Re: Aaron Finkler, 2026 CanLII 21146

Re: Aaron Finkler

ORB File No: 6959

Hearing held on: Thursday, February 5, 2026

Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health

Pursuant to: Sections 672.48(1) and 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. M. Segal

Members: Hon. N. Kozloff Dr. G. Chaimowitz Dr. H. Moulden Mr. S. Duffy

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Aaron Finkler Counsel: Mr. T. Whillier

The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Mr. K. Dow

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. C. Coughlan

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated March 10, 2026)

Introduction

1. On May 18, 2016, Aaron Finkler was found unfit to stand trial on account of a mental disorder (“unfit”) on five counts of conveying false information with intent to alarm, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Code”). Mr. Finkler has remained under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB and Board”) since that date.

2. Mr. Finkler is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB” and “the Board”) dated January 15, 2025, finding that he remains unfit to stand trial and is not likely to ever become fit to stand trial, and ordering that he be detained at the Forensic Services of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (“CAMH” and “the hospital”), Toronto, with privileges up to and including living in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge.

3. On Thursday, February 5, 2026, this panel of the Board was convened to conduct Mr. Finkler’s annual review. Mr. Finkler was present at the hearing and represented by Counsel, Mr. T. Whillier.

4. At the time of the hearing, Mr. Finkler was residing in high support community housing and was followed by a treatment team associated with the Extended Forensic Outpatient Service (“EFOPS”).

5. The issues to be determined at the hearing were whether Mr. Finkler remains unfit, whether he continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and, if so, what is the necessary and appropriate disposition which is also the least onerous and least restrictive, taking into account the factors set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

Position of the Parties

6. At the outset of the hearing, the parties were invited to provide their without prejudice positions.

7. Counsel for the hospital and counsel for the Attorney General advised that they were (jointly) seeking a continuation of the same Disposition as the current one i.e. that Mr. Finkler continues to be unfit to stand trial and is not likely ever to become fit to stand trial, that he continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public, and, that a continuation of the current detention order on the same terms and conditions as the current disposition is the least onerous and least restrictive disposition necessary to protect the public in the circumstances.

8. Counsel for Mr. Finkler stated that he had no meaningful instructions and advised that he expected Mr. Finkler to testify regarding accommodation and travel.

The Evidence

9. A Hospital Report, dated January 19, 2026 (the "Hospital Report"), was entered as Exhibit 1 in the hearing. Dr. M. Kravtsenyuk, one of the authors of the Hospital Report and Mr. Finkler’s responsible psychiatrist, and Mr. Finkler, testified viva voce at the hearing.

Conclusions of the Board

10. For the reasons that follow, the panel accepted the joint submission of the Hospital and the Attorney General, and concluded that Mr. Finkler remained unfit, was not likely to ever become fit, was a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the current detention order within the Forensic Service of CAMH upon the same terms and conditions remains the necessary and appropriate disposition.

The Index Offences

11. The details of and circumstances surrounding the index offences are set out in last year’s Reasons for Disposition dated January 31, 2025:

"On April 8, 2016, at approximately 12:03 a.m., Mr. Finkler is alleged to have been present at the York Mills Subway Station in Toronto, and to have called 911 and stated, “There’s going to be a bomb at York Mills Subway”.

On April 8th, 2016, at approximately 1:46 p.m., Mr. Finkler is alleged to have been present at the Yonge/Eglinton Subway Station in Toronto, and to have called 911 and stated, “There is a problem at Eglinton Subway”.

On April 8, 2016, at approximately 3:34 p.m., Mr. Finkler is alleged to have again been present at the York Mills Subway Station, again called 911 and again stated, “There’s going to be a bomb at York Mills Subway”.

On April 9, 2016, at approximately 6:43 p.m., Mr. Finkler is alleged to have again been present at the York Mills Subway Station, again called 911and stated, “Someone put a bomb at the station”.

On April 10, 2016, at approximately 11:22 p.m., Mr. Finkler is alleged to have again been present at York Mills Subway, again called 911 and stated, “There’s a bomb that’s going to go off at midnight”. Following this call, Mr. Finkler entered the subway and proceeded southbound. Police located him at the Eglinton Subway Station and arrested him.

Mr. Finkler has been unable to provide any sort of narrative describing these events, his thinking at that time, or his motivations for allegedly making the calls to 911."

Background Information Regarding the Accused

12. The following is set out in the Hospital Report under Identifying Data:

"Mr. Finkler is a 63-year-old single man. He has no children. He is financially supported by the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP). He was declared incapable of managing his finances, and the Public Guardian and Trustee is acting on his behalf in this regard.

Mr. Finkler was admitted to St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton, Assessment Unit, on April 25, 2016. under the authority of an Assessment Order (Form 48) to determine his fitness to stand trial. Mr. Finkler returned to court on May 18, 2016, and was found Unfit to Stand Trial. He was returned to St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton pending his initial Ontario Review Board (ORB) hearing. Mr. Finkler was transferred from St. Joseph’s Healthcare to a General Forensic Unit (LGUA) at CAMH on July 14, 2016, following his initial ORB hearing. During the initial period of his hospitalization at CAMH, Mr. Finkler resided on various general forensic units including LGUB, LGUC, and LGUD. Mr. Finkler was transferred to CAMH Secure Forensic Unit B (LSUB, Unit 3-3) on April 13, 2018.

Mr. Finkler was discharged from CAMH Secure Forensic Unit B (LSUB) to high support Reena housing on May 1, 2019, followed by the Extended Forensic Outpatient Service (EFOPS). He was re-admitted to LSUB from June 17-25, 2019, after which he returned to his Reena Housing, and was admitted to a general forensic unit from November 5, 2019, to January 6, 2020, after which he returned to his Reena Housing."

13. The details concerning Mr. Finkler’s Personal and Development History – including Childhood and Development History, Education History, Employment History, and Relationship History - are set out in the Hospital Report and need not be reproduced in full for the purposes of these reasons. They are well summarized in last year’s Reasons for Disposition:

"Mr. Finkler is 62 (Note: now 63) years old. He was born and raised in Toronto and is the youngest of three children. It was evident during infancy that he was quite developmentally delayed. He may have been born with a developmental disability, or his developmental delay may have resulted from an episode of asphyxia as an infant. He was raised in a “fairly dysfunctional family,” characterized by a domineering father and parents who had great difficulty in accepting their son’s limitations. Mr. Finkler had great difficulty adapting to elementary school. His family attempted a number of alternate school placements in an effort to optimize his potential.

Mr. Finkler continued to live at home with his parents until his late 20’s. His father and mother are both deceased. Mr. Finkler has a close relationship with his older brother, who is a doctor in British Columbia, and who attended this hearing virtually.

Mr. Finkler moved into a group home in his 20’s, but this was a negative experience for him, and he left the home.

In 1986, Mr. Finkler’s parents facilitated him living independently in a subsidized apartment building for adults with special needs. He was supervised by an Adult Protection Worker at that time. He also had regular contact and support from his parents, who would ensure that he had money and food and that his personal needs were met.

Mr. Finkler worked for the Jewish Community Centre for 6 years in a supervised janitorial/custodial capacity prior to 1990. He has not been employed since then.

In November 1994, Mr. Finkler was admitted to housing provided by Reena Foundation (“Reena”), an organization that works with individuals with physical and intellectual disabilities who can live independently. Reena places an emphasis on Life Skills training. While living there, Mr. Finkler received 3-4 hours per week of support from staff. His apartment was well maintained and clean, and he was able to prepare meals for himself, as well as look after his cat. He struggled in the area of social interactions and, over the years, had a number of verbal altercations with other tenants, superintendents and staff members. His rent was paid by the Ontario Disability Support Program (“ODSP”) directly and he was responsible for grocery shopping and personal needs. He managed his finances independently after being admitted to Reena housing.

Mr. Finkler is single and has never been in a romantic relationship. He has no known history of abuse or misuse of alcohol or other substances, and no history of criminal offences prior to the index offences."

Psychiatric History

14. The details of Mr. Finkler’s psychiatric history are also set out in the Hospital Report and need not be reproduced in full for the purposes of these reasons. They are summarized in last year’s Reasons for Disposition:

"Mr. Finkler’s diagnosis is autism spectrum disorder, with accompanying intellectual impairment. He had no formal psychiatric history or hospitalizations prior to the index offences. An independent psychological assessment was performed in 1990. Dr. Bresver, who conducted the assessment, indicated that he functioned “below the 10-year-old level”, and that in terms of money management he “cannot grasp number, time or quantity concepts”. Dr. Bresver concluded that living independently with monitoring from an Adult Protection Worker was insufficient and she recommended a group home living arrangement for him that would allow for some independent decision-making in the areas that he can handle and optimize his strengths.

On April 25, 2016, following his arrest, Mr. Finkler was admitted to St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton (“SJHH”) for an assessment of his fitness. On May 18, 2016, he was returned to court, found unfit to stand trial and returned to SJHH pending his initial ORB hearing. On July 14, 2016, following his initial hearing, he was transferred to a General Forensic Unit (“LGUA”) at CAMH. Over the next three years, he resided on various forensic units until May 1, 2019, when he was discharged to a 24-hour supervised residence for individuals with disabilities run by the Reena Foundation and followed by EFOPS. He has resided at his Reena housing ever since, except for two readmissions to CAMH, one from June 17 to 25, 2019, and the other from November 5, 2019, to January 6, 2020.

When Mr. Finkler first moved into his Reena housing, he did well with some staff but was verbally aggressive with other staff. He generally required a high level of support from his EFOPS treatment team and his group home staff in order to function safely. Over time his ability to interact appropriately with staff improved, but he continued to have poor frustration tolerance, poor impulse control, and remained cognitively rigid. He consistently presented with an inability to cope with stressors and conflict."

Course Since Last Disposition

15. Mr. Finkler’s course following the finding of unfit to stand trial in 2016 is set out in detail in the Hospital Report, and it is not necessary for the purposes of these reasons to reproduce all of that information here. His course from August 2023 to December 2024 is summarized in last year’s Reasons for Disposition and is provided for context:

"Mr. Finkler made progress in the most recent reporting period and demonstrated active engagement and a positive relationship with his treatment team. He was seen at least weekly by his EFOPS case manager, and usually every 1-2 weeks by his psychiatrist, Dr. Kravtsenyuk. He completed several community visits during the last reporting year. He has been open to coaching on problem solving with respect to relationships. He did not manifest any signs of major mental deterioration. There were no incidents of aggression. In early summer 2024, he began to utilize indirectly supervised community passes to attend CAMH and various vocational programs.

Mr. Finkler’s mental health remained relatively stable throughout this reporting year. He exhibited improved ability to deal with conflict, to act appropriately in social settings when feeling frustrated, and to effectively communicate frustration. During the previous reporting period, he often resorted to verbal threats and slurs, physical violence such as pushing and spitting, and running away from his support worker to exhibit his upset or address conflict that arose. There was a reduction in that sort of behaviour over this year. There have been a few incidents of swearing at nonpreferred staff, but upon discussion, Mr. Finkler is able to identify the reason for his upset. He dislikes being ‘micromanaged.’ He often gets upset at staff trying to help him as he feels he does not need that level of help.

Mr. Finkler halted outings with his Passport worker during the previous reporting period. At a meeting with his case manager this year, he was able to identify his concerns, specifically being helped too much, which he interpreted as “bossing him around,” and resolve them. As a result, he has gone on outings one or two times per week. He was also able to participate in events such as a fashion show, a literacy group and swimming with much less conflict.

Mr. Finkler exhibited fair insight into his physical health needs this year, expressing interest in attending a gym to lose weight, making smoothies for a healthy breakfast, and inquiring about potential diabetes. However, Mr. Finkler showed little understanding of possible consequences associated with not taking prescribed medication consistently.

Mr. Finkler’s rapport with staff continued to fluctuate during this reporting period. Even when his rapport with the staff who were present was good, Mr. Finkler was quick to become upset and refused to interact with staff following an activity he disliked. He has a strong working relationship with some staff despite some instances of verbal abuse and spitting when frustrated or angry but was largely averse to interacting with other support staff in this reporting period, not wanting them to knock on his door or communicate with him.

Dr. Bruno Losier, a neuropsychologist at St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton, attempted to conduct an assessment of Mr. Finkler in November 2016. He reviewed the assessment that was completed in 1990 and noted that it suggested significant and global impairment of intellectual and cognitive function that would impact his ability to maintain independent and autonomous living. Dr. Losier made two separate attempts to engage Mr. Finkler for the purpose of a neuropsychological evaluation, however, he noted that it was evident early on that Mr. Finkler struggled to comprehend fully the demands of the task, and engaged in stimulus-bound behavior, provided non-contextual information or was unresponsive. Dr. Losier was only able to get Mr. Finkler to complete one of the several tasks he had completed for the 1990 assessment, which yielded the same result. His conclusion was that the fact that he was completely unable to engage with the current assessment, in contrast with the 1990 evaluation, might suggest a decline. Dr. Losier formed the opinion that Mr. Finkler met the criteria for a profound intellectual disability."

16. Mr. Finkler’s course since the last disposition is set out in the Hospital Report:

"Over the reporting year, Mr. Finkler demonstrated a very positive and overall progressive course in the community. He remained psychiatrically stable at his established baseline, engaged consistently and constructively with CAMH services. While he continued to experience predictable periods of frustration related to housing rules and perceived limitations on autonomy, these episodes were brief, situational, and managed safely with support, resulting in a year characterized by stability, improved coping, and meaningful participation in rehabilitation-oriented activities.

Throughout the reporting period, Mr. Finkler resided in a DSO-supported group home operated by Reena within a 24-hour supervised setting. He lived in a fully self-contained apartment with a separate bedroom, kitchen, bathroom, and living space, allowing him privacy and a greater degree of autonomy while still receiving continuous staff support. At the same time, the structure of the residence also created ongoing points of friction. Housing restrictions, particularly those related to dietary rules, grocery purchasing, and limitations on independent community access, contributed to Mr. Finkler’s frustration and were repeatedly discussed in case conferences due to their impact on his quality of life and his access to rehabilitation-oriented activities. Despite these challenges, he remained compliant with housing expectations, maintained overall community stability. The treatment team continued to collaborate with housing staff and advocate for reasonable accommodations that could reduce avoidable triggers and better support his recovery and emotional regulation.

Mr. Finkler was followed regularly by his CAMH case manager and psychiatrist through a combination of clinic visits, community-based contacts, and multidisciplinary case conferences. He attended appointments consistently and did not demonstrate disengagement from care.

From a mental health standpoint, Mr. Finkler remained stable and psychiatrically asymptomatic across the reporting period. His insight into his neurodevelopmental condition and the rationale for ongoing supports remained limited, consistent with prior assessments. He often expressed a desire for greater independence and questioned the need for supervision or psychiatric involvement, particularly during periods of frustration. These statements were understood as reflecting difficulty appreciating the purpose of external supports rather than a decline in mental status. Despite this, he remained receptive to engagement when approached collaboratively and continued to adhere to his care plan.

Behaviourally, Mr. Finkler showed meaningful improvement compared to prior reporting years. He continued to experience intermittent episodes of verbal dysregulation, most often in response to housing-related restrictions, particularly dietary limitations and rules tied to religious practices. These incidents were predictable and context-specific, occurred in the setting of frustration rather than psychiatric relapse, and resolved without escalation. The most consistent trigger involved conflict around kosher dietary restrictions. Mr. Finkler was raised in the Jewish faith but denied current religious identification and did not participate in Jewish holidays, while remaining opposed to the kosher diet required within his residence. Early in the year, when groceries were purchased communally, he had multiple verbal outbursts about food choices and on several occasions discarded groceries he did not want. Following these incidents, his primary housing worker began purchasing groceries separately for him, which reduced the frequency and intensity of conflict. Difficulties still arose when preferred items could not be accommodated due to kosher requirements, and shortly before the Christmas period he again discarded groceries after substitutions were made for non-kosher items. These episodes remained verbal and resolved with space and collaborative problem solving.

A grief-related incident also occurred around the anniversary of his mother’s death. Mr. Finkler continued to observe this anniversary by lighting a yahrzeit candle, which was the only Jewish ritual he continued despite denying religious affiliation. As open flames were not permitted in his residence, an electric candle was offered as an alternative, and Mr. Finkler became upset and smashed the candle. This incident was addressed with grief-focused support, validation, and exploration of safer alternative rituals. No further escalation occurred.

Environmental restrictions also contributed to distress, particularly limitations on leaving the residence or accessing the community without staff accompaniment (except for approved travel to CAMH). When upset about these restrictions, Mr. Finkler at times directed verbal outbursts at staff. These episodes were reactive and linked to perceived loss of autonomy and rigidity of rules rather than intent to harm and did not progress to physical confrontation.

Mr. Finkler remained medically stable across the reporting period and attended regular health appointments with support.

In terms of self-care and daily functioning, Mr. Finkler generally demonstrated adequate skills with support required for structure, safety, and decision-making. He independently maintained hygiene and grooming and presented appropriately at appointments, outings, and programming. He continued to require significant support for money management through the Public Guardian and Trustee due to cognitive limitations and vulnerability to financial exploitation. He expressed interest in greater financial independence, but independent management was not considered appropriate at this time. Staff provided guidance during outings to support budgeting and purchasing decisions. He used taxis and public transit appropriately when approved, including attending CAMH independently via taxi for programming.

Socially, Mr. Finkler’s primary support remained his brother and legal guardian, Dr. Joseph Finkler, who maintained regular contact, provided emotional and practical assistance, and remained involved in treatment planning and Review Board matters. Mr. Finkler also experienced a significant loss with the death of Rudy, a longstanding family friend and social support. He displayed grief reactions including sadness and perseveration and expressed a desire for mourning rituals, which were supported by CAMH and housing staff in a culturally and emotionally sensitive manner.

Mr. Finkler’s social functioning remained strongest in structured, staff-supported contexts. He maintained positive and respectful relationships with CAMH staff and demonstrated improved capacity to repair relationships after conflict, accept coaching, and re-engage after brief periods of withdrawal. He participated actively in CAMH-based programs, including recreational outings, walking groups, animal-assisted therapy, cultural events, and seasonal activities. Leisure engagement appeared protective, supporting improved mood, reduced isolation, and greater tolerance of community settings. Notably, he participated in the Suits Me Fine fashion show for the second consecutive year, independently registered, selected clothing, engaged positively demonstrated pride, and invited his housing worker to attend, reflecting growing confidence and socially appropriate engagement in structured settings.

A key functional indicator during the reporting year was Mr. Finkler’s demonstrated capacity for independent community travel and engagement within established routines. For approximately the past 18 months, he travelled to and from CAMH by taxi weekly without incident. On these days, he attended CAMH, checked in and out with staff, collected money from the credit union, and completed personal errands independently in the surrounding community for several hours. He also travelled independently to meet his passport worker for outings and participated in regular outings with his case manager that included periods of independent community access. Across these activities, he behaved appropriately, complied with expectations, and returned home as planned, without safety concerns or risk-related behaviours. The discrepancy between this demonstrated capacity and the broader restrictions at his residence remained a source of frustration and contributed to episodic verbal conflict. A continuing goal identified by the treatment team was to collaborate with the housing provider to generalize his independence to the local community around his residence, with appropriate supports, as a recovery-oriented step toward increased autonomy and consistency across environments in the coming year."

17. The results of Mr. Finkler’s Mental Status Examination are set out in the Hospital Report:

"Mr. Finkler’s presentation remained largely unchanged this reporting year. He was consistently observed to be calm and appropriate in presentation, with good hygiene and a bright, reactive affect. He did not report symptoms of psychosis, and there was no evidence of perceptual disturbance. He denied thoughts of self-harm or harm toward others. At times, he presented with quiet speech, a restricted affect, and an irritable mood, particularly when discussing issues he found distressing, such as concerns related to staff at his residence.

Mr. Finkler consistently demonstrated a linear and concrete thought process. Although he occasionally stated that he wanted to run away from his housing or made statements about physically harming Reena staff when distressed, these comments did not reflect true absconding, homicidal, or suicidal ideation. Rather, they appeared to occur in the context of emotional upset. With further discussion, he was able to articulate the source of his distress and subsequently settle."

Fitness to Stand Trial

18. The Hospital Report addresses Mr. Finkler’s current (i.e. January 2026) fitness to stand trial:

"Mr. Finkler was assessed on multiple occasions over the reporting year. Across these assessments, he consistently demonstrated an insufficient level of knowledge and understanding of criminal proceedings to meet the legal criteria for fitness to stand trial. He has a chronic and static mental disorder, specifically autism spectrum disorder with intellectual disability, which was not expected to have shown meaningful improvement during this period. This condition continued to impair his ability to understand the nature and purpose of court proceedings, appreciate the potential consequences of those proceedings, communicate effectively with counsel, and be meaningfully present and participatory in his defence. Accordingly, from a psychiatric perspective, Mr. Finkler remained unfit to stand trial."

Risk

19. A detailed risk assessment of Mr. Finkler is found in the Hospital Report. For our purposes it suffices to reproduce what is set out under Clinical Risk Factors/Re-offence Scenario and Composite Assessment of Risk:

"Clinical Risk Factors/Re-offence Scenario

Mr. Finkler’s criminogenic risk factors relate largely to affective and cognitive deficits secondary to his autism spectrum disorder with intellectual delay, and include:

• Poor Frustration Tolerance/Mood Lability/Impulsivity

• Lack of Insight

• Poor Social Skills

• Vulnerability to being negatively influenced by others

As a result of his suffering from a Neurodevelopmental Disorder, Mr. Finkler’s cognitive capacity is significantly limited. This has resulted in Mr. Finkler having difficulty comprehending and retaining information. He often struggles to express his emotions and his needs to others, and has a tendency to become easily frustrated when others are unable to understand his needs or meet them in what he believes to be a timely fashion. Mr. Finkler has a history of interpersonal difficulties with others, and has evidenced aggression in his interactions with strangers, staff, and co-patients. He tends to behave in a child-like manner with others, becoming angry and acting out when constraints are placed on inappropriate behaviours. His capacity to reflect on previous conflicts with others is limited, as is his ability to process feedback on how he could better accomplish his goals. Mr. Finkler also appears to have difficulties interpreting the social cues of others, which can result in his acting inappropriately with others or misreading their intentions. This deficit places him at risk of being manipulated or victimized by others who recognize this weakness and use it to their advantage. Mr. Finkler’s social supports also remain largely limited to staff and his family friend, Mr. Ens, although he is fortunate to enjoy a supportive and loving relationship with his brother, on a long-distance basis. Unfortunately, Mr. Finkler’s insight is likely to remain impaired in terms of his interpersonal and social skills deficits, his cognitive impairment, and his own vulnerability in relationships." (Emphasis mine)

Composite Assessment of Risk

"At this juncture, it is the opinion of the treatment team that Mr. Finkler remains a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in Section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code. Despite significant advances in his stability over the last year, he is in his early stages of positive rehabilitative trajectory, Mr. Finkler continues to be vulnerable to emotional fluctuations, particularly when under significant amount of stress, which overwhelms his coping capacity in the context of compromised cognition. Limited resilience and coping capacity may precipitate a recurrence of reactive emotional instability, which continues to typically take the form of agitation and impulsivity."

20. The section of the Hospital Report under Risk Management identifies Mr. Finkler’s poor frustration tolerance, mood lability, impulsivity, lack of insight, and vulnerability to being negatively influenced by others, and sets out how the team addresses these:

21. "Poor Frustration Tolerance/Mood Lability/Impulsivity, which stem largely from his developmental delay and the associated social, cognitive and impulse control deficits for which the clinical team continues to use behavioural techniques to encourage positive and prosocial behaviours;

22. Lack of Insight into his cognitive challenges, his interpersonal difficulties, and his need for high level support, which is likely to remain limited and regarding which the team will continue to provide Mr. Finkler with psychoeducation and engage him in social and educational groups; and

23. Vulnerability to Being Negatively Influenced by Others and to being taken advantage of by others, which would likely be greatly enhanced should he be living in an unsupervised setting, or with individuals who are prone to manipulating others for their own personal gain. The clinical team is aware of this vulnerability and continues to monitor his relationships closely. It has been postulated that the index offences arose at least in part out of negative influence from others, though this has not been determined conclusively."

24. The Team Review of Recommendation is set out at the conclusion of the Hospital Report:

"In the opinion of the treatment team, Mr. Finkler remains unfit to stand trial from a psychiatric perspective, and that the appropriate and necessary Disposition to manage his risk remains a Detention Order at the CAMH Forensic Service, with privileges up to and including hospital approved accommodation in the community."

Evidence at the Hearing

22. The Board heard oral evidence from both Dr. Kravtsenyuk and Mr. Finkler.

Testimony of Dr. Kravtsenyuk

23. In response to questions from counsel for the hospital, Dr. Kravtsenyuk advised that she has been Mr. Finkler’s responsible psychiatrist for three years.

24. She observed that Mr. Finkler had done well during the past year, noting that he attends programming and takes advantage of recreational activities. She added that it had been a positive year despite the housing challenges.

25. Regarding fitness, she stated that there had been no change (despite the efforts to educate Mr. Finkler) because of his intellectual limitations.

26. Regarding the team recommendation of no change, she said that she would like to continue to offer Mr. Finkler the same programming and activities given his positive year.

27. She advised that a search was ongoing for new accommodation that suits both Mr. Finkler’s needs and his desires.

28. Dr. Kravtsenyuk said she had “no opinion” about travel.

29. In response to questions from counsel for the Attorney General, Dr. Kravtsenyuk stated that Mr. Finkler gets to CAMH from his group home on his own, and that he works closely with his case worker and the support team regarding travel around Toronto.

30. In response to questions from counsel for Mr. Finkler, the doctor acknowledged that Mr. Finkler has been at the same residence since May of 2019, that the hospital had not as yet identified an alternative, and that they were working closely with Reena and Dr. Finkler (Mr. Finkler’s brother) in that regard.

31. She advised that Mr. Finkler received independent travel passes only for CAMH appointments.

32. Regarding the Taylor test, the doctor stated that Mr. Finkler recognizes that he was accused of doing something but his ability to participate in proceedings is “quite compromised.”

33. Regarding travel to Florida, Dr. Kravtsenyuk observed that (travel to) “Florida was never raised with me” by Mr. Finkler.

34. Regarding the level of required support Mr. Finkler requires, she clarified that it was operational support and that Mr. Finkler is independent with ADLs.

35. In response to a question from the panel regarding whether she was in agreement with Mr. Finkler being given a pass to travel to Florida, she replied that (the decision) was just between CAMH and housing.”

36. Regarding whether there was any possibility of a change in fitness, the doctor replied it is her belief that he is stable and there is no possibility of change.

37. Asked - given his progress - why not a conditional discharge, Dr. Kravtsenyuk responded that Mr. Finkler need for adequate support and supervision requires a detention order, and that the hospital must be able to act quickly and efficiently i.e. in order to manage his risk to the public in a manner that would not be possible under the Mental Health Act.

38. She said they were hoping to find accommodation “with a bit more flexibility” to meet Mr. Finkler’s needs.

39. In response to a follow up question from the hospital Dr. Kravtsenyuk said that it is necessary that the hospital have the authority to approve accommodation.

40. In response to a follow up question from counsel for Mr. Finkler whether she would support travel to Florida for one week, she replied that she would need to discuss it with Mr. Finkler and the hospital team adding that if “everything is in place” she had no issue.

Testimony of Mr. Finkler

41. Mr. Finkler stated that he was sorry about what he did at the TTC.

42. He said that he wants to go to a better group home, explaining that they call him names and bug him at his group home which gets his temper going, and that they start fights with him and he doesn’t like it.

43. He said that he wants to travel to Florida where he could stay with his cousins, and that the last time he was there was with his parents.

44. He said that he wants to do his own banking and does not want the PG&T to manage his finances.

45. In response to a question from counsel for the hospital, Mr. Finkler said that he had not yet spoken to his cousins regarding a visit.

46. In response to a question from the panel about whether he would be willing to stay at his current group home and cooperate until they find a better place, Mr. Finkler said, “I want to get a better place.

Final Submissions

47. Counsel for the hospital submitted that he was seeking the same disposition as set out in the Hospital Report. Regarding travel (to Florida), he observed that much planning needs to be done before embarking on the hospital approval process i.e. approval by the person in charge of the accompanying person(s) and the itinerary.

48. Counsel for the hospital was asked by a member of the panel whether travel could be therapeutic or negative and responded that Mr. Finkler does have the ability to follow rules but that more information was needed. He reiterated that travel passes would have to be approved by the hospital.

49. Counsel for the Attorney General supported the hospital position (as set out in the hospital report) and took no position regarding travel.

50. Counsel for Mr. Finkler reiterated that he had no instructions other than with regard to the travel provision, the parameters of which were to be left to the discretion of (the person in charge of) the hospital.

Analysis and Conclusions

1. Fitness

2. As summarized by the Court of Appeal in R. v. Bharwani. 2023 ONCA 205 at para. 167, the following principles inform all fitness assessments:

"1. There is one fitness test for all accused, whether represented by counsel or not. This test is applied contextually.

2. The test for fitness is set out in the statutory definition of “unfit to stand trial” in s. 2 of the Criminal Code.

3. A person is unfit to stand trial if, on account of mental disorder, the person is unable to conduct a defence or to instruct counsel to do so.

4. The purpose of the s. 2 fitness test is to ensure that the accused can be meaningfully present and meaningfully participate at their trial. These touchstones inform a purposive interpretation and application of the s. 2 fitness test and do not themselves constitute a stand-alone test.

5. The Taylor test questions are not a sufficient surrogate for assessing fitness but are helpful in providing insights into an accused's abilities in relation to the s. 2 criteria. Applying the fitness test is more nuanced than the questions recognize.

6. The accused must have a reality-based understanding of the nature and object and possible consequences of the proceedings.

7. The accused must have the ability to make decisions. This involves the ability to understand available options, the ability to select from those options, the ability to understand the basic consequences arising from those options, and the ability to intelligibly communicate to either counsel or the court the decision arrived upon.

8. The accused need not have the capacity to engage in analytic thinking in the sense that the accused need not be capable of making decisions in their own best interests."

9. As already noted in these reasons,

"Mr. Finkler was assessed on multiple occasions over the reporting year. Across these assessments, he consistently demonstrated an insufficient level of knowledge and understanding of criminal proceedings to meet the legal criteria for fitness to stand trial. He has a chronic and static mental disorder, specifically autism spectrum disorder with intellectual disability, which was not expected to have shown meaningful improvement during this period. This condition continued to impair his ability to understand the nature and purpose of court proceedings, appreciate the potential consequences of those proceedings, communicate effectively with counsel, and be meaningfully present and participatory in his defence. Accordingly, from a psychiatric perspective, Mr. Finkler remained unfit to stand trial."

53. Based upon the clear, convincing, and uncontradicted evidence in the Hospital Report and the oral testimony of Dr. Kravtsenyuk, and having heard and considered the submissions of counsel, the Board is in unanimous agreement that, given the nature of his mental disorder and the extent of his intellectual disability, Mr. Finkler continues to be unfit to stand trial and that he is not likely ever to become fit

54. Significant Threat to the Safety of the Public

55. Given our finding that Mr. Finkler is not likely to ever become fit to stand trial, s. 672.851 of the Criminal Code obliges us to go on to consider whether we are of the opinion that he poses a significant threat to the safety of the public.

56. A significant threat to the safety of the public is one that involves a real risk of serious physical or psychological harm to members of the public that goes beyond the merely trivial or annoying. If he does not, then we are obliged to make a recommendation to the court that has jurisdiction in respect of the offences charged against Mr. Finkler to hold an inquiry to determine whether a stay of proceedings should be ordered.

57. Based upon the clear, convincing, and uncontradicted evidence in the Hospital Report and the oral testimony of Dr. Kravtsenyuk, - the salient portions of which are set out in these reasons - and having heard and considered the submissions of counsel, the Board is in unanimous agreement that Mr. Finkler is a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in Section 672.5401 of the Code, in that there is a significant risk that he will engage in criminal conduct that would cause serious physical or psychological harm to others.

58. The Necessary and Appropriate Disposition

59. The relevant risk management issues are well summarised in last year’s Reasons for Disposition. As the clinical team has continued to address these issues with the same plan of action since that time, we adopt both the reasoning and the result:

"Despite recent stability in his mental state, Mr. Finkler has an inherent propensity to exhibit inappropriate and oppositional behaviour when he becomes frustrated, wants attention, or when attempts are made to correct his behaviour. Given that these behaviours stem largely from his developmental delay and the associated social, cognitive and impulse control deficits, the clinical team continues to use behavioural techniques to encourage positive and prosocial behaviours.

Mr. Finkler has had support from behavioural therapists from CAMH and Reena over the past reporting period to bolster his coping and self-control strategies. Nevertheless, Mr. Finkler’s lack of insight into his cognitive challenges, his interpersonal difficulties, and his need for high level support is likely to remain limited. The team will continue to provide psychoeducation to Mr. Finkler around deficits in these domains and will continue to engage him in social and educational groups with the goal of assisting him in learning more adaptive ways of behaving and communicating with others.

The team will also be highly supportive of Mr. Finkler’s relationship with his brother, who is viewed as a positive influence on him.

These approaches to risk management can only be accomplished in a supervised setting with close monitoring by a treatment team under the authority of a detention order. They could not be assured with a conditional discharge. In addition, Mr. Finkler’s vulnerability to being taken advantage of by others would likely be greatly enhanced should he be living in an unsupervised setting or with individuals who are prone to manipulating others for their own personal gain. The clinical team is aware of this vulnerability and continues to monitor his relationships closely.

Mr. Finkler’s Hospital team must be able to act quickly and efficiently in order to manage his risk to the public, in a manner that would not be possible under the Mental Health Act. In addition, it remains necessary for the Hospital to be able to approve Mr. Finkler’s accommodation for risk management purposes, specifically to ensure it offers adequate support and supervision."

58. In the result, we unanimously agree that the necessary and appropriate, least onerous, and least restrictive disposition to manage Mr. Finkler’s risk is a detention order on the same terms and conditions as last year, with privileges up to and including living in the community in approved accommodations, subject to the amendment of paragraph 2(i) in the current Disposition - which provides that the person in charge of the hospital, in his or her discretion, may permit the accused passes for up to 72 hours to enter the community within a 200 km radius of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, accompanied by staff or person approved by the person in charge – that would permit the accused to travel internationally if accompanied by staff or person approved by the person in charge and with an itinerary approved by the person in charge.

59. We note that the last pro forma review (to determine whether there is still enough evidence to keep the case alive) was in April 2024 and the next pro forma review is scheduled for April 2026.

DATED this 10^th^ day of March, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.

Hon. N. Kozloff Legal Member

__________________

Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board