Re Artel Auld, 2026 CanLII 21166

Re: Artel Auld

ORB File No: 7139

Hearing held on: Thursday, February 5, 2026

Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health

Pursuant to: Section 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: Artel Auld

Counsel: Ms. J. Collins

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 April 20, 2017, Artel Auld was found not criminally responsible (“NCR”) on account of mental disorder on charges of second-degree murder, and assault causing bodily harm, all contrary to the Criminal Code.

2. Mr. Auld is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB and the Board”) dated November 13, 2024, ordering that he be detained at the Forensic Service of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (“CAMH and the hospital”) subject to a number of conditions and privileges up to and including living in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge.

3. On Thursday, February 5, 2026, the Board convened a hearing to review Mr. Auld’s Disposition pursuant to section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. 2. Mr. Auld was present at the hearing and represented by Counsel, Ms. J. Collins.

4. The issues to be determined at the hearing were whether Mr. Auld 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.

Positions of the Parties

5. At the commencement of the hearing the parties were requested to provide their initial without prejudice positions with respect to the issues before the Board.

6. Counsel on behalf of the Hospital advised that the position of the Hospital was that Mr. Auld continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a Detention Order with the same conditions as the Disposition dated November 13, 2024.

7. Counsel for the Attorney General supported the Hospital position subject to removal of the privilege permitting community living.

8. Counsel for Mr. Auld took no position.

The Evidence

9. The evidence at the hearing consisted of the Hospital Report dated October 25, 2025 (Exhibit 1) and the viva voce testimony of Dr. N. Meng, Mr. Artel’s treating psychiatrist.

10. For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that Mr. Auld continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition is an order detaining Mr. Auld at the Forensic Service of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health subject to a number of conditions and privileges up to and including living in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge.

Background

11. Mr. Auld’s Personal and Development History – including Childhood and Family History, Education History and Employment History, Relationship History, Medical History, Substance Use History, Psychiatric History, and Legal History - is set out in detail in the Hospital Report. As the Hospital Report is an exhibit in this hearing it is not necessary to reproduce that information in these reasons. The following summary excerpted from last year’s Reasons for Disposition dated December 5, 2024, and the Hospital Report will suffice for the purposes of these Reasons:

From last year’s Reasons for Disposition:

"Mr. Auld was born in Jamaica and immigrated to Canada at the age of eight. He was the fourth in a sibline of five with two brothers and two sisters. Mr. Auld attended secondary school and completed grade 12 but did not complete grade 13. He left school in order to pursue employment in the trades. He has a significant work history as a labourer in the construction industry for 20 years and is a member of the union. When he became ill, he was supported by ODSP. Mr. Auld has a significant relationship history with six children from five different partners. Prior to the commission of the index offence, Mr. Auld lived with his parents (victims of the index offence), one brother and sister and one of his children in his parents’ home. Mr. Auld reported a significant history of substance use, primarily alcohol since the age of 20. He stated that he cut back on his alcohol consumption after being identified with liver disease in or around 2012.

Mr. Auld’s mental health difficulties commenced in 2011 at the age of 46. The Hospital Report sets out a series of short admissions for mental health difficulties up to the date of the commission of the index offences."

From the Hospital Report:

"At the time of this report, Mr. Auld was a 60-year-old single man. He had six adult children, five of whom resided within the Greater Toronto Area. He was detained on General Unit A (LGUA) at CAMH. Prior to his readmission on November 17, 2023, he had resided in an independent apartment subsidized by the Canadian Mental Health Association (CMHA). He had been unemployed since 2015 and was financially supported by ODSP until he returned to full-time employment in construction in early 2024.

On April 20, 2017, Mr. Auld was found Not Criminally Responsible on account of a mental disorder (NCRMD) on the charges of Second-Degree Murder and Assault Causing Bodily Harm of his father and mother, respectively. On May 1, 2017, he was admitted to the Forensic Assessment Unit at Ontario Shores (OS) subject to a Form 49, Warrant of Committal (WOC). In June 2018, he was transferred to a general forensic unit, pursuant to a new ORB disposition.

On February 15, 2019, Mr. Auld was discharged to a subsidized apartment in Oshawa operated by the CMHA THRP program with follow-up by the OS Forensic Outpatient Service (FOS). On November 1, 2019, his clinical care was transferred to the CAMH Forensic Outpatient Service (FOPS) after he moved from Oshawa to a shared-unit CMHA THRP apartment in Toronto to be closer to his family supports.

On December 11, 2019, Mr. Auld was admitted to CAMH pursuant to his WOC in the context of escalating alcohol use in the community and failing to report for curfew on the night preceding admission. On April 8, 2020, he was discharged back to high support transitional housing at CMHA THRP-1.

On February 1, 2022, Mr. Auld moved into an independent apartment subsidized by CMHA. On May 4, 2022, he was readmitted to CAMH pursuant to his WOC following repeated cocaine use and deteriorating compliance with his community supervision. He was discharged back to his residence on June 6, 2022. He was readmitted shortly after on June 22, 2022, due to a rapid return to cocaine use with associated reduced supervision compliance and emerging changes in his mental state. He remained in hospital until his discharge back to his residence on September 26, 2022.

Between December 2022 and May 2023, Mr. Auld had four further brief admissions in hospital pursuant to his WOC in an effort to curtail his ongoing polysubstance use with limited efficacy. On July 18, 2023, he was readmitted to hospital due to further escalation in his substance use with associated changes in mental state. He was discharged back to his residence on October 31, 2023.

On November 16, 2023, Mr. Auld absconded from security in FOPS on being told that he was being readmitted due to recent positive UDS for cocaine metabolites. He was located by police on November 17 and escorted to CAMH. His community residence was subsequently revoked. He remained in the hospital on LGUA at the time of this report."

Index Offences

12. The Synopsis, Mr. Auld’s Self-Report to Dr. Pallandi in April 2017, and File Information Pertaining to the Index Offences are set out under Review of the Index Offence the Hospital Report:

Synopsis

"On Sunday, June 26, 2016, the accused (Mr. Artel Auld) was at the address of 60 Hickson Street in the City of Toronto where he resides with the victims. The accused was walking around the house all night long talking to himself and acting very odd in which he has been for the previous 3 weeks. At approximately 09:00 hours, the accused was heard saying, “they are trying to kill me.” At that time, the accused proceeded to enter the victim’s bedroom and stated, “If you can’t help me you have to die too.” The victim (1) was waking in his bed when the accused entered and began to punch the victim numerous times in the face and neck area. At this time, the victim (2) was lying beside (1), and when she (2) woke up and saw what was happening, she attempted to stop the accused but was punched multiple times in the face herself in the process, which caused her to fall on the floor. Once the victim (2) had fallen to the floor, the accused took the opportunity and went back to the bedside and continued to punch the victim (1) in his face. The accused was stopped and pulled off the victim (1) by his son and taken downstairs to the main floor of the residence where he was met by police.

Mr. Auld’s Self-Report to Dr. Pallandi in April 2017

The following was obtained from the NCR report authored by Dr. D. Pallandi, dated April 9, 2017:

Mr. Auld stated that “the story starts in 2012…or slightly before…it all started to happen”. He explained that he began to be “spiritually attacked.” The evidence for this at the time was that: “at 3:24 I’d jump up out of my sleep…I had feelings of being held down in my sleep.”

Mr. Auld went on to explain that these “attacks” commenced at the time of his buying his home (in 2012). He believed that the union would “ask me something very weird…to join us…why are all the executives asking me to join them?.” At this time, he began developing a feeling that he was being “shunned” by his coworkers - the evidence being that he could “see” that they were more distant towards him.

Contemporaneous to this he felt “more of an evil presence” in his new home, “like something is around you and it’s not the same…I felt that something landed on the roof of the house…it got into the house…I prayed!… It was downhill after that.”

He recalled visiting his mother who he believed stated “I know what’s going on… It’s a spiritual battle.” He reported that he was intermittently “hit again and ended up in St. Joseph’s.” At times, he attempted to self-medicate against these experiences with alcohol, to no avail. He explained that it only “made it worse.”

He recalled that St. Michael’s Hospital was uniquely helpful to him because “they even give you red socks…they mix their treatment with spiritual parts too!”

He stopped drinking in 2014 after attending CAMH, “when things were going on there”, however this had no beneficial effect upon his symptoms: “things did not get better”. He stated: “my sister, my mother…they were all complaining about spiritual attacks.”

He went on to explain that these experiences prompted him to sell his house given that he had been rendered incapacitated from working and functioning overall. He stated, “I felt like I was a marked man…no one really liked me.” He moved into his parent’s house in Toronto as a consequence.

Despite this step, he stated that the “spiritual attacks” persisted in the family home. He believed that others in the family were complaining of similar experiences. Despite his work difficulties and the ongoing “spiritual attacks,” Mr. Auld reported that he had no difficulties with anger, aggression or problematic behaviour unless “I was in that state” and which times he would be taken to the hospital. He stated “I was taken over by an entity…” which would last one day to two days once to twice per month.

For some time this pattern “eased off” until immediately prior to the index offenses. He stated “this one…just came on.” “It started on June 22…around my daughter’s birthday”. He explained that a friend “out of the blue” called and stated “you have a lot of spirits around you.” He found this “kind of weird.” He felt compelled to stop using his cellular telephone. He recalled taking long walks on the day prior to the offenses “to clear my mind and pray.” Although he believed that others felt that he was talking to himself he stated “I was just praying.”

Mr. Auld explained “I felt like my head was being torn apart…I needed my father’s help to protect me.” He recalled a particular “attack” upon him at the kitchen table prior to the day in question when he asked his father to rub his head. “I felt like he was a superhero.” Mr. Auld uttered words that he had no control over such as “keoba” [sic] which he believed meant “your father.”

At the moments in question, he recalled that “I woke up in the room… saying ‘pop, pop, pop, I need help’…I know I didn’t hit my mother… I may have shook my father to get help: ‘Pop, pop…help me!’”. Mr. Auld had no other recollection whatsoever of the mechanistic elements of the offenses as described, or his prevailing mental state at the immediate moments of the assaults.

He denied actively hallucinating or being under the influence of any intoxicant prior to the offenses. He perceived no direct threats to himself or any need to act in self-defense. He was not taking any prescribed or non-prescribed medications at the material time.

He reported no acrimony whatsoever between him and his father: “me and my father were the best of buddies…we go back and forth to Jamaica…we were the best…he was the mild-mannered man you’d ever know.”

When reflecting on his mental state once in custody at the TSDC, Mr. Auld explained that “the attacks continued in here…in MHAU, I was in a totally different spiritual world...the officers avoided me.” Mr. Auld reported that overall, the spiritual experiences attenuated until approximately six weeks prior to the present assessment when a co-inmate indicated to him that he had a “big spirit” around him which once again prompted a number of his spiritual concerns to return.

File Information Pertaining to the Index Offences

The following was obtained from the report dated April 9, 2017, authored by Dr. D. Pallandi:

Circumstances of the Index Offences:

Mr. Auld’s family described him as typically being a nice and quiet person free of aggression towards others. His behaviour as described below was uncharacteristic of him. They were not aware of any acrimony between him and his parents.

Mr. Auld’s family had been concerned about his behaviour over the preceding few days. He was noted to be pacing and talking to himself. This, to the family, was reminiscent of his behaviour prior to previously having been taken to mental health facilities. His family believed that he had been “on and off” three weeks prior to the assaults. Although his family noted that he had been screaming on the night prior to the offenses, they had, to a degree, normalized this because it had “happened a lot.”

Shortly after 9 AM on the day in question, Mr. Auld entered his parents’ room and severely beat both his father and mother (without a weapon).

Mr. Auld had stated to his sister that “they [his parents] were trying to kill him.” After the family observed him to be making punching gestures, they called 911. Mr. Auld’s mother attempted to shield Mr. Auld’s father; however, he continued to assault both of them despite attempts to intercede on the part of family members.

Police arrived at approximately 9:14 and arrested Mr. Auld. Mr. Auld’s father died one week later.

Mr. Auld’s behaviour at the time of police arrival was bizarre and agitated. He was sweating, mumbling and singing. He spoke of how Police and others would die. He described interference by CIA and FBI electronics. He referred to himself as the “King Emperor.” He was thought disordered.

The initial in car video revealed Mr. Auld to be in an intensely disturbed, agitated, bizarre and psychotic state. He was obviously distressed as evidenced by his repeated pleading with officers.

His behaviour at St. Joseph’s Hospital was similarly problematic. He was described as being aggressive, loud, and bizarre. His thought content was noted to be grandiose, bizarre, and disorganized. He was largely unable to provide meaningful answers to questions. It was noted that his urinary drug and alcohol screen subsequently proved to be negative.

In the second in-car video following his discharge from hospital, he appeared calmer and quieter but revealed little about his thoughts.

TSDC records in the post arrest period depicted Mr. Auld as not only being psychotic but evidencing a substantial deterioration in his mental state since being received in custody. He evidenced paranoid delusions, such as feeling that he was being controlled by others and that he was a robot. He endorsed auditory hallucinations. He had marked distortions in his understanding of his circumstances. He was noted to frequently be speaking to himself, being unclothed, and “playing” with the water in his toilet. Questions about his fitness to stand trial were raised.

The initial diagnostic considerations were of an “acute paranoid psychosis with marked agitation and mild disorientation.”

He evidenced a progressive and pronounced improvement in his clinical state, facilitating his removal to a less secure environment with more routine mental health follow-up. He eventually did not require psychotropic medications and remained stable. He thereafter was described as being pleasant, cooperative, lucid, and reasonable."

13. Mr. Auld’s course since the finding of NCR is set out in detail in the Hospital Report. For the purposes of these Reasons, it is only necessary to refer to the following taken from the section of the Hospital Report that details Mr. Auld’s course (at CAMH LGUA from October 2024 to October 2025):

"During this reporting year, Mr. Auld resided on LGUA. There have been significant supervision challenges during this time period, including an unauthorized leave of absence (ULOA), along with several positive urine drug screen (UDS) results. Mr. Auld began the year with Level 9 privileges (extended community indirectly supervised passes). He concluded the year on Level 4 privileges (accompanied passes to the community with staff).

Notable events

As noted above, on October 18, 2024, Mr. Auld tested positive for ethyl glucuronide with results being indeterminate on October 22, 2024. Mr. Auld admitted to having a beer at his mother’s place of residence after leaving work early without letting the team know. He attributed this use to a recent stressor where his car was towed. Mr. Auld was noted to have been more transparent and less defensive than with past relapses. As such, the team agreed for him to resume his Level 9 passes for work (he worked in construction full-time), though his day passes were limited.

A family meeting occurred on November 8, 2024, with the clinical team, Mr. Auld and Mr. Auld’s daughter, Chanel. The circumstances of Mr. Auld’s re-admission, breaches, and ongoing management concerns were reviewed in detail with Chanel, with emphasis on clinical instability over the last year and the risks associated with cocaine use. Feedback around the need to manage risk and how this required proactive input from Mr. Auld before he could move forward within the forensic system was also provided. Mr. Auld interjected several times during this meeting to voice disagreements with the team’s feedback regarding his illness, risk of relapse and potential destabilizers. After the meeting’s conclusion, the team had a frank discussion with Mr. Auld again about transparency around his work and to proactively update the team if work hours get changed going forward.

In December 2024, Dr. Pauls, Mr. Auld’s long-term therapist, departed from CAMH. Mr. Auld considered a SMART recovery group for substance use. However, ultimately, it was decided that it was not the best fit for Mr. Auld’s needs as it was a program that appeared to be harm-reduction based, for individuals with high external drive, and which may have potentially increased his exposure to substances as well.

Mr. Auld received extended passes over the holidays to spend time with his family (from December 20 to 24, 2025, and then from December 24 to December 31, 2025). Mr. Auld was in bright spirits during this time. He engaged with the team well and demonstrated less defensiveness when the team reviewed expectations for pass utilization when not working. Mr. Auld reported that he would not be working after the holidays from January to February, but that he may be provided with some shifts sporadically when the weather is appropriate.

On January 7, 2025, the team liaised with Chanel regarding Mr. Auld’s plans for the next two months while he is off work. Chanel reported that she would like Mr. Auld to assist around the house – including with meal preparation and childcare, particularly as she was attending school part-time. Mr. Auld and his family requested extended passes during this time, which the team supported, though the team reiterated the importance of transparency and reinforced expectations during this time.

On return from an extended family pass on January 6, 2025, Mr. Auld tested positive for trace cocaine metabolites (it remained trace positive on January 9, 2025, although it was negative on January 8, 2025). When asked about this, Mr. Auld reported he knew of nothing that could have caused this positive test and reported that there was “no way” he could be positive for cocaine, further adamantly denying any contact with anyone that may have indirectly exposed him to cocaine. Following this, Mr. Auld’s indirectly supervised passes were on hold and UDS testing was increased to three times per week.

On January 13, 2025, another family meeting took place with the clinical team, Mr. Auld and Mr. Auld’s daughter, Chanel. Chanel denied noticing any changes in her father’s behaviour or mental status during his extended passes over the holidays, however, did mention that Mr. Auld would leave the house often for varying amounts of time. She stated that he often returned with large amounts of groceries, and she assumed that he was running errands as he was "always working or tending to something" around the house. During the family meeting, Mr. Auld’s narrative around his positive UDS had evolved since the initial discussion with the team. He reported he “maybe” was exposed to cocaine indirectly when visiting a friend over the holidays, though he was vague in his account of this and his self-report was questionable. His daughter requested that the team give her father another chance. At the conclusion of this meeting, it was decided that Mr. Auld was to be on unit a minimum of three times per week, and overnight passes were suspended.

Mr. Auld tested positive again for trace cocaine metabolites on January 25, 2025. Mr. Auld adamantly denied any substance exposure and denied having been around any cocaine contacts. At this time, he was again asked for an explanation around the positive UDS samples on January 6. He maintained that it was from seeing a friend he spoke to “a few times” and that it may have been in his hair. It was noted that previously he had told the team that he had only seen this friend once. Mr. Auld requested that the team not share this information with his daughter as he did not wish to upset her. The team continued to monitor Mr. Auld’s use with three times a week testing. The clinical team contacted the clinical laboratory, however the cause of his positive urine screens, whether or due to use or environmental exposure, was indeterminate.

On February 26, 2025, Mr. Auld tested positive for trace amounts of cocaine metabolites again. Samples proximal to this time were negative. There were implications that he had ongoing unexplained exposure to cocaine that was indeterminate. Indicia of use could not be completely determined. On March 27, 2025, Mr. Auld returned indeterminate results on ethyl glucuronide testing (samples on March 24 and 28 were negative). He reported that he was consuming non-alcoholic beer a few times a week, as well as bitters. He was cautioned as to the use of non-alcoholic beer on UDS results.

Mr. Auld tested positive for cocaine on April 23, 2025. When the results were available on April 25, Mr. Auld was asked to return from his pass early. He advised he was in Mississauga visiting family (this was not something that the family had advised that Mr. Auld would be doing on his pass) but returned to the unit at the agreed upon time and provided a UDS. This subsequent sample on April 25, 2025, indicated trace amounts of cocaine metabolites and was positive for ethyl glucuronide. His passes were suspended over the weekend and on the unit, he was settled.

When his psychiatrist discussed the incident with him on April 28, 2025, it was noted that Mr. Auld again exhibited defensiveness, and minimization and refused to admit to using any substances. He reported that he passed by one of his friends’ houses to help walk his friend’s dog and said that his friend had a history of cocaine use, but that there was no evidence of drugs there when he visited. He added that he went inside and sat down for a while to talk to his friend before taking his friends dog out, suggesting this was likely the reason he tested positive. When challenged on the implausibility of this assertion, he continued to maintain that he did not use substances. He engaged in extensive minimization of his behaviours, both present and in the past, and focused on how he was not being given enough credit for good behaviour, referring to his extended period without a positive UDS. Mr. Auld was advised that given these events, all of his indirect passes would be discontinued and as per the pass ladder, his privilege level would be demoted to Level 3 (i.e. up to escorted passes to the community). When he was informed of this decision, it was noted that Mr. Auld became angry and argumentative, and was specifically antagonist towards his psychiatrist, stating that she was mistreating him and making things unnecessarily difficult for him.

Staff reported that after the meeting, Mr. Auld was settled. However, later on that afternoon, Mr. Auld requested to partake in a scheduled 4 PM walk to the community and then absconded from his escorted community staff walk by getting onto a streetcar. It was noted that prior to utilizing the pass, he was settled, calm, and patiently waited for the pass. It was believed that this ULOA incident was planned and deliberate. Staff had significant concerns that Mr. Auld would be without his antipsychotic treatment (which is taken orally) or insulin during his ULOA. Staff attempted to call Mr. Auld on the phone without success. Mr. Auld’s daughter Chanel was subsequently informed of the event. Chanel later informed the team that Mr. Auld went by his mother's house and retrieved his vehicle. She reported that she had already relayed this information to the police.

Approximately 36 hours later, on April 30, 2025, Mr. Auld was returned to CAMH by police who had been searching for him since his ULOA. Police informed that they had found Mr. Auld hiding in a closet in the residence of a woman. He described the woman as his girlfriend. While assessed in the CAMH emergency department (ED), he reported that he had alcohol just prior to being brought back to hospital, and his breathalyzer test was positive for the presence of alcohol. He denied using other substances and was noted to be defensive, stating that he needed a break and was tired of being in hospital. On April 30, he declined to provide a UDS sample despite multiple requests by staff and also declined to be assessed by the covering psychiatrist on LGUA.

On May 1, 2025, Mr. Auld met with his attending psychiatrist. It was noted that he was unremorseful about his behaviour and blamed the team for his circumstances and the perceived unfairness of the situation. He blamed the team for taking away his passes. Mr. Auld then admitted that he acted out of frustration and that it was the wrong decision to abscond. He said that his daughter, and even the woman he visited, had advised him to return to hospital on his own. He reported that the woman whose closet he was found in was not his girlfriend and vaguely referenced her as a “friend” but did not elaborate. He also reported that had police not apprehended him, he had planned on being away from the unit for one or two weeks and at the time, thought it was better to be on the street evading the law than stuck in hospital. He believed that he was different than other co-patients and did not believe he should be in the same situation as them. He minimized the use of any substances other than alcohol. He was encouraged to, and eventually, provided a UDS.

On May 2, 2025, a case conference was held with the Forensic Leadership Team. It was determined that Mr. Auld’s ULOA risk remained high and further planning needed to take place before any passes were resumed. On this day, it was revealed that Mr. Auld’s UDS on May 1, 2025, was positive for cannabis, cocaine, and ethyl glucuronide.

On May 7, Mr. Auld admitted to having used cocaine, cannabis and alcohol during his ULOA and denied symptoms of psychosis during his time away from hospital; he continued to be vague on who the woman was with whom he was found. He was advised that per the forensic pass privilege ladder, he would be re-starting at Level 0 (courtyard passes), Mr. Auld was aware of this and expressed a willingness to work with the team and move up the pass ladder.

During the month of May, Mr. Auld primarily stayed in his room during the day and came out at night to socialize briefly. The team reiterated that he needed to demonstrate a commitment to rehabilitation by engaging with the team and with structured programming, however Mr. Auld continued to spend most of his time on the unit in his room.

In June, Mr. Auld expressed willingness to engage in one-on-one work with the unit social worker and behavioural therapist, as well as attending substance use programming virtually. He re-completed the Forensic Systems course. He was also eager to have his daughter become an approved person, where previously he had been resistant to sharing information with family.

Since Mr. Auld’s ULOA event, he has been working to proceed through the forensic pass ladder with attending groups such as Substance Relapse Prevention, Gardening group and Culturally Adapted Cognitive Behavioural therapy (CA-CBT). In September 2025, he began a George Brown College Kitchen Skills 101 Program, a 6-week intensive program delivered by George Brown chef instructors. He completed the program in mid-October. At the time of this report, Mr. Auld had access to Level 5 (indirectly supervised hospital grounds) privileges. He reported hoping to return to work once he had achieved Level 7 or 8 privileges.

His daughter, Chanel has also begun the process to become an approved person, applying for her criminal record check.

UDS have been negative since his return from ULOA in April 2025."

14. The following is taken from the Hospital Report:

"MENTAL STATUS EXAMINATION (October 2025)

Mr. Auld presented as a 60-year-old Jamaican Canadian man who looked his stated age. He was appropriately dressed and groomed. There was no apparent psychomotor agitation or retardation. He was generally pleasant, calm, and cooperative with assessment. His speech was normal in rate, volume, and tone. His thoughts were organized. There was no apparent delusional thought content or religious preoccupation. His affect was euthymic with good range. He denied any perceptual abnormalities. He denied any suicidal, violent, or homicidal ideation. His insight was improved but still limited, with deficits in his appreciation of risk factors for violent reoffending and need for ongoing treatment. His judgment was fair with ongoing high external oversight and enforcement."

15. The following excerpts taken from the section of the Hospital Report under RISK ASSESSMENT are relevant for the purposes of these Reasons:

"VRAG

In terms of his risk for reoffending, Mr. Auld was rated on the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG), one of the most common and well researched risk assessment tools. His score on the VRAG placed him at the 22nd percentile compared to the standardization sample and was associated with the 3rd of nine ascending categories of risk for violent recidivism. Given the standard error of measurement of this instrument, it can be said with 95% confidence that Mr. Auld’s true score on the VRAG is between the 5th and 42nd percentiles of the standardization sample. Among individuals of the standardization sample who were in the same bin/risk category, 12% violently reoffended within 7 years of opportunity and 24% reoffended within 10 years of opportunity. 21% in the development sample obtained lower scores than Mr. Auld.

Mr. Auld’s score on the VRAG places him in a LOW-risk category.

HCR-20 V3 (August 2025)

Historical (H) Items

Historical (H) risk items that are Present and Highly Relevant include a history of problems with Violence (in adulthood), Relationships (intimate, with multiple relationship breakdowns), Substance Use (alcohol), Major Mental Disorder (unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder), and Treatment/Supervision Response. The historical item Employment was Partially Present, but Highly Relevant.

Clinical (C) Items

For the purpose of this assessment, “recent problems” is considered as occurring within the last 12 months.

Clinical (C) risk item that was Present and Highly Relevant included recent problems with Insight (mental disorder, violence risk, and need for treatment), Instability (behavioural and affective), and Treatment/Supervision Response (both compliance and responsiveness).

Risk Management (R) Items

Risk (R) Management items are scored based on consideration of the near future (i.e. upcoming reporting period). For the purpose of this assessment, the items are coded both in the context of a conditional discharge, and the clinical team’s recommended disposition of a detention order with community living.

a) Conditional Discharge

In the context of a conditional discharge, Risk (R) Management items that would be Present and Highly Relevant include future problems with Professional Services/Plans (intensity of professional services not commensurate with risk), Treatment/Supervision Response (both compliance and responsiveness), Stress/Coping, and Living Situation. The risk management item Personal Support would be Partially Present, but Highly Relevant.

b) Detention Order with Community Living

While residing in the community subject to a detention order, the impact of future problems with Treatment/Supervision (compliance), Living Situation, Stress/Coping, and Professional Services/Plans would be mitigated by the clinical team’s ability to approve housing, enforce treatment compliance, and rapidly readmit Mr. Auld to hospital should dynamic risk factors intensify prior to his certifiability under the Mental Health Act.

Of note, while actuarial risk assessments (i.e., VRAG. PCL-R) place Mr. Auld in the Low (below average) risk category, considering key dynamic criminogenic needs (i.e. substance use, inadequate stress management/coping, major mental illness, history of duplicity and non-compliance with risk management recommendations, and limited insight/treatment compliance), he would likely pose an above average risk in the community absent the interventions afforded by his current detention order. (Emphasis mine)

Final Risk Judgment

Taken together, when weighing Mr. Auld’s pertinent risk and protective factors, his risk of any future violence would be High in the context of a Conditional Discharge. In contrast, should he be subject to a detention order with community living, his risk of future violence would be Low-Moderate."

16. The following relevant entries appear in the Hospital Report under Clinical Risk Factors/Re-Offence Scenario:

"Clinical Risk Factors/Re-Offence Scenario

Mr. Auld major mental illness (psychotic disorder) has exhibited an atypical presentation, with a later life onset, episodic course, and relatively preserved intra-episode functioning. However, from the totality of information available, this illness likely represents a late-onset primary psychotic disorder (i.e. schizophrenia). While he has shown good response to relatively low-dose pharmacotherapy and good inter-episode functioning, this does not negative his need for ongoing treatment or the ongoing risk of psychotic relapse absent present external stabilizers.

Concerningly, while Mr. Auld superficially presents with appropriate judgment and insight in the absence of substance use, he has exhibited a prominent pattern of minimization, rationalization, superficial engagement with care providers, and resistance to treatment interventions. His lack of transparency with care providers and repeated opportunistic breaches of his disposition has impeded the clinical team’s ability to safely supervise him in the community. His breaches are of particular concern in light of the severe and abrupt nature of past psychotic deteriorations with rapid onset of prominent agitation, paranoia, disorganization, and associated catastrophic violence. He appears particularly vulnerable to the destabilizing effects of stress and substance use, with alcohol intoxication having been a major factor in at least two episodes of agitated and aggressive psychosis prior to the index offence. Prior to the activation of his WOC in June 2022, he had shown subtle, but significant, elevations in his affective state and deterioration in his judgment secondary to cocaine use. He showed similar deteriorations in judgment and affective stability over the course of the previous reporting year secondary to poorly controlled polysubstance use. Notably, he exhibited overt, albeit transient, mental state changes on at least two occasions prior to his July 2023 readmission to hospital. There is serious concern that absent the external controls of his detention order, his escalating use of substances (in particular cocaine and alcohol) would lead to a relapse of his historically highly agitated and aggressive psychosis.

The most likely re-offence scenario would be if Mr. Auld’s psychiatric symptoms were to suddenly return (i.e., visual and/or auditory hallucinations, behaving and speaking in a bizarre manner, and grandiose delusions), and he became behaviorally dysregulated. Mr. Auld’s violence is reactive. Future incidents of violence would likely occur in reaction to delusions and hallucinations. This could occur as a result of Mr. Auld discontinuing or intermittent adhering to his oral medication regimen, resuming heavy alcohol consumption, escalating in the use of other psychoactive substances (e.g. cocaine), and/or exposure to stressful life events (i.e., familial, financial, and/or work-related). Decompensation would likely follow a similar trajectory as in the past with a rapid and severe onset, and corresponding rapid emergence of violent behaviour (i.e., verbal aggression, throwing objects, behaving in a bizarre manner, and physically assaultive behaviour). In this scenario, if Mr. Auld is not able to receive support immediately, he is likely to be at risk of physically assaulting an individual such as a family member or someone in close proximity."

17. The relevant entry below appears in the Hospital Report under PSYCHIATRIC OPINIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:

"3. Composite Assessment of Risk:

It is the unanimous opinion of the treating team that Mr. Auld continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. His primary risk factors include his psychotic illness, susceptibility to stress, substance use, minimal insight, and superficial engagement with the treating team. While his psychotic illness is atypical, he has experienced numerous clear episodes of decompensation with agitation, disorganization, paranoia, grandiosity, hallucinations, and aggressive behaviour on a number of occasions over the past decade, and he appears to be particularly sensitive to stress and environmental factors (e.g., substance use). He has historically been reluctant to seek support and treatment when stressed and unwell, resulting in quite rapid deterioration. He remains reluctant to engage with his outpatient team to manage stress and to develop a comprehensive risk-management plan. He also has a limited appreciation of his illness, symptoms, and risk with a tendency to minimize the index offences and the factors which contributed to this incident.

In light of the findings regarding his risk factors, risk formulation, and scenarios of future offending, Mr. Auld’s risk for violent reoffending is High if he were to be released on a conditional discharge. In contrast, if Mr. Auld remained subject to his current disposition of detention on a general forensic unit with community living, his risk of future violent offending is considered to be Low-Moderate. (Emphasis mine)

Mr. Auld has a history of multiple psychotic episodes, most often in the context of significant psychosocial stressors and/or substance use. The index offences involved a high degree of violence towards his elderly and vulnerable parents, resulting in a catastrophic injury to his father, and his eventual death. Mr. Auld has a limited history of violence aside from this incident but has behaved aggressively and erratically when unwell on other occasions. Mr. Auld’s psychotic episodes have generally resolved without medication treatment. He has been cooperative with low-dose antipsychotic medication as a prophylactic measure, but he has indicated that he sees little need for medication or other treatment to mitigate his future risk and to prevent relapse. Although he has not experienced any further overt psychotic relapses with ongoing antipsychotic treatment, the marked mental state changes exhibited in 2023 secondary to escalating cocaine use indicate that he likely remains susceptible to serious clinical decompensation even when adherent to medication should his substance use continue unabated. Similarly, the increased instability in his mental state during the 2024 reporting period reflected his ongoing clinical vulnerability to potential stabilizers, including stress and sleep deprivation.

Mr. Auld has demonstrated a longstanding pattern of difficulties complying with external controls and supervision. Although he can adhere with rules and conditions when closely supervised, he has repeatedly struggled when external controls have lessened. While residing in the community."

18. The Hospital Report concludes with the Team Review of Recommendation and Proposed Amendments to Order:

"Team Review of Recommendations

It is the unanimous opinion of the clinical team that a forensic detention order with the provision for community living remains the necessary and appropriate, least onerous and least restrictive, recommendation.

A conditional discharge is not appropriate at this juncture. The team must be able to act quickly and efficiently prior to Mr. Auld becoming certifiable under the Mental Health Act in order to manage his risk to the public. Additionally, it remains necessary to approve his accommodation for risk management purposes.

Proposed Amendments to Order

Given the significant supervision challenges Mr. Auld has experienced during his community tenures and his ongoing need for a high level of external controls while in hospital, the clinical team recommends that his minimal reporting frequency be increased from every 2 weeks to once weekly."

Evidence at the Hearing

19. Dr. H. Meng testified at the hearing.

20. In response to questions from counsel for the hospital, she said that except for the period between April 2025 and January 2026 she has been Mr. Auld’s treating psychiatrist since his transfer to CAMH from Ontario Shores.

21. The doctor acknowledged that since October 2025 Mr. Auld has been on a “positive trajectory”. His daughter Chanel has become an approved person and has taken Mr. Auld to the family home on Level 7 passes, which represents “steady progress”, adding that Mr. Auld is also being issued shorter (4 hour) indirect passes,

22. She stated that Mr. Auld is not currently ready to be permitted to live in the community but “given his trajectory he may be soon.” She noted that he is engaging in therapy, working, abstaining, and communicating with family.

23. Dr. Meng observed that substance use has long been a challenge for Mr. Auld and that his behaviour around it – deception and denial – is of concern.

24. She opined that Mr. Auld remains a significant threat and that the current Disposition is necessary and appropriate to manage that risk.

25. The doctor stated that the clinical team plan is to work with Mr. Auld and his family, opining that family support is “key.”

26. She also observed that substance use is entrenched in his attitude and that he needs appropriate supports.

27. Dr. Meng advised that the hospital’s housing partners are very loath to take Mr. Auld because of his previous behaviour, adding that he may be able to return to his family home after his family care providers have been fully educated and he is fully transparent with them.

28. In response to questions from counsel for the Attorney General, Dr. Meng acknowledged that after his last home visit Mr. Auld tested positive for cocaine, albeit after many successful visits.

29. The doctor said that, given the trace amounts of cocaine in his urine in many of his UDLs, the team’s suspicion is that on the occasions Mr. Auld tests positive it may be when he has been in an environment where cocaine is being used “or” he has been using it himself. She added he does not use it at work, and he does not use it at the family home, observing that it is a positive that he is not using in environments of temptation and a negative that he is not truthful about the source.

30. She said that his relationship with the woman i.e. the “ex-girlfriend he was found with after absconding in November 2023 is both toxic and volatile, and that she is his probable source of cocaine, adding that he requires frequent UDLs to ensure abstinence. The team has also asked Mr. Auld’s family to report their concerning observations.

31. Dr. Meng advised that Mr. Auld’s past psychotic breakdowns have been “very rapid, sudden,” adding that there were a lot more of them in 2024 when he was likely undertreated and that they are currently “more on top of his presentation.”

32. In response to a question from counsel for Mr. Auld about the family’s involvement with the clinical team past and current, the doctor responded that there has been a “huge positive change” since Mr. Auld loss of his housing and rehospitalization and loss of passes, adding that it is a “learning curve” for his family.

33. She acknowledged that Mr. Auld has been medication compliant, and that when his presentation changes there are concerns but no violence, adding that the team provided a lot of support to the family (in particular his daughter Chanel).

34. Dr. Meng said that housing is something to strive for and should not be removed from the Disposition.

35. She observed that Mr. Auld is high functioning; he is able to maintain employment in construction and participate in culinary and gardening activities and group programming.

36. In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Meng reiterated that Mr. Auld is high functioning, positing that the diagnosis is likely schizophrenia, that he is in good remission of his symptoms and that he has had a good response to Abilify in low doses.

37. Regarding Mr. Auld’s insight into his risk of violence, she replied that it is “not meaningful” and that he responds to firm external controls.

38. Regarding Mr. Auld’s insight into substance use, she said he has none.

39. Regarding his potential for sudden violence and the risk he poses to his family, Dr. Meng said she could not say now, adding that Mr. Auld had many years of stability in the community. She observed that changes in his presentation are quickly observable and lead to hospitalization.

40. Asked about the potential for independent accommodation, the doctor responded that it had to be “affordable, safe, and close to the hospital.”

41. Regarding the risk management plan for substance use, she stated that it is individual relapse programming on the unit. Asked if he would benefit from group programming, she replied that it would be difficult given his (lack of) insight.

42. Asked if Mr. Auld requires professional support staff to address his substance use, she replied that it would not necessarily assist, adding that he is high functioning and effective at deception and that therefore frequent ADLs and clinical observation are necessary.

Final Submissions

43. All parties submitted that an order detaining Mr. Auld at the Forensic Services at CAMH was necessary and appropriate.

44. Counsel for the hospital and counsel for Mr. Auld agreed that the accommodation clause permitting Mr. Auld to live in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge” should continue.

45. Counsel for the Attorney General argued that given Mr. Auld’s history of breaches and the level of support and supervision he requires, the accommodation clause should be more restrictive and only permit Mr. Auld to live in the community in supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge.

Analysis and Conclusion

A. Significant Threat

46. Based on the clear, convincing, and uncontroverted evidence in the Hospital Report and Dr. Meng’s testimony – especially the evidence concerning risk assessment - the panel is unanimous in finding that Mr. Auld continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. The excerpt from the Hospital Report set out below is an eloquent summary of the risk Mr. Auld poses:

"It is the unanimous opinion of the treating team that Mr. Auld continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. His primary risk factors include his psychotic illness, susceptibility to stress, substance use, minimal insight, and superficial engagement with the treating team. While his psychotic illness is atypical, he has experienced numerous clear episodes of decompensation with agitation, disorganization, paranoia, grandiosity, hallucinations, and aggressive behaviour on a number of occasions over the past decade, and he appears to be particularly sensitive to stress and environmental factors (e.g., substance use). He has historically been reluctant to seek support and treatment when stressed and unwell, resulting in quite rapid deterioration. He remains reluctant to engage with his outpatient team to manage stress and to develop a comprehensive risk-management plan. He also has a limited appreciation of his illness, symptoms, and risk with a tendency to minimize the index offences and the factors which contributed to this incident."

B. Necessary and Appropriate Disposition

47. The past several reporting years have been particularly challenging for Mr. Auld. The following is quoted from last year’s Reasons for Disposition:

"The past reporting year has presented numerous challenges for the treatment team and Mr. Auld. In the Reasons for Disposition released on November 22, 2023, the Board said as follows at paragraph 57:

Mr. Auld will still be subject to a Detention Order and close supervision. But, as the Board must fashion the least onerous and least restrictive conditions in our order, we cannot order that he be allowed only supervised accommodation. Mr. Auld has shown some ability to comply with conditions, albeit with much room for improvement. He has used passes well while in hospital. He has had negative drug screening tests while in hospital. He seems to realize that there will be very serious consequences if he fails to comply with the current Disposition allowing him to live independently in the community. He will still have very active involvement with a treatment team while residing in the community. Balancing all the factors, the Board orders Detention with a term of living in the community in accommodation approved by the Person in Charge of the hospital. The accompanying Order will set out the precise terms.

As noted in this year’s Hospital Report, the panel in 2023 actively questioned whether or not Mr. Auld was a suitable candidate to remain in independent living or whether he should be returned to supervised accommodation or readmitted to the hospital. After a careful weighing of all of the factors and the law, the panel reached the conclusion expressed above. It is of note that five days before the release of the above reasons, Mr. Auld was readmitted to the hospital.

The circumstances of Mr. Auld’s readmission to hospital in the last reporting year are set out in detail in the Hospital Report. Mr. Auld was advised that there would be a very low threshold for readmission, and he expressed a high motivation for abstinence and complying with his conditions. The treatment team was told he had separated ties with substance-using peers, including his ex-girlfriend. He was discharged on October 31, 2023. Within two weeks of being discharged, Mr. Auld had breached the conditions of his discharge by failing to comply with scheduled meetings and treatment. It was also determined that a urine drug screen from the first week of his release had returned a positive result for cocaine metabolites. As a result, Mr. Auld was told that he was going to be readmitted to the hospital. Security was called to escort Mr. Auld, but he managed to escape from them and left the hospital in his motor vehicle. The following day, he was apprehended by police who were required to make a forceful entry into his unit after he refused to open the door. Mr. Auld’s ex-girlfriend was also found to be in the unit and had apparently been covertly residing there without the knowledge of the clinical team. Further urine drug screening returned positive samples for November 13th and 16th. Mr. Auld has continued to be admitted to the hospital since November 17, 2023.

As set out in the Hospital Report, throughout the past year, the treatment team has made attempts to discharge Mr. Auld back to the community in supervised accommodation consistent with his treatment requirements. He has not been accepted for any of the vacancies which have been presented as a result of his significant supervision breaches and complex substance use history. Mr. Auld has progressed to the highest pass level available, and this has permitted him to obtain and maintain full-time employment in the construction industry. As stated by Dr. Meng, this has presented its own difficulties with his management. Mr. Auld has continued his pattern of behaviour of pushing back against rules and oversight and attempts to circumvent supervision through opportunistic rule violations and selective interpretation of expectations. He continues to show very poor insight into his illness, treatment needs and risk factors for re-offending. He also had two positive urine drug screens for cocaine metabolites. Mr. Auld has not been forthcoming in explaining to the treatment team how these positive results might have occurred."

48. There were more supervision challenges for the clinical team during the past reporting year. As noted in paragraph 13 of these reasons:

"During this reporting year, Mr. Auld resided on LGUA. There have been significant supervision challenges during this time period, including an unauthorized leave of absence (ULOA), along with several positive urine drug screen (UDS) results. Mr. Auld began the year with Level 9 privileges (extended community indirectly supervised passes). He concluded the year on Level 4 privileges (accompanied passes to the community with staff)."

49. Section 672.54 of the Criminal Code provides that the safety of the public is the paramount concern in the drafting of the necessary and appropriate disposition.

50. Based on the clear, convincing and uncontroverted evidence in the Hospital Report and Dr. Meng’s testimony – in particular the factual underpinning of the significant threat to the public that Mr. Auld poses and the tools required by the clinical team to address that risk - the panel is unanimous in finding that the hospital recommendation of an order detaining Mr. Auld at the Forensic Service of CAMH with the same conditions and privileges as last year’s Disposition is the necessary and appropriate, least restrictive and least onerous disposition.

51. We understand the reasons for the Crown’s submission that the Disposition should stipulate supervised rather than approved accommodation, given the events of the last several reporting years. That said, the panel is confident that the hospital will act prudently in the exercise of its discretion, and we are not satisfied that the suggested variation meets the “least onerous and least restrictive” test.

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