence escalated from occasional visits to frequent daily visits in a short period of time. In both stalking incidents, cessation of his behaviour required external legal intervention.
If Mr. Wakeling is to reoffend, this will likely transpire in the context of non-compliance to psychiatric treatment, followed by falling away from professional services, and active substance abuse, leading to a return of psychosis and/or mood disturbance. As he experiences escalating psychosis, and resulting disinhibition and poor behavioural control, he will engage in agitated and/or harassing/stalking behavior, as was the circumstances around his index offence. Due to his lack of insight and resistance to psychiatric services, it is unlikely he would seek out assistance to prevent further decompensation of his mental condition.
- With respect to the issue of significant threat, the Hospital Report concluded:
Composite Assessment of Risk
Given Mr. Wakeling’s history of psychotic illness, problems with substance use, non-compliance with psychiatric treatment and supervision, limited insight into his condition and risk factors for reoffence, and risk assessment scores, he continues to meet the threshold for significant threat as defined in Section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code.
Dr. Igoumenou gave evidence at the hearing. She testified that there have been no updates since the Hospital Report was prepared. With respect to the issue of significant threat, she testified that the risk factors include Mr. Wakeling’s diagnosis of a major mental illness, his non-compliance with taking his medication, his use of cannabis and his limited insight into his illness. Dr. Igoumenou also testified with respect to his scores from his recent risk assessment of September 9th, 2025. His historic risk factors have been well documented and appear in the hospital report. With respect to his dynamic risk factors, in the last six months, he continues to show difficulties with insight, and continues to experience residual psychotic symptoms and behaviour despite treatment and supervision. In addition, Mr. Wakeling experiences a lack of personal support, has issues with his living situation, with supervision and with coping with stress.
With respect to protective factors, Dr. Igoumenou testified that there are three main protective factors: secure attachment, attitude and professional care and that when the treatment team looked at risk items and protective factors, the risk would be low for reoffending if the disposition of conditional discharge continued with continued supports in place.
Dr. Igoumenou also testified that adherence to medication compliance was an important requirement to mitigate risk, and she had some concerns as to whether Mr. Wakeling would be compliant with taking medication if he received an absolute discharge. She testified that as of the October 7th, 2025, hearing, Mr. Wakeling communicated with his case manager that, if given an absolute discharge, he would stop taking medication and start taking cannabis, but that after the hearing was adjourned, he changed his mind and stated that he would continue to take his medication and not other substances. Dr. Igoumenou stressed that adherence to medication compliance and abstaining from substances was critical to mitigating risk for Mr. Wakeling. Dr. Igoumenou added that despite the positive change in Mr. Wakeling’s position, she continues to have concerns about whether Mr. Wakefield would take his medication and abstain from substances and she has communicated this to him.
When asked if she thought Mr. Wakeling had changed his answer regarding medication compliance and the use of substances because of the impending ORB hearing, Dr. Igoumenou replied that she hoped that has actually changed his mind, but that further assessment is needed to see if he stands by this new position. She added that historically, he doesn’t like taking his medication, requires external motivation to take them, and has taken the position that if discharged, he would stop taking them. Dr. Igoumenou testified that Mr. Wakeling has since denied saying that he would stop taking his medication if granted an absolute discharge.
When asked about Mr. Wakeling’s use of substances over the reporting year, Dr. Igoumenou stated that there have been no instances of substance use whereas there had been two instances of substance use in September of the last reporting year. It was Dr. Igoumenou’s opinion that Mr. Wakefield remained abstinent because he does not want to come back to hospital.
When asked what resources would be available to Mr. Wakeling if given an absolute discharge, Dr. Igoumenou replied that the treatment team would have to rely on the Mental Health Act and Mr. Wakeling’s ability to seek help.
When asked what she thought the most important elements of a conditional discharge were that allow for mitigation of risk for Mr. Wakeling, Dr. Igoumenou replied that the current restrictions in place were effective in mitigating risk. She testified that Mr. Wakeling is very obedient to the restrictions currently in place because he doesn’t want to come back to hospital and this motivates him to comply.
With respect to Mr. Wakeling’s housing, Dr. Igoumenou testified that his current housing at Dowling Street is supportive housing and that the supports are available to him if he wants them. She added that Mr. Wakeling is on injectable medication, so this doesn’t require monitoring by housing staff. Dr. Igoumenou testified that Mr. Wakeling would like more independent housing and that the treatment team supports this and are working with his case manager on this issue but that, in her view this would not happen in the upcoming year.
Dr. Igoumenou testified that Mr. Wakeling had made a couple of requests with respect to the upcoming disposition, being that it not name a housing address for him and that the cannabis use restriction be removed but that he later decided to leave the housing provision as is but continued to want the cannabis restriction removed. Mr. Wakeling agreed to stay at Dowling until another place is found. Dr. Igoumenou testified that she does not support removal of the cannabis use restriction because Mr. Wakeling has used covert means to avoid detection of cannabis in the past. Dr. Igoumenou added that consideration was given to the removal of the cannabis restriction but that when Mr. Wakelling said he would stop taking medication, the combination of noncompliance with medication and the use of cannabis would be very dangerous.
When asked by Mr. Wakeling’s counsel Mr. Xynnis whether Mr. Wakeling’s living situation was about the same during the past year while he was on a conditional discharge as it was the two prior years when he remained on a detention order with conditions, Dr. Igoumenou agreed that it was. Dr. Igoumenou also confirmed that Mr. Wakeling has not engaged in any violent or untoward behaviour in the past year or for quite some time.
When asked about Mr. Wakeling’s compliance with treatment, Dr. Igoumenou confirmed that he has been compliant with taking his medication but has been resistant to psychological interventions because of residual symptoms of his illness coupled with psychopathic traits. Dr. Igoumenou reiterated her concerns about Mr. Wakeling’s recent comment that if granted an absolute discharge, he would stop taking his medication and start using cannabis but did admit that he has now changed his views in this regard since October 7, 2025. Dr. Igoumenou testified that his current position may be contrived and that Mr. Wakeling doesn’t back up his current position with ideas about what he would do and how he would do it.
Dr. Igoumenou reiterated the importance of Mr. Wakeling maintain medication compliance and sobriety and that deciding when an absolute discharge is appropriate is a balancing act which might take two, three, four or five years of a conditional discharge order to be able to make the leap of faith to an absolute discharge. When asked if Mr. Wakeling’s history of the past few years gives her confidence in his ability to do well under an absolute discharge, she responded that Mr. Wakeling does well under supervision but she was unsure if he would do as well without restrictions and that if there were no restrictions, she had concerns about his use of substances and compliance with medications. Dr. Igoumenou testified that there is no set time period of non-violence before an absolute discharge is appropriate but that certain factors need to be in place. She testified that the hospital provides psychoeducation to assist in the development of insight. During this process, there are discussions about why cannabis might affect one’s mental state, about symptoms and risk factors. Dr. Igoumenou stated that if Mr. Wakeling would successfully complete psychological intervention and adjust his views for a longer period of time, she would recommend an absolute discharge and admitted that, at some point, an absolute discharge would be appropriate for Mr. Wakeling.
Dr. Igoumenou testified that if given an absolute discharge, Mr. Wakeling would be offered supports and given a prescription for his medication but that he would have no obligation to take it or to abstain from cannabis use and that he had a history that, when given freedom he didn’t do well, that he didn’t take his medication and he lost contact with mental health services. Dr. Igoumenou added that Mr. Wakeling remains ambivalent about abstaining from cannabis and more often than not he has said he’d discontinue medication and use cannabis if he were able. Dr. Igoumenou concluded that therefore, Mr. Wakeling remains a significant threat and that an absolute discharge is inappropriate
When asked if it is possible to know the nature of the harm he would present to public if he went off his medication and started using cannabis, Dr. Igoumenou replied that there could be multiple offences given that when Mr. Wakeling is not taking his medication, he becomes agitated, exhibits more harassing behaviours, and becomes more impulsive in his actions, which, in the past, has led to legal intervention. Dr. Igoumenou also testified that non-compliance combined with the use of cannabis will bring back paranoia, impulsivity and behaviours which would likely lead to reoffending.
When asked about Mr. Wakeling’s plans if granted an absolute discharge, Dr. Igoumenou replied that she was not aware of any plans he might have for employment but knew that he would like to become a better solo guitarist and that he might take guitar lessons.
When asked what Mr. Wakeling needed to do for her to recommend an absolute discharge, Dr. Igoumenou testified that he needs to improve his insight as to why cannabis is a bad idea and taking medication is necessary for the rest of his life. She added that he needs more structure in his day-to-day life. Dr. Igoumenou also testified that Mr. Wakeling needs to complete a relapse prevention program and that such courses are always ongoing and that he could take it once a week for a few hours per week. Dr. Igoumenou stated that Mr. Wakeling started such a course in the reporting year and took a few sessions but didn’t complete this group course and dropped out in the summer.
Dr. Igoumenou commended Mr. Wakeling on taking his medication and meeting with the treatment team regularly and that, even without an appointment, he comes to speak with her regularly. She confirmed that there have been no incidents of violence or aggression. She added that he asks for permission even regarding things not in her purview because he doesn’t want to be readmitted. Dr. Igoumenou testified that sometimes he has sufficient insight to understand that if on an absolute discharge and he re-offends, he would end up back under the auspices of the ORB but that sometimes he thinks he’s not capable of reoffending. Dr. Igoumenou testified that with respect to his latest offence, Mr. Wakeling doesn’t think he did anything wrong and that he takes responsibility for spitting on the victim but says he didn’t do the other parts of the offence.
Mr. Wakeling gave evidence at the hearing. He testified that he was seeking an absolute discharge because he wants to move on with his life and that it would be nice to be through with being in the forensic system. Mr. Wakeling testified that he plays guitar and that he would keep working on his music and probably get a part time or a full-time job. He testified that he thought he would have no problem finding his own apartment, that he didn’t mind sharing a kitchen and that he didn’t need expensive accommodation.
Mr. Wakeling testified that if he received an absolute discharge, he would continue taking his medication but admitted that he had thought that because of drowsiness it causes he would rather not take it but then decided that drowsiness is something he can deal with and that he made a mistake saying that he would stop taking his medication. Mr. Wakeling testified that he knows that he needs to keep taking medication for the rest if his life. When asked if the medication helps him, he replied that he doesn’t hear voices or anything of that nature that others with schizophrenia hear and that the only time he heard a voice was when I was about to fall asleep and that he heard his sisters voice in his head. He added that this happened a few times but hasn’t happened in the last few years. Mr. Wakeling testified that staying on his medication was his best bet but that it is possible that without it he would be OK but that he would use it to be safe.
Mr. Wakeling testified that he hasn’t used cannabis since November of 2023 and that if given an absolute discharge that he would try to abstain from cannabis and that he doesn’t do other drugs.
When asked if he had said recently that if given an absolute discharge he would take his medication and abstain from cannabis use to look good at today’s hearing, he denied such motivation and said that he had made a personal decision, that he had no desire to do violence to anyone and that he was falsely accused of criminal harassment which he did not do in this particular instance. Mr. Wakeling admitted that he spat on the victim of the index offence which charge was dropped but that he was found NCR with respect to the criminal harassment charge. Mr. Wakeling testified that he did spit on person who is the victim of index offence but that he had plead guilty to the other charges which he did not do to get out of jail, where he had been incarcerated for about two or three months.
Mr. Wakeling reiterated that he had no thoughts of violence and no desire to harm anyone or himself. When asked where he would live if given an absolute discharge, he testified that he would find something and that even though rents have gone up, he would be able to find cheaper accommodation and that he would stay at his current residence until he found something else as he didn’t want to be homeless again. Mr. Wakeling testified that he would continue seeing a psychiatrist until told he didn’t need to anymore.
When asked if he would take relapse prevention programming, Mr. Wakeling responded that he had taken it a few times, two or three times, during the period since 2014 that he’s been subject to the supervision of the ORB. He further testified that he has to walk to CAMH from Parkdale which takes about half an hour, that he comes once per week to participate in a community walk group, and on every other Thursday for his injection and that he is tired of walking back and forth between Dowling and CAMH and that he doesn’t want to have to walk to CAMH too many times per week. Mr. Wakeling then commented that perhaps he is lazy and that his medication makes him a bit tired. Mr. Wakeling testified that he has already done a relapse prevention program but that if he has to do it, he will but that he found it a bit boring.
Mr. Wakeling testified that his former treating psychiatrist Dr. Benassi wanted him to participate in two groups a week and that he is doing this by doing the group walk on Tuesdays at CAMH and a group session with Mike at 96 Dowling called “WRAP” which is about relapse, wellness and recovery on Wednesdays. Mr. Wakeling added that he enjoys the Wednesday group which has a different topic each week related to mental health and wellness.
Analysis and Conclusions
The Board carefully considered the evidence before them and has unanimously decided that Mr. Wakeling continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that a continuation of the current disposition of a conditional discharge subject to the same conditions as are currently in place is the most appropriate, least restrictive order. The Board has come to this conclusion based on the evidence before it. The factors that lead to such a conclusion include that Mr. Wakeling suffers from a major mental illness, Schizophrenia, which, when symptomatic, manifest as delusions, agitation, mood disturbances and behavioural dyscontrol, that can result in conduct that poses a real risk of physical and/or psychological harm and is criminal in nature. In addition to the historic risk factors of noncompliance and use of substances, in the last six months, dynamic risk factors are present including that he lacks insight, he continues to experience residual psychotic symptoms and behaviour despite treatment and supervision, he lacks meaningful personal support, he experiences some issues with his living situation, with supervision and with coping with stress.
Mr. Wakeling’s risk factors, as set out in the Hospital Report continue to be managed by the conditions in the current disposition and Mr. Wakeling’s desire to remain out of hospital. Especially concerning is the evidence presented, which was not disputed by Mr. Wakeling, of his expressed intention in October 2025 to stop taking his medication and start using cannabis again if given an absolute discharge. Despite Mr. Wakeling’s recent change of heart as confirmed in his testimony at the hearing, the Board found Dr. Igoumenou’s testimony coupled with the evidence in the Hospital Report that Mr. Wakeling’s limited insight into his illness and his historic dislike of taking medication for his illness and his recent request that the cannabis prohibition be removed from his disposition compelling and leads it to conclude that Mr. Wakeling’s risk to the public if granted an absolute discharge to be significant.
The Board is also cognizant of the fact that Mr. Wakeling has been subject to a conditional discharge for one reporting year and was in the community in the same housing situation and supervision on a detention order for the two previous reporting years. The panel has taken into consideration the evidence suggesting that Mr. Wakeling would benefit from certain programs that have been available to him but which he has not successfully completed in order for him to make a successful transition to an absolute discharge. This factor combined with Mr. Wakeling’s long history of problematic alcohol and cannabis use, including during his time under the ORB must be taken into consideration along with the dynamic risk factors enumerated above. Further, the Board takes into consideration that in the treatment team’s assessment, the provisions of the Mental Health Act would not be sufficient to manage his risk in the community should he suffer any decompensation in his mental state.
Mr. Wakeling is to be commended for his abstinence from cannabis and other substances and his compliance with medication and his overall positive behaviour during the last reporting year. However, the Board has concerns that, despite having a very good year, his gains are less the result of internal motivation than a desire not to return to hospital and would not be enduring if he was given an absolute discharge.
In this panel’s assessment, the continuation of the current Disposition with Mr. Wakeling remaining at his current residence or such other residence as is approved and assessed as appropriate with sufficient on-site supports to safely manage his risk should continue and is the least restrictive, most appropriate order, taking into consideration public safety, Mr. Wakeling’s mental condition, his reintegration into society and his other needs.
DATED this 10th day of March, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Ms. J. Ferguson
Legal Member
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board