Re Shirley Jeremie aka Griffiths, 2026 CanLII 23885

Re: Shirley Jeremie aka Griffiths

ORB File No: 1688

Hearing held on: Wednesday, January 7, 2026

Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health

Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Dr. K. Connidis

Members: Hon. N. Kozloff Dr. K. Hand Dr. G. Kerry Mr. S. Duffy

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Shirley Jeremie aka Griffiths Counsel: Ms. L. Leinveer

The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. M. Warner

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. S. Reid

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated March 19, 2026)

Introduction

1. On September 7, 1993, Ms. Shirley Jeremie (aka Griffiths, hereinafter “Jeremie”), was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, on a charge of assaulting a police officer, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”).

2. Under her current Disposition, dated December 27, 2024, Ms. Jeremie is subject to the terms and conditions of a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”). Pursuant to this Disposition, she was discharged conditionally from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, (“CAMH” and “the hospital”) and subject to the terms set out therein. This Disposition requires that she reside at a specified residence, known as Fudger House.

3. On January 7, 2026, the Board convened a hearing at CAMH to conduct the annual review of the current Disposition.

4. Ms. Jeremie was present at the hearing and was represented by her counsel, Ms. L. Leinveer.

5. A Hospital Report dated December 17, 2025, (the "Hospital Report") was entered as Exhibit 1. Dr. Ugwunze, Ms. Jeremie’s attending psychiatrist, testified at the hearing.

6. The issues to be determined are whether Ms. Jeremie continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public and, if so, the necessary and appropriate disposition to manage that risk having regard to the criteria set out in s. 672.54.

7. At the outset of this hearing, counsel for the hospital stated her position that Ms. Jeremie no longer represents a significant threat to the safety of the public and should therefore be absolutely discharged. Counsel for the Attorney General and for Ms. Jeremie agreed with that position.

8. For the following reasons, the Board finds that Ms. Jeremie is not a significant threat to the safety of the public and orders that she be absolutely discharged.

Index Offence:

9. The circumstances giving rise to the Index Offence are extracted from last year's Board Reasons, as follows:

“On Monday, June 7, 1993, at approximately 4:45 p.m., the accused was standing in the centre of the east sidewalk of Yonge Street, south of Shuter Street, in Toronto holding three half bricks in her hands. A uniformed police officer who was walking northbound on the sidewalk observed the accused holding the bricks. He stopped approximately six feet south of the accused’s location and confronted her.

The accused immediately began hurling the bricks at the officer, striking him on the left wrist, left forearm and left bicep. The officer ran up to the accused and placed her under arrest. While the officer was in the process of arresting the accused, she bit him. The officer sustained multiple injuries and abrasions in the attack and was transported to St. Michael’s Hospital Emergency for treatment.”

10. The details of Ms. Jeremie’s relevant (personal, psychiatric, and legal) background are contained in the Hospital Report and set out below:

"IDENTIFYING DATA

At the time of production of this report, Ms. Jeremie was a 74-year-old single woman, with three adult sons, residing in the community in City of Toronto Long Term Care facility at “Fudger House”, under the clinical care of Dr. Nnamdi Ugwunze and the Forensic Outpatient Service (FOPS). She was financially supported by Ontario Disability Support Program funding (ODSP). She was being treated for her schizoaffective disorder with the antipsychotic clozapine at 400 mg and the mood stabilizer divalproic acid at 1g under substitute consent as provided by her son. Ms. Jeremie was seen once a week by her transitional case manager who visits her residence and by tele/videoconference by her psychiatrist and other clinical staff.

PERSONAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY

A. Childhood and Family History

Ms. Jeremie was born on November 28, 1951, in a small town on the West Indian Island of Trinidad, part of Trinidad and Tobago. She is the second in a sibline of six.

Ms. Jeremie was born of a normal delivery, with no known complications. She met her developmental milestones at age-appropriate intervals. There are no suggestions of behavioural difficulties in childhood or adolescence. Ms. Jeremie’s mother was a teacher in a school for developmentally delayed children. She is reported to have suffered from a schizophrenic-like illness, requiring hospitalization and long-term treatment. She is deceased. Ms. Jeremie’s father was a clerk with the Trinidadian government. Her parents separated when Ms. Jeremie was approximately four years of age, with her father remarrying roughly four years later. Ms. Jeremie alternated her place of residence between her father and stepmother, and a maternal aunt. She has two stepsiblings, a brother and sister, from the second marriage of her father.

Ms. Jeremie described both of her parents in positive terms, stating that her mother was supportive and encouraging. Her father was the disciplinarian; however, there were no suggestions of physical, verbal or sexual abuse. This changed with the second marriage of her father, with Ms. Jeremie alleging physical abuse by both her stepmother and her aunt.

Ms. Jeremie left the family home at age 18.

Ms. Jeremie has had no recent contact with her father, stepmother, stepsiblings or siblings, all of whom reside in Trinidad, the US or England. She has no relatives in Canada beyond her own nuclear family. Two sons presently reside in the GTA and one in Chile.

B. Education History

Ms. Jeremie reported completing grade eight in Trinidad. It is unclear as to why her schooling was interrupted. Following her immigration to Canada, she reported enrolling in, and completing, courses as a nursing care aide through a community college. She completed an educational program at CAMH; “Literacy and Basic Skills.” She is not presently involved in any educational activities.

C. Employment History

Ms. Jeremie first became employed at age 18, following her leaving the family home. She moved from her town in Trinidad to the main city, Port-of-Spain, where she began work as a domestic in a family home, assisting with cleaning and daily chores. She continued to work sporadically in similar positions prior to immigrating to Canada. She had periods without employment, following her marriage and the birth of her three sons.

Since immigrating to Canada, Ms. Jeremie has had a variety of short-term unskilled employment positions, including work as a cleaner in hostels and hospitals. Following the completion of her studies as a nurse’s aide, she worked as a nursing assistant between 1982 and 1986, primarily at the Princess Margaret Hospital.

After the onset of her psychiatric illness in 1985, Ms. Jeremie has been sufficiently impaired as to prevent her from re-entering the workforce in any substantial fashion. She has been maintained on social assistance since approximately 1986. She has had periods during which she has had no source of income, and also periods during which she has supplemented her income through short-term unskilled positions, such as flower selling, cleaning and, at times, in the sex trade industry. She is presently unemployed and receiving ODSP as her source of income. She previously worked as cleaner for the “Fresh Start” cleaning service.

D. Relationship History

Ms. Jeremie gives an unclear history of her social and intimate relationships. Clinical charting suggests that she previously described being a socially competent individual as a child and adolescent, with a large peer network. Further, she describes several, albeit short-term, intimate interpersonal relationships as an adolescent. She married on one occasion and had 3 sons. She has not otherwise lived common-law. She is not presently involved in an intimate interpersonal relationship.

PSYCHIATRIC HISTORY

North York General Hospital: 1985

Ms. Jeremie’s first contact with mental health professionals took place at the North York General Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, and beginning in 1985. She was admitted on two occasions during 1985, for a total inpatient stay of approximately six months’ duration. Her admissions were precipitated by psychotic symptoms of several months’ duration, leading to disruptive behaviour within the community. Her first admission was the result of an apprehension by police under the Mental Health Act. On the second occasion, circumstances of the admission are unclear. Her admission diagnoses were schizophrenia, and on both occasions, she received the antipsychotic, perphenazine. She was discharged with referral to outpatient psychiatric follow-up, which she did not attend.

Wellesley Hospital: 1987 to 1989

Ms. Jeremie had three inpatient admissions and sporadic outpatient follow-up through this facility. Her presentation to hospital occurred following apprehension by police under the Mental Health Act, generally following disruptive behaviour in the community with damage to property. She was admitted on an involuntary basis, and treated with antipsychotic medication (to which she responded with increased behavioural control). She was discharged Against Medical Advice and sporadically contacted her outpatient psychiatrist through the day hospital program.

Queen Street Mental Health Centre: 1987 to 1993

Prior to Ms. Jeremie’s Ontario Review Board involvement, Ms. Jeremie had had 22 inpatient admissions to this facility. Further, she had numerous additional presentations to the Assessment and Admitting Department, which did not lead to admission. On each occasion, inpatient admissions were involuntary, after having been brought to hospital by police following concern about her behaviour in the community. Her admitting and discharge diagnoses varied, including schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, schizoaffective disorder, alcohol/substance abuse, and mixed personality disorder. On each occasion, she improved sufficiently in response to antipsychotic treatment, so as to be viewed as no longer certifiable. On the majority of occasions, she left hospital Against Medical Advice, only to become noncompliant with treatment in the community and subsequently to deteriorate in terms of her behaviour and function.

It is noteworthy that Ms. Jeremie’s aggressive behaviours within the community, while acutely psychotic, have included violence toward persons and property. She has a well documented and established pattern of damage to private property, including boarding homes in which she has resided, physicians’ offices and City Hall. She has been to hospital on at least two occasions for attempts to set a fire in her place of residence. In 1989, police following an attempt to start a fire in her boarding home, as she was of the opinion that co-residents were poisoning her, took her to hospital. This did not lead to a criminal charge. Additionally, family members indicate that Ms. Jeremie has been physically assaultive to them during periods of acute psychosis.

Ms. Jeremie was admitted to this facility in 1992 for approximately one year, following a finding of unfit to stand trial on January 9, 1992, on a charge of mischief x 1. She received antipsychotic medication, with sufficient improvement in her mental status as to return her to fitness.

St. Joseph’s Health Centre: 1993

Ms. Jeremie has had at least one inpatient admission to this facility. Police brought her to hospital on May 30, 1993. The Emergency record indicates, “Brought by police who were called by fire department. This lady piled her clothes in a corner and lit them on fire.” The patient indicated that she “wants to take a blood bath.” She was described as being noncompliant with medication and was admitted for a brief period of stabilization, following which she was discharged Against Medical Advice.

ALCOHOL AND DRUG HISTORY

Ms. Jeremie denied a past or present pattern of abuse of alcohol or other substances. She denied an abusive pattern of use of prescription or over-the-counter medications. Clinical charting suggests, however, that Ms. Jeremie has used psychoactive agents in the past, including cannabis, cocaine and psychostimulants. Further, there are indications that Ms. Jeremie has used alcohol, at times in a potentially abusive pattern. Her family is not aware of a history of such use. In the prior year she continued to report approximately weekly consumption of alcohol (beer and wine) at a local restaurant, and on occasion, contrary to residence rules, in her room. Over the past year she has, as best known by self report and observation, abstained from alcohol and/or substance use.

MEDICAL HISTORY

Ms. Jeremie denied any significant past medical or surgical interventions. Clinical charting documents a cholecystectomy (gallbladder removal) in the 1980s. Ms. Jeremie reported one therapeutic abortion. She suffers from GERD, hypertension (albeit her pressures have settled and her antihypertensive perindopril was discontinued last year) and chronic constipation. She is allergic to penicillin. She receives the following medications for these conditions:

1. Lactulose 20 mg M/W/F;

2. Calcium Carbonate 1250 mgs twice daily;

3. Vitamin D 400 iu twice daily;

4. Multivitamin daily.

Ms. Jeremie is being treated for her psychiatric illness, schizoaffective disorder, with the following medications:

1. Clozapine (Clozaril, oral antipsychotic), at a total daily dosage of 400 mgs daily;

2. Divalproic acid (Epival, oral mood stabilizer), at 1000 mgs daily.

LEGAL HISTORY/HISTORY OF COMMUNITY SUPERVISION

The following is based upon a CPIC printout received at this facility on March 6, 1995.

1. February 3, 1986: Mischief

No file information available. Ms. Jeremie received a suspended sentence and probation for 18 months.

2. January 20, 1987: Mischief

No file information available. Ms. Jeremie received 30 days detention and two years probation.

3. April 30, 1987: Mischief

No file information available. Ms. Jeremie received a suspended sentence and two months probation.

4. September 24, 1987: Mischief

No file information available. Ms. Jeremie received a suspended sentence and 15 months probation.

5. May 18, 1988: Mischief

No file information available. Ms. Jeremie received a suspended sentence and 18 months probation.

6. March 7, 1989: Mischief

No file information available. Ms. Jeremie received one day in detention.

7. June 27, 1989: Mischief

No file information available. Ms. Jeremie received one day in detention.

8. August 23, 1989: Mischief

No file information available. Ms. Jeremie received five days in detention.

9. August 16, 1991: Assault

No file information available. Ms. Jeremie received a suspended sentence and 24 months probation.

10. December 10, 1991: Mischief

No file information available. Ms. Jeremie was convicted in Montreal, Quebec, receiving a suspended sentence and two years probation."

Course Since Last Disposition

11. Ms. Griffith’s course since her last Disposition is set out in detail in the Hospital Report. The following extracted paragraphs are relevant to this hearing:

"Centre for Addiction and Mental Health: 2024 to 2025

Ms. Jeremie resided at Fudger House a long-term care facility in Toronto where she has been living since Aug 2021 for the entire duration of this reporting period. She stayed in the same unit which was on the second floor of the East building located next to the nursing station with an attached bathroom which was shared with another co resident; whom she said she got along with. Ms. Jeremie received 24/7 supervised care, including professional health services, personal care and services such as meals, laundry and housekeeping. The facility also provides social, reactional and spiritual needs.

Ms. Jeremie did not experience any significant change in her mental state and was not readmitted this reporting period. She remained under the care of the FOPS with Dr. Nnamdi Ugwunze (author) as her psychiatrist.

Ms. Jeremie’s mental status remained stable over the course of this reporting period. She had no hospitalizations, verbal or physical aggression, inappropriate behaviour, or AWOL attempts. Her LTC staff did not express any concerns with her behaviour, presentation, or medication adherence. She continued to be delusional at baseline, often claiming that she had great wealth, hundreds of children, and multiple residences. When challenged on these beliefs, she often became loud, angry, upset, and tearful, however responded to redirection.

Ms. Jeremie was connected with the CAMH geriatric outpatient mental health clinic in November 2024, in anticipation of an absolute discharge. The geriatric team had no concerns about transitioning her to their team and were agreeable to an overlap in care until her next ORB hearing. At the time of writing, she had been seen by her geriatric psychiatrist, Dr. Li Chu, in-person 5 times since her last hearing.

There were no changes to Ms. Jeremie’s psychiatric medication regime and they were prescribed by Dr. Robinson at her LTC:

Clozapine 400mg PO QHS

Divalproic acid 1g PO QHS

There is no indication that Ms. Jeremie used non-prescription drugs, alcohol, or any other substance.

There was no concerning behaviour raised to Ms. Jeremie’s FOPS team over the last reporting period.

MENTAL STATUS EXAMINATION NOVEMBER 2025

Ms. Jeremie was last reviewed via a telephone call at her residence. In attendance and helping to facilitate this was her TCM, Alissa Yip.

Ms. Jeremie engaged in the review but often required assistance and redirection to focus on questions asked. She denied having any significant mood disturbance and neither did she endorse any thoughts of wanting to harm herself or others. Her speech was not pressured and although occasionally over inclusive with her responses, there was no frank formal thought disorder. Ms. Jeremie denied having any psychotic symptoms. She continues to express grandiose delusional beliefs. Insight into her mental disorder and need for treatment remains poor. Ms. Jeremie does not think that she has a mental illness or needs to take medication despite accepting this under close supervision of LTCF staff."

12. On the issue of significant threat, the relevant portions of Hospital Report are set out below:

“Criminogenic risk factors include a psychotic illness (schizoaffective disorder), limited insight, history of medication noncompliance and limited supports. Substance use (alcohol) may also be a relevant risk factor.

If Ms. Jeremie were to reoffend, this is likely to take the following course. Ms. Jeremie has a well-documented history of noncompliance with psychiatric follow-up and medication use whilst residing in the community outside of a disposition order of the Ontario Review Board. She has also had brief periods of noncompliance whilst subject to a disposition of the ORB. These have often led to decompensation in her mental state culminating in readmissions to hospital following disruptive behaviour in the community and apprehension by police under the Mental Health Act. Following short periods of stabilization, Ms. Jeremie has discharged herself against medical advice and absconded from her residence in the community. On these occasions, she has been noncompliant with her medication regime which led to a rapid deterioration in her mental state, presentation and behaviour. The main drivers for this seem to be her poor insight and belief that she has no mental illness and hence does not require medication or psychiatric monitoring and follow up. When Ms. Jeremie is undermedicated or unmedicated, she has shown a well established pattern of becoming more acutely psychotic within the context of worsening psychotic symptoms, with intense delusions and hallucinations, primarily of a paranoid and persecutory nature. These have included command auditory hallucinations, and have led to serious violent acts and aggression towards others and property. It is well documented that she has assaulted members of the public, police officers as well as her own family. She has placed herself and others at significant risk of physical harm on two occasions by starting fires in her residence.

Having said this, Ms. Jeremie has been stable and in the same facility for several years now with no significant relapse or serious incident. The established therapeutic engagement as well as relational security greatly mitigates this risk.

She has now been connected to the Geriatric Psychiatry Team at CAMH since October 2024 and has engaged fully with them attending scheduled appointments since then.

Ms. Jeremie has not received an actuarial assessment of static long-term risk for violent recidivism. The HCR-20 Version 3 overall profile suggests a moderate risk potential. In addition, she has several salient clinical risk factors…poor insight, a high probability of noncompliance with her neuroleptic medications with attendant decompensation (when not supervised) in mental state manifesting as florid psychosis with behavioural dyscontrol, aggression and likely violent recidivism. Ms. Jeremie’s mental status has remained unchanged and having resided in the same LTCF for several years, with entrenched therapeutic relationship as well as physical and relational security. She is deemed to no longer pose a significant threat to the safety of the public.”

13. The recommendation of the clinical team is set out at p. 45 of the Hospital Report:

“The clinical team is of the opinion that Ms. Jeremie no longer poses a risk of serious physical or psychological harm to the public and as such does not meet the significant threat threshold any longer. The team is recommending that Ms. Jeremie be granted an absolute discharge.

Ms. Jeremie’s treatment team is unanimous in its consensus of recommending an absolute discharge as she now has established follow up in place with the Geriatric Psychiatry Team at CAMH. An absolute discharge is deemed to be the necessary and appropriate disposition taking all the above into consideration.

A case conference was held on October 20, 2025, with forensic leadership at CAMH to discuss the team’s recommendation. The team’s position regards Ms. Jeremie no longer posing a significant threat was adopted as well as the recommendation for an absolute discharge.”

14. In his testimony at this hearing, Dr. Ugwunze reiterated that Ms. Jeremie no longer poses a significant risk to the safety of the public. She will continue to reside in a “24/7” supervised locked facility (Fudger House) where she has been well-settled since 2021. She gets along with everyone there and attends all offered programs. Ms. Jeremy is in the process of transitioning to the Geriatric Psychiatry Team at CAMH (which has psychiatric expertise in the treatment of older patients) under the care of Dr. Chu. That team reports there have been no challenges with her engagement.

15. In closing submissions, counsel for the hospital, the Attorney General, and Ms. Jeremie were “heartily” unanimous that Ms. Jeremie no longer poses a significant threat to the safety of the public.

Analysis

16. The central issue for this panel is whether Ms. Jeremie is still a significant threat to the safety of the public.

17. The relevant legal principles to be applied to the evidence with respect to the issue of significant threat are summarized in the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Marmolejo (Re), 2021 ONCA 130 at paras 34-37:

"…the role of the Board is first to determine whether an NCR accused represents a significant threat to public safety. If the answer to that question is "no" or uncertain then the NCR accused must be discharged absolutely: Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625, [1999] S.C.J. No 31, at pp. 659-61, 669 S.C.R. If the NCR accused does present a significant threat, the Board must either conditionally discharge or detain the individual: Winko, pp. 662, 669 S.C.R.

It is important to bear in mind that the Board's responsibility to grant an absolute discharge is non-discretionary in the event that it harbours any doubt about whether the NCR accused represents a significant threat: Carrick (Re), [2018] O.J. No. 4878, 2018 ONCA 752, at para. 16. As the majority of the Supreme Court emphasized in Winko, at pp. 652-53 S.C.R.: "Once an NCR accused is no longer a significant threat to public safety, the criminal justice system has no further application."

Individuals with mental disorders are not inherently dangerous: Winko, at p. 653 S.C.R. There is no presumption of dangerousness and no burden on the NCR accused to prove a lack of dangerousness: Winko, at pp. 660-61, 662 S.C.R. Rather, the legal and evidentiary burden of establishing significant threat rests on the Board or the court: Winko, at p. 663 S.C.R.

The threshold for significant risk is "onerous": Carrick (Re) (2015), 128 O.R. (3d) 209, [2015] O.J. No. 6524, 2015 ONCA 866, at para. 17. A significant threat to the safety of the public means a foreseeable and substantial risk of physical or psychological harm to members of the public: R. v. Ferguson, [2010] O.J. No. 5138, 2010 ONCA 810, at para. 8. The conduct must be of a serious criminal nature: Ferguson, at para. 8. A very small risk of grave harm will not suffice, nor will a high risk of trivial harm: Ferguson, at para. 8. The threat must be more than speculative in nature; it must be supported by evidence: Winko, at p. 665 S.C.R.; Pellett (Re) (2017), 139 O.R. (3d) 651, [2017] O.J. No. 5025, 2017 ONCA 753, at para. 21."

18. We have taken into account that Ms. Jeremie has been living in the community for several years and has not engaged in any violent behaviour. She has stable housing at Fudger House where she receives 24/7 supervised care (including professional health services, personal care and services such as meals, laundry and housekeeping) and where her social, reactional and spiritual needs are met.

19. She has been transitioning well to the care of the Geriatric Psychiatry Team at CAMH which has expertise in the treatment of older patients like herself.

20. The threshold for significant risk is onerous. A significant threat to the safety of the public means a foreseeable and substantial risk of physical or psychological harm to members of the public.

21. Upon a consideration of all of the evidence, the Board is unable to conclude that Ms. Jeremie continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public. Accordingly, the Board orders that she be absolutely discharged.

DATED this 19th day of March, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

Hon. N. Kozloff Legal Member

__________________ Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board