Re: Michael Skopit
ORB File No: 8583
Hearing held on: Friday, February 6, 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: Michael Skopit
Counsel: Mr. R. Handlarski
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
1On June 19, 2024, Michael Skopit was found unfit to stand trial on charges of public mischief, weapon dangerous, point firearm, discharge firearm with intent, and assault police officer with a weapon, all contrary to the Criminal Code. Mr. Skopit has remained under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB and Board”) since that date.
2Mr. Skopit is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB” and “the Board”) dated December 13, 2024, finding that he is at present unfit 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.
3On Friday, February 6, 2026, this panel of the Board was convened to conduct Mr. Skopit’s annual review. Mr. Skopit was present at the hearing and represented by Counsel, Mr. R. Handlarski.
4The issues to be determined at the hearing are whether Mr. Skopit remains unfit as of the date of the hearing within the meaning of s. 2 of the Criminal Code, and, if he remains unfit, to determine the necessary and appropriate disposition which is also the least onerous and least restrictive to manage that risk, taking into account the factors set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
Position of the Parties
5At the outset of the hearing, the parties were invited to provide their without prejudice positions.
6Counsel for the hospital, counsel for the Attorney General, and counsel for Mr. Skopit all submitted that Mr. Skopit is fit to stand trial.
7In addition, counsel for the hospital and counsel for the Attorney General submitted that if in the alternative the panel finds that Mr. Skopit remains unfit, there should be no change to the current Disposition.
The Evidence
8A Hospital Report, dated January 12, 2026 (the "Hospital Report"), was entered as Exhibit 1 in the hearing. Dr. K. Valoo, one of the authors of the Hospital Report and Mr. Skopit’s responsible psychiatrist, testified viva voce at the hearing.
Conclusions of the Board
9For the reasons that follow, the panel accepted the joint submission of the parties, unanimously concluded on a balance of probabilities that Mr. Skopit is at present fit to stand trial, and ordered that Mr. Skopit be sent back to court pursuant to s. 672.48(2) of the Criminal Code.
The Alleged Offences
10The details of and circumstances surrounding the index offences are set out in the Hospital Report:
"ALLEGED OFFENCES
CHARGE #1: Public Mischief CC. 140 (1)(c)
CHARGE #2: Possession of a Weapon for a Dangerous Purpose CC. 88 (1)
CHARGE #3: Point Firearm CC. 87 (1)
CHARGE #4: Discharge Firearm with Intent CC. 244 (1)
CHARGE #5: Assault Peace Officer with a Weapon CC. 270.01 (1)
Synopses
On Friday December 8th, 2023, at approximately 6:10 PM the accused before the court was situated at 183 Torresdale Avenue, in the City of Toronto. At this time the accused placed an emergency 911 call to the Toronto Police Service.
The accused reported to a 911 call taker that he had arrived home to find that someone had broken in and that they were still inside his home. The accused further stated that he could still see flashlights upstairs and that the flashlights were shining into multiple rooms. After placing the call, the accused waited outside for police officers (CHARGE #1).
Once initial officers attended and made contact with the accused, the accused immediately brandished what officers believed was a firearm and pointed the firearm at officers (CHARGE #2, #3). The accused then opened fire on the officers, loud audible bangs were heard, causing officers to seek cover to protect themselves (CHARGE #4, #5).
As the officers were in cover, they quickly determined that the firearm being used by the accused was a pellet gun. Officers then resorted to a less lethal use of force option which caused the accused to surrender himself to police custody.
The accused was placed under arrest and was given his Rights to Counsel. The accused later advised that he was suffering a medical disorder and wanted officers to kill him. Officers determined that the accused home had never been broken into and the information provided by the accused in the initial emergency call was false.
The handgun was seized and bore a resemblance to a 1911 handgun. The accused was transported to 32 Division where he was charged accordingly and held for a bail hearing."
11The assessment of fitness to stand trial in October 2024 is set out in the Hospital Report and included here for context:
"Assessment of Fitness to Stand Trial in October 2024
When asked if he is aware of his current charges, Mr. Skopit said he did not know. He was asked if he has a defence lawyer and said he did not know. Mr. Skopit was then asked what happened that led him to be arrested. He said, “I think I used a BB gun.” When asked what he remembers about the incident, Mr. Skopit said, “I just remember going out running. I went out the side door…. So I had a BB gun. I think I might have pointed a BB gun at them.” When asked who he pointed it at, he said, “The police. I don’t know I am confused.”
When asked the role of his lawyer, he said, “The lawyer tries to protect me, prove whether I am innocent or guilty – they should be the one who helps me.” When asked the role of the Crown attorney, he said, “The one that works for the court.” When asked the role of the Judge, he replied, “Decides if you are innocent or guilty.”
When asked which pleas are available to him, he replied, “I don’t know.” He was then informed about the pleas in general. When asked his understanding of the meaning of guilty, he replied, “You did it”, and when asked his understanding of the meaning of not guilty, he said, “You didn’t do it.” When asked what happens if he found guilty, he said, “You go to jail”, and when asked what happens if found not guilty, he said, “You are released - free.”
When asked his understanding of the oath, he said, “Promise to tell the truth”, and when asked his understanding of the meaning of perjury, He said “could get charged."
12Mr. Skopit’s course following the initial ORB hearing is set out in the Hospital Report:
"COURSE FOLLOWING INITIAL ORB HEARING
December 2024 to January 2026: CAMH Inpatient (GAU-A, FGUA)
Mr. Skopit’s initial annual review board hearing took place on December 12, 2024, while he remained admitted to the Geriatric Assessment Unit A (GAU-A).
Mr. Skopit’s Disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated December 12, 2024, determined that he remained unfit to stand trial, and ordered him detained at the Forensic Service of CAMH. The Disposition included privileges up to living in the community in accommodation approved by the Person in Charge. Following this disposition, Mr. Skopit was transferred to the Forensic General Unit A (FGUA, Unit 1-2) on February 7, 2025.
Mental Health and Treatment
Mr. Skopit’s mental status deteriorated significantly over the reporting period. This decompensation consisted of depressive symptoms that emerged after his transfer to the forensic unit and became even more severe after discontinuation of ECT.
Mr. Skopit remained incapable of consenting to treatment for his psychotic and depressive symptoms, including antipsychotic medication, antidepressant medication, and ECT. His sister (Judy) acted as his substitute decision-maker and remained actively involved in treatment discussions.
In December 2024, by the time of his initial ORB hearing, Mr. Skopit’s clinical stability had improved substantially following an acute course of ECT and transition to weekly maintenance ECT, in combination with initiation of long-acting injectable aripiprazole at a dose of 300 mg every four weeks. Sertraline was being tapered at that time due to concerns regarding medication adherence. In January 2025, in consultation with the ECT team, the frequency of Mr. Skopit’s maintenance ECT was reduced from weekly to every two weeks due to his sustained psychiatric stability. At this time, he was described as friendly and engaged in unit programming, and without any prominent psychiatric symptoms.
In February 2025, Mr. Skopit was described as more “downcast” after passes he had previously used on the general geriatric unit were temporarily placed on hold while awaiting OPIC approval for these passes after his new ORB disposition had been received. After transfer to the forensic unit, he reported anxiety and low mood in relation to the change in environment, care team, and co-patients. Despite these symptoms, he continued to attend select unit-based programming and Therapeutic Neighbourhood activities on the forensic unit.
In March 2025, ECT was discontinued after his SDM withdrew consent, due to her concerns about Mr. Skopit’s distress about ECT as well as reported side effects of short-term memory difficulties and post-treatment confusion. This occurred despite Mr. Skopit’s clinical team providing repeated information about their impression that his presentation was more consistent with depressive and anxiety symptoms related to adjustment to the forensic unit, and that abrupt discontinuation of ECT was likely to precipitate further deterioration.
Over subsequent months, there were no clear signs of re-emergent psychosis. However, Mr. Skopit reported low mood and associated depressive symptoms such as profound amotivation, with significant reclusiveness to his room, decreased participation in programming, and reduced pass utilization. His engagement with team members fluctuated depending on the topic of discussion and his rapport with specific staff. By June 2025, he spent the majority of his time in his room and intermittently refused to engage with his treating team, including physicians. By August 2025, he was most often assessed in his room, as he frequently declined to attend team reviews or interviews outside the room.
Mr. Skopit was re-started on sertraline in June 2025 with SDM consent to target his depressive symptoms. Adherence concerns subsequently emerged, including intermittent refusals of oral medication, and a urine toxicology screen which returned negative for sertraline metabolites on October 22, 2025. This necessitated enhanced medication checks by nursing staff to ensure that Mr. Skopit was compliant with this medication. Sertraline was gradually up-titrated to 150 mg daily by November 2025, with only minor and fleeting clinical improvements. Given Mr. Skopit’s limited response to pharmacotherapy alongside ongoing adherence concerns, the team again recommended re-initiation of ECT for treatment of depressive symptoms. Mr. Skopit’s SDM initially consented to an ECT consultation and treatment up to twice weekly; however, she later withdrew consent after learning that Mr. Skopit declined to engage with the ECT team and expressed significant distress about re-starting ECT.
A referral for individual therapy through FORCAT was made to optimize Mr. Skopit’s antidepressant treatment. However, he consistently declined to meet with his assigned therapist, and this referral was eventually cancelled.
Mr. Skopit’s extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) secondary to antipsychotic treatment worsened over the reporting period. He experienced parkinsonian features which resulted in functional impairment, such as difficulty writing, using utensils, and ambulating. However, due to concerns about an increased risk of a psychotic relapse in the absence of ECT treatment and due to his suboptimally treated depression, the dose of this medication was not reduced further, and attempts were instead made to improve the EPS. Benztropine was offered repeatedly to address these symptoms. He initially declined this medication due to a general fear of accepting medications, but with frequent education and encouragement he agreed to start benztropine. This medication was gradually increased up to total daily dose of 4 mg by November 2025. He reported minimal subjective benefit in his EPS, despite objective observations from staff that these symptoms had improved and declined formal EPS assessments and physical examinations on multiple occasions, which would have enabled his team to better understand the nature of his side effect symptoms.
By the end of the reporting period, Mr. Skopit continued to report low mood and associated depressive symptoms, remained almost entirely reclusive to his room, and demonstrated limited engagement in assessments and activities. He intermittently endorsed passive suicidal ideation while consistently denying active intent or plan, and there were no acute safety concerns identified.
At the time of this report, Mr. Skopit’s medications were:
Aripiprazole 300 mg intramuscularly every four weeks
Sertraline 150 mg by mouth daily
Benztropine 2 mg by mouth twice daily
Melatonin 6 mg by mouth nightly"
13A description of the on-going assessment of Mr. Skopit’s fitness to stand trial is reproduced from the Hospital Report:
"Fitness to Stand Trial
Mr. Skopit’s fitness to stand trial was assessed throughout the reporting period, and fitness coaching was provided by various team members. He often expressed strong anxiety about the prospect of returning to court. His willingness to engage in fitness assessments fluctuated over the course of the year, including some periods during which he declined to discuss fitness to stand trial in any capacity. This led to concerns about possible malingering of unfitness. Feedback from the FORCAT psychological assessment (detailed below), indicating no intellectual or psychiatric barrier to fitness coaching, further supported these concerns. However, Mr. Skopit’s willingness to discuss fitness to stand trial also fluctuated depending on the severity of his depressive symptoms, suggesting that his engagement (or lack thereof) was also related to amotivation and apathy secondary to under-treated major depressive disorder.
From late November 2025 onwards, Mr. Skopit became more cooperative with fitness assessments. This improvement persisted through December and early January. He often continued to initially decline to discuss fitness to stand trial and repeatedly requested to change the subject of the conversation throughout the fitness assessment, but with perseverance on behalf of the assessor he consistently demonstrated an ability to answer questions about the nature and object of the Court proceedings and their possible consequences.
Prior to the submission of this report, Mr. Skopit’s fitness to stand trial was most recently assessed on January 8, 2026. His answers to questions about his charges and the Court processes on this date were as follows:
Charges: Mr. Skopit initially stated, “I know I have five charges. I don't want to talk about it.” With prompting, he acknowledged that charges included possession of a weapon, pointing and firing a weapon, and assaulting a peace officer.
Plea options: “Guilty or not guilty.”
Role of the defence attorney: "They represent me"
Role of the Crown attorney: "They try to prove that I'm guilty. They are not on the same side."
Role of the Judge: “They make a decision.”
Outcome of a finding of Not Guilty: “They are free. They go home."
Outcome of a finding of Guilty: "They go to jail, or probation, or a fine."
Meaning of an oath: "To tell the truth." • Consequence of breaking an oath: "Another charge", which is known as "perjury"."
14A summary of Mr. Skopit’s recent Mental Status Examination is extracted from the Hospital Report:
"MENTAL STATUS EXAMINATION (January 2026)
Mr. Skopit appeared his stated age. He was often observed lying in bed with a blanket covering him. He was generally withdrawn and minimally engaged, frequently declining to answer questions or requesting that interviews be terminated early. His facial expression was flat, with intermittent eye contact. He exhibited tremor and restlessness while resting in bed, which worsened with movement. His speech was quiet but normal in rate, rhythm, and tone. His affect was guarded and dismissive. His mood was described as “depressed.” Thought process was rigid and future oriented. Thought content revealed anxiety related to court proceedings and his future, as well as ongoing low mood and associated depressive symptoms. He did not express delusional beliefs or paranoia. There were no perceptual disturbances reported or observed. Insight into his depressive symptoms was fair; however, he demonstrated limited insight into psychotic symptoms and the need for any psychiatric treatment and personal support. Cognition was difficult to assess due to limited engagement but appeared grossly intact."
15The psychiatric opinion and recommendation of the clinical team regarding Fitness to Stand Trial is extracted from the Hospital Report:
"PSYCHIATRIC OPINIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Fitness to Stand Trial
According to the Criminal Code of Canada, "unfit to stand trial" means unable on account of mental disorder to conduct a defence at any stage of the proceedings before a verdict is rendered or to instruct counsel to do so, and, in particular, unable on account of mental disorder to:
(a) Understand the nature or object of the proceedings,
(b) Understand the possible consequences of the proceedings, or
(c) Communicate with counsel.
Further clarification was provided in R v Barwhani (Ont CA, 2023), which stated, “The accused must have a reality-based understanding of the nature and object and possible consequences of the proceedings” and “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.”
At the time of assessment, on a balance of probabilities, Mr. Skopit appeared fit to stand trial from a psychiatric perspective. (Emphasis mine)
In the previous reporting period, Mr. Skopit’s fitness was impacted by cognitive disorganization and poor concentration, related to psychotic symptoms and concurrent ECT treatment, which was associated with short-term memory impairment, confusion, and fatigue. During the current reporting period, Mr. Skopit’s psychotic symptoms resolved, and ECT was discontinued following withdrawal of consent by his SDM. However, he continued to experience depressive symptoms, which appeared to affect his motivation and concentration.
Throughout the reporting period, when willing to engage in an assessment of his fitness to stand trial, Mr. Skopit demonstrated an ability to understand the nature and object of Court proceedings and the possible outcomes. His ability to meaningfully and intelligibly engage required close monitoring due to fluctuating engagement with frequent refusals. However, by the end of the reporting year, he was able to consistently engage in discussions about Court proceedings and their possible outcomes, with encouragement. He demonstrated an ability to communicate his thoughts and needs to members of his inpatient team both during and separate from assessments of fitness to stand trial. His low motivation and anxiety about prospective Court proceedings were observed to be responsive to a calm, empathetic, and supportive communication style, indicating that he maintained an ability to be a meaningful participant in his Court proceedings.
Due to his ongoing major depressive disorder, if returned to Court, Mr. Skopit would likely benefit from certain accommodations, such as the use of simple language, frequent breaks during proceedings, and gentle redirection to questions when anxiety interferes with his focus."
16The opinion of the authors regarding Mr. Skopit’s fitness to stand trial is also set out at the conclusion of the Hospital Report under Recommendation:
"Recommendation
It is our opinion that Mr. Skopit is Fit to Stand Trial from a psychiatric perspective and
on a balance of probabilities and can be returned to Court to stand trial."
Evidence at the Hearing
17Dr. Valoo testified at the hearing. For the purposes of these Reasons, I will only refer to her testimony regarding Mr. Skopit’s fitness.
18In response to questions from counsel for the hospital, she advised that she has been Mr. Skopit’s most responsible physician at CAMH since February of 2025 and she adopted the contents of the Hospital Report.
19Asked if there have been any recent developments, she replied that Mr. Skopit ‘s fitness to stand trial was assessed yesterday (February 5, 2026) and that it is her opinion that he is fit to stand trial on a balance of probabilities.
20Dr. Valoo noted that Mr. Skopit’s engagement (with the ongoing process of assessing his fitness over the past year) has fluctuated, but more recently and with much encouragement he has responded accurately to questions about the court process. She added that he is able to communicate his thoughts to multiple members of the team.
21The doctor opined that Mr. Skopit is able to be meaningfully present and understand, observing that in his particular case it is a question of willingness rather than ability and adding that he has the ability to make rational decisions.
22Dr. Valoo was asked about the section of the Hospital Report that addressed Mr. Skopit’s score on the Brief Cognitive Status which is set out below:
"Brief Cognitive Status Exam (BCSE)
The BCSE is brief measure of an individual’s current level of cognitive functioning. It is comprised of subtests that measure an individual’s orientation to time and place, working memory, mental control, and verbal production ability. The BCSE is not intended to provide an estimation of an individual’s intelligence or cognitive capacity but rather is most useful as a measure for detecting current deficits in an individual’s basic cognitive functions.
Mr. Skopit’s score on the BCSE fell in the borderline range, suggesting the presence of some deficits in his basic cognitive functions. His relatively low score was driven primarily by apparent difficulties in verbal production abilities, as well as problems with incidental recall. He also demonstrated some difficulty with processing speed related to a mental inhibition task, and difficulty with planning and perceptual reasoning on a task requiring him to draw a clock.
Otherwise, Mr. Skopit appears oriented to time and place, appears to have relatively intact mental control, and appears able to process visual stimuli and adjust his verbal output accordingly."
The doctor responded that cognition can be impacted by a major depressive disorder like Mr. Skopit’s but agreed with the contents of the section put to her.
23In response to questions from counsel for Mr. Skopit, Dr. Valoo stated that Mr. Skopit’s major depressive disorder is “sub-optimally treated”, explaining that ECT is optimal and adding that he has not received ECT since March of 2025.
24Asked what treatment he is receiving, she replied “Oral antipsychotic medication” which she said has been “minimally effective thus far”. She added that psychotherapy is not indicated for individuals like Mr. Skopit with severe depression.
Final Submissions
25All parties jointly submitted that that Mr. Skopit is fit and should be returned to court.
Analysis and Conclusion
26As 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.
The test for fitness is set out in the statutory definition of “unfit to stand trial” in s. 2 of the Criminal Code.
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.
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.
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.
The accused must have a reality-based understanding of the nature and object and possible consequences of the proceedings.
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.
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."
27Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence including both the relevant contents of the Hospital Report and the testimony of Dr. Valoo, as well as the joint submissions from the parties, the Board is unanimous in finding on a balance of probabilities that Mr. Skopit is at present fit to stand trial, based on the test to be applied in R v Taylor, as amplified and clarified in R v Bharwani, 2023 ONCA 203.
28The Hospital Report notes that, while in the previous reporting period Mr. Skopit’s fitness was impacted by cognitive disorganization and poor concentration related to psychotic symptoms and concurrent ECT treatment which was associated with short-term memory impairment, confusion, and fatigue, during the current reporting period Mr. Skopit’s psychotic symptoms resolved and ECT was discontinued following withdrawal of consent by his SDM.
29We are cognizant of the additional observation in the Hospital Report that Mr. Skopit continued to experience depressive symptoms which appeared to affect his motivation and concentration; however, we are also mindful of Dr. Valoo’s testimony that Mr. Skopit is able to be meaningfully present and understand, and in particular her observations that in Mr. Skopit’s case it is a question of willingness rather than ability and her opinion that he has the ability to make rational decisions.
30Having made the finding that he is fit, we order that Mr. Skopit be sent back to court pursuant to s. 672.48(2) of the Criminal Code.
DATED this 10th 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