Ontario Review Board
Re: Brian J. Lloyd
ORB File No: 3302
Hearing held on: Wednesday, March 4, 2026
Place of Hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. C. Flanagan
Members: Dr. R. Sheppard Dr. G. Nexhipi Mr. D. Sandor (via Zoom) Mr. W. Apted
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Brian J. Lloyd Counsel: Mr. D. Lawson
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Mr. J. McIntyre
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. S. Malik
REASONS FOR DISPOSITON
(Dated March 18, 2026)
Introduction
On January 31, 2001, Brian J. Lloyd was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on one charge of assault, and two charges of assault with intent to resist arrest, all contrary to the Criminal Code.
Mr. Lloyd is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB” or the “Board”), dated February 27, 2025, detaining him at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (“CAMH”), with privileges up to and including, to live in the Greater Toronto Area in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
On March 4, 2026, the Board convened at CAMH to conduct Mr. Lloyd’s annual review and to make a Disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Lloyd attended his hearing and was represented by his counsel, Mr. D. Lawson. A Hospital Report dated February 13, 2026, was marked as Exhibit 1 at his hearing.
The issues for the hearing are whether Mr. Lloyd continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public and, if so, to determine the necessary and appropriate Disposition in all the circumstances.
For the reasons set out below, this Board concluded that Mr. Lloyd continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is the continuation of the existing Disposition with the removal of the abstinence and urine drug screening (“UDS”) clauses, and an amendment to the reporting condition to read “not less than once per month”.
Initial Position of the Parties
At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as to their recommendations to the Board.
Mr. McIntyre, on behalf of the Hospital, submitted Mr. Lloyd continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public, and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition was a continuation of the existing Detention Disposition with the removal of the abstinence and urine drug screening (“UDS”) clauses, and an amendment to the reporting condition to read “not less than once per month”.
Ms. Malik, on behalf of the Attorney General of Ontario, supported the continuation of the existing Disposition with the reduction in frequency of reporting. She reserved on the recommendation to remove the abstinence and screening clauses from the Disposition until hearing the evidence.
Mr. Lawson, on behalf of Mr. Lloyd, agreed with the Hospital’s recommendation.
Index Offences
- The details of the index offences are extracted from the Hospital Report as follows:
“On Thursday, November 9, 2000, at about 2:00 p.m., Mr. Lloyd was noted to have assaulted his clinical caseworker at his boarding home, Regeneration House. He was on a leave of absence from the hospital at the time in an attempt to discharge him into the community. Once inside, Mr. Lloyd became violent and began to punch the victim in the head. The victim received three punches to the head and left to call the police. The police arrived and placed Mr. Lloyd under arrest for assault. He then started to fight with the two officers: one received a scratch to his neck when his tie was ripped off, and the other also had his tie ripped off and was kicked in the left leg. Both officers had to wrestle the accused to the ground. Mr. Lloyd received a small scratch to his forehead. The accused was subdued and handcuffed. He was transported to the East General Hospital, where the scratch to his head was treated with a sterile dressing, and he was subsequently transported to 55 Division. The Show Cause reported he assaulted the victim for no apparent reason.”
Personal Background/Psychiatric History
Mr. Lloyd’s personal background and psychiatric history are extensively set out in the Hospital Report and need not be repeated here.
Briefly, Mr. Lloyd is a 74-year-old university-educated male, who is supported by Canada Pension Plan (“CPP”) and Guaranteed Income Supplement (“GIS”). He is unmarried and supported by his two sisters.
Mr. Lloyd has a Bachelor of Arts degree in History. He has no significant work history due to his mental illness and no history of alcohol or drug abuse.
He has a sporadic criminal history. In 1976, he was convicted for watch and beset of a female and received 12 months’ probation. In 1989, he was charged with assaulting the Psychiatrist-in-Chief at Queen Street Mental Health Centre (now CAMH) which was ultimately withdrawn in 1991. Another assault charge was withdrawn in December 1999, and he received an absolute discharge for an assault in 2000.
Mr. Lloyd has a long history of symptoms consistent with schizophrenia, with an extensive history of aggression associated with delusions. He was first hospitalized in 1976, after an approximately one-year period of increasing suspiciousness and social isolation during university. He was hospitalized several times in the late 1970s and 1980s, following violence at home and against family members.
On February 5, 1990, following his assault on a psychiatrist, Mr. Lloyd was found unfit to stand trial and transferred to the Mental Health Centre Penetanguishene (now Waypoint). In November 1991, Mr. Lloyd was transferred to Queen Street Mental Health Centre (now CAMH).
At CAMH, Mr. Lloyd had over 30 involuntary admissions for posing a serious risk of harm to others due to his physical aggression and threats. He also eloped more than five times between 1992 and 1996.
In the fall of 2000, while on a two-week leave from hospital to reside at a boarding home (Regeneration House), he committed the three Index offences. Since the finding of NCR in 2001, Mr. Lloyd has been subject to a Detention Disposition. On July 6, 2021, he was discharged into supervised housing on White Squirrel Way (within the CAMH grounds). On October 8, 2023, he was transferred to John Gibson House, a facility providing 24-hour supervision; however, due to incidences of wandering behavior, he was readmitted to hospital in January 2024.
In September 2024 he suffered a fall that required transfer to St. Michael’s Hospital for neurosurgery and drainage. He was subsequently transferred to hospice care and readmitted to CAMH upon recovery.
Mr. Lloyd remains incapable of consenting to treatment or managing his finances. One of his two sisters, who resides in Toronto, is his substitute decision-maker (“SDM”).
Current Diagnosis
- Mr. Lloyd’s diagnoses are schizophrenia (treatment refractory) and a major neurocognitive disorder (multiple etiology).
Evidence at the Hearing
The Hospital’s evidence was presented through the oral testimony of Dr. Amina Ali to supplement the Hospital Report filed as an exhibit at the hearing. Dr. Ali advised that she has been Mr. Lloyd’s attending psychiatrist for a few years.
Mr. Lloyd was discharged into LOFT community housing in February 2025. This is a 24-hour supervised and high support accommodation on CAMH property. The staff administers medication, provides meals and Mr. Lloyd has his own bedroom. Mr. Lloyd does not go out on his own and has limited staff accompanied outings into the community. Mr. Lloyd has outstanding applications to move to a long-term care facility. Dr. Ali highlighted that should Mr. Lloyd be transferred to a long-term care facility, the same kind of high support would be necessary.
Mr. Lloyd has a long history of schizophrenia that is treatment-resistant in nature. He continues to experience refractory delusions and conceptual disorganization. The doctor advised that the high support Mr. Lloyd receives from both the forensic outpatient team and housing staff allows him to remain stable. During the reporting year, there were no changes to his mental status, no violent episodes or incidents and he was compliant with his medication regimen.
Mr. Lloyd has limited insight into his illness, symptoms, need for medications, and index offences. He has evidenced poor cognitive performance on structured cognitive testing. Mr. Lloyd has the support of his two sisters, who remain in regular contact with him.
Dr. Ali confirmed that Mr. Lloyd remained a significant threat to the safety of the public and advised that if Mr. Lloyd was to receive an Absolute Discharge Disposition, he would fall away from services, decompensate and become a significant risk to the community. As outlined on page 39 of the Hospital Report under Composite Assessment of Risk:
“In accounting for risk and protective factors outlined in the HCR 20 and SAPROF, Mr. Lloyd’s risk of violent re-offending with the current disposition is in the low-moderate range. In the context of a conditional or an absolute discharge, his risk for violent re-offending falls towards the higher end of the moderate to high range”
Dr. Ali stated that a Conditional Discharge Disposition was not appropriate at this juncture. In this regard, the MHA would not be sufficient to manage his risk, as was the case the last time he was brought back into hospital following a community discharge. The doctor also highlighted that the hospital requires the ability to approve of Mr. Lloyd’s housing in the community, which must provide significant support to manage both his needs and risk.
Dr. Ali supported the reduction in frequency of minimum reporting for Mr. Lloyd. She advised that Mr. Lloyd receives significant support from both his forensic outpatient team and his high support housing. The forensic outpatient team visits him at his housing on the CAMH campus, rather than Mr. Lloyd coming to the hospital/clinic. In this regard, his risk is well managed.
With respect to the removal of the abstinence and urine drug screening clauses from the Disposition, Dr. Ali explained that Mr. Lloyd has no history of substance use. All urine drug screens have been negative, and the treatment team has no concerns in this regard.
No further evidence was presented at the hearing.
Final Submissions of the Parties
Mr. McIntyre, on behalf of the Hospital, maintained his initial position which he stated is a joint position. He submitted that Mr. Lloyd’s high support from both the team and housing staff supports the reduction in frequency of reporting, and his lack of substance use history justifies the removal of the abstinence and urine drug screening conditions in the Disposition.
Ms. Malik, on behalf of the Attorney General of Ontario, after hearing the evidence, concurred with the Hospital.
Mr. Lawson, on behalf of Mr. Lloyd, maintained the joint position.
Analysis and Conclusion
Having considered all the evidence presented at the hearing, this Board finds that Mr. Lloyd continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public as set out in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code. We make this finding based on the oral evidence of Dr. Ali and the evidence contained in the Hospital Report filed as an exhibit at the hearing, notwithstanding the joint position on significant threat by the parties.
Mr. Lloyd has long-standing major mental illness that is treatment-resistant in nature. In addition, his major neurocognitive disorder has evidenced functional decline over the years with short-term memory deficits. He continues to experience refractory delusions and conceptual disorganization. In the past, this has led to assaultive behaviour, including the index offences. The brittle nature of his illness, limited insight, and persistent psychosis make his illness vulnerable to decompensation in his mental state. As such, Mr. Lloyd remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.
Given the nature of Mr. Lloyd’s illness and accompanying risk factors, it is important and necessary for the hospital to approve Mr. Lloyd’s housing in the community. In this regard, he requires a high support environment to properly maintain stability in his mental state and manage his risk. Should he be moved to a long-term care facility in the upcoming year, it is expected that such a facility will provide the necessary high level of support.
To Mr. Lloyd’s credit, over the reporting year he has engaged with his forensic outpatient team and enjoyed the full support of his two sisters who remain in regular contact. He has been compliant with his medication regimen, remained relatively stable and there has been no untoward assaultive behaviour.
Reduction in Minimum Reporting Frequency
- This Board agrees with the proposed reduction in minimum reporting frequency. As stated by Dr. Ali, the forensic outpatient treatment team visits Mr. Lloyd at his residence rather than Mr. Lloyd regularly attending hospital. In such circumstances, given the high level of support at his accommodation, the proposed amendment to his Disposition is appropriate.
Removal of the Abstinence and Urine Drug Screening (UDS) Clauses
This Board also agrees that it is appropriate to remove both the substance abstinence clause and urine drug screening clause from the Disposition. Mr. Lloyd has no history of substance use and all his urine drug screens have been negative.
Consequently, we find that the most necessary and appropriate Disposition is the continuation of the existing Detention Disposition with the removal of the abstinence and urine drug screening (“UDS”) clauses, and an amendment to the reporting condition to read “not less than once per month”.
In reaching our decision, this Board has considered the safety of the public, Mr. Lloyd’s mental condition, his reintegration into society, and his other needs.
DATED this 18^th^ day of March, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. C. Flanagan
Alternate Chairperson
__________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board