Re Jens Thoger Norgaard, 2026 CanLII 26869

Ontario Review Board

Re: Jens Thoger Norgaard

ORB File No: 8260

Hearing held on: Wednesday, March 4, 2026

Place of Hearing: Providence Care Hospital

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

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Weinstein

Members: Dr. S. Hucker Dr. G. Kerry Ms. K. Weisbaum Mr. T. Wall

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Jens Thoger Norgaard Counsel: Mr. M. Rodé

Person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Szabo Representative: Dr. M. Chan

Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. R. Edward

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated March 20, 2026)

Introduction

1. On February 17, 2023, Mr. Jens Thoger Norgaard, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, on a charge of assault with a weapon, failure to comply with release order other than attend court, and failure with undertaking (prints), all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”).

2. Mr. Norgaard is subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”), dated March 17, 2025, which ordered that he be detained at the Secure Forensic Unit of Providence Care Hospital, Kingston (“Providence Care”).

3. On March 4, 2026, the Board convened a hearing at Providence Care to conduct the annual review of the current Disposition.

4. Mr. Norgaard was present at the hearing and was represented by his counsel, Mr. Michael Rodé.

5. A Hospital Report, dated February 9, 2026 (the "Hospital Report"), was entered as Exhibit 1.

6. The issues at this hearing were whether Mr. Norgaard is a significant threat to public safety, as defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code, and, if so, what is the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances, bearing in mind the factors enunciated in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

7. For the reasons set out below and based on the expert evidence and opinions before us, the Board concluded that Mr. Norgaard continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board found that the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances is a continuation of the existing Detention Order.

Current Psychiatric Diagnoses:

• Bipolar 1 Disorder
• Cognitive Impairment
• Alcohol Misuse (history)

Position of the Parties

8. Counsel for the hospital and for the Attorney-General recommended no change to the existing Detention Order Disposition.

9. Counsel for Mr. Norgaard advised that he had no instructions to challenge the hospital’s recommendation.

Index Offences:

10. The details of the Index Offences are extracted from last year’s Reasons as follows:

“On September 14th, 2021, at approximately 1220hrs the victim, was at work at Goodlife Fitness located at 64 Barrack St.

The victim observed a male, later identified as Jens NORGAARD attempting to steal a bike which was sitting out front of the Good life.

The victim approached NORGAARD and said, "I don't think that's your bike", to which NORGAARD responded "I don't care I'm taking it anyway." The victim then told NORGAARD he shouldn't take the bike. At that point NORGAARD pulled out a steel blade kitchen knife and said, "is it worth dying over?" The victim responded by saying "are you going to kill me with a paring knife?" To which NORGAARD replied "I'm pretty good with a blade."

NORGAARD left Goodlife property leaving the bike behind and proceeded across the street to the Food Basics, The victim contacted police and continued to watch NORGAARD.

On arrival PC Colangeli and PC Gorry were flagged down by the victim who pointed out NORGAARD walking South bound on Wellington St towards Queen St. PC Colangeli and PC Gorry located NORGAARD at the corner of Wellington St and Queen St. NORGAARD was observed to be wearing a leather sheath on his belt on the right side of his person. A knife was also observed inside of the sheath.

NORGAARD was detained at 1225 hrs by PC Colangeli, at this time PC Colangeli seized the knife from NORGAARD'S sheath. PC Colangeli cautioned NORGAARD Re: Assault with a weapon to which NORGAARD replied "It was self defense."

PC Bahan spoke to the victim and then advised PC Colangeli of grounds to charge NORGAARD with Assault with a Weapon and Poss. of Weapon Dangerous, PC Behan also advised that the victim was going to provide an audio statement in relation to this offence.

At 1229hrs PC Colangeli advised NORGAARD he was under arrest for Assault with a Weapon and Possession of Weapons Dangerous. NORGAARD was read rights to counsel and caution to which he stated, "I'll let my lawyer do the talking."

NORGAARD was transported to 705 Division St where he was booked by St. Hughes. Once at 705 Division St NORGAARD advised he would call a lawyer on his own time when he was ready.

While in the printing area NORGAARD advised PC Bahan he was trying to steal a bike because his bike had been stolen and that he had gotten angry. NORGAARD stated "I say things and people think I'm serious, but I'm not."

On the 14th day of September 2021 the accused before the court-Jens NORGAARD-was arrested by the Kingston Police and charged with one count of Assault with a Weapon. He was subsequently released on an Officer in Charge- Undertaking with a first appearance court date of October 21st, 2021, at the Ontario Court of Justice-279 Wellington Street, Kingston, Ontario.

The accused appeared for his October 21st, 2021, first appearance, and subsequent required appearances, until he failed to appear in court for the first time on April 7th, 2022. A Bench Warrant was issued for the accused's arrest. No charge of Fail to Appear was laid at this time.

The accused was arrested by the Kington Police on the strength of the Bench Warrant on May 4th, wow and subsequently released on a new Officer in Charge- Undertaking. The Officer in Charge-Undertaking had a first appearance court date of June 9th, 2022, at the Ontario Court of Justice-279 Wellington Street, Kingston, Ontario.

On June 14, 2022, the accused Jens NORGAARD, was released on a Release order by Justice of the Peace R. CAMPBELL, sitting in the Ontario Court Justice, Bail Court, in the city of Kingston, East Region. Release conditions included; Report to the Bail Supervision Program at John Howard Society at 771 Montreal St. Kingston Wednesday, June 15th, 2022, in person, at 10:30am and thereafter as required.

On June 15th, 2022, the accused has missed his scheduled appointment and has made no attempt to contact the John Howard Society, therefore breaching a condition on his Release order. Court Worker/Bail Supervisor of the accused, has informed the Police of this information.”

Personal, Criminal, and Psychiatric Histories

11. Mr. Norgaard’s personal, criminal, and psychiatric histories are outlined in the Hospital Report, and they are accurately summarized in last year’s Reasons as follows:

“Mr. Norgaard has a history of sustaining several injuries, including potential head injuries. He was seen in the Emergency Department on numerous occasions over the past few decades. Most of the injuries appear to have been the result of falls (bicycle accident, falling on chairs, and falling while walking towards the street).

In 1997 Mr. Norgaard began seeing a physician in Kingston for depression. In 2000, he was admitted to Providence Continuing Care Centre (now PCH) and was diagnosed with bipolar disorder. In 2004, Mr. Norgaard was brought to the Hospital Emergency by police because of intimidating behaviour in front of a local store. He was admitted for the first time as an involuntary patient on a Form 1 under the Mental Health Act (“MHA”). In August 2004, he was brought into hospital following a fire at his apartment.

At that time, he advised emergency physicians that he was an “operative for the CIA.” Police indicated that this was the second such incident of fire setting, having been called the previous week. Mr. Norgaard denied setting the fire and was subsequently discharged against medical advice.

Prior to his NCR verdict in February 2023, Mr. Norgaard had lived in a rooming house in Kingston and was supported locally by his sister. His initial review board hearing occurred on March 28, 2023, with a subsequent Disposition allowing for community transitioning in accommodation approved by the person in charge.

Since the initial review board hearing, Mr. Norgaard has continued to reside on the PHC’s forensic unit as an NCR accused.

Mr. Norgaard has a longstanding bipolar diagnosis dating back some 25 years ago which has been stabilized since his NCR admission. He is presently taking olanzapine.”

Evidence at the Hearing

12. The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence from Dr. Chan who is Mr. Norgaard’s treating psychiatrist and who co-authored the Hospital Report. He testified as follows:

a. Mr. Norgaard is an elderly man with a history of chronic mental illness; including Bipolar Disorder, and significant memory and cognitive impairments.

b. Mr. Norgaard’s insight into his mental illness is very poor. When asked about his condition or his concerns, he is generally unable to elaborate, and he often responds with a shoulder shrug.

c. He feels Mr. Norgaard’s cognitive impairment, which includes poverty of thought and memory issues, is contributing to Mr. Norgaard’s limited insight into his chronic mental illness.

d. Mr. Norgaard is considered incapable with respect to treatment decisions with anti-psychotic medication, and his sister is his substitute decision-maker.

e. Since the Hospital Report was authored, there has been no change in Mr. Norgaard’s overall functioning, mental state, or routine.

f. Mr. Norgaard’s Bipolar Disorder is well managed on a low dose of Abilify, which is given to him under supervision.

g. A psychological risk assessment was completed in 2025 and has not been updated since then, as the clinical team determined there are no material changes that would alter the conclusions of the risk assessment.

h. A risk factor for Mr. Norgaard would be alcohol use. He has not accessed alcohol while under the supervision of the Ontario Review Board, due largely to the supervision provided to him. In addition, he has made no efforts to independently seek alcohol in the community.

i. Mr. Norgaard is generally physically quite well and does not have any significant ambulation issues. Extensive assistance is however, required with activities of daily living, including meal preparation and general supervision to ensure he does not become a risk to himself or to others. Mr. Norgaard leads a very simple lifestyle, engages in minimal activities, and has an extremely limited diet which consists mainly of yogurt and coffee.

j. Mr. Norgaard can play chess with Dr. Chan as he understands the rules and demonstrates some strategic thinking.

k. When she is physically able, Mr. Norgaard’s sister, who usually attends these hearings, takes him to her home approximately twice a week. Mr. Norgaard shows very limited motivation to go into the community independently.

l. Appropriate housing is identified as the primary barrier to Mr. Norgaard being discharged into the community. He requires a specialized setting capable of supervising his medication, monitoring his alcohol abstinence, and supporting his daily requirements.

m. Private retirement homes could meet his needs, but he lacks the financial resources for same. A public long-term care facility was explored through CMHA, but they felt that he was not physically compromised enough to qualify, and thus he was not placed on their waiting list.

n. A supported housing option for forensic patients at the Lyon Street residence was considered, but their clinicians believed the residence was not a good fit for Mr. Norgaard, as they require all residents to participate in programs. Going forward, the treatment team will re-engage with said residence to see if this requirement can be waved in Mr. Norgaard’s case.

o. Without adequate supervision Mr. Norgaard would become non-adherent to his medication, would use alcohol, would experience a mental decompensation, and would become a significant threat to public safety. Given these risk factors, an absolute discharge would likely result in Mr. Norgaard becoming homeless and requiring housing in a shelter.

13. No other evidence was called.

Analysis and Conclusions:

14. Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence as well as the submissions from the parties, the Board agrees with the joint submission: Mr. Norgaard remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.

15. In Winko, the Supreme Court outlined that, in coming to the conclusion on the issue of significant risk, a Review Board should closely examine a range of evidence, including: the circumstances of the original offence; the past and expected course of the accused’s treatment; the present state of the NCR accused’s medical condition; the NCR accused’s own plans for the future; the support existing for the NCR accused in the community; and most importantly, the recommendations provided by experts who examined the NCR accused. In coming to our conclusion in this matter, the Board relies on the uncontroverted expert evidence of Dr. Chan, in addition to the documentary evidence before us.

16. Mr. Norgaard has poor insight into his mental health condition, his Index Offences, and his risk of violence. As set out at page 27 of the Hospital Report, without specified identified housing Mr. Norgaard would have to be discharged to a shelter; a facility that would not be able to meet his care needs. These needs include: the monitoring of his mental health, his adherence to a medication regimen, and his abstinence from substances. All of these circumstances would lead to increased stress and would likely prompt a subsequent increase in alcohol consumption. It would also cause his mental state to decompensate which would result in him becoming a significant threat to the safety of the public.

17. In particular the Board relies on the following extracted paragraphs from the Hospital Report:

“Mr. Norgaard's risk for non-sexual violence is dependent on the amount of environmental and external support he receives. In the context of an absolute discharge with no identified housing, Mr. Norgaard's risk is assessed as Low to Moderate. The majority of risk factors identified by the HCR-20 V3 in this scenario are more relevant to risk to self, as opposed to risk to others. When considering risk to others, important risk factors include presence of manic symptoms, and non-compliance with medication. Consumption of alcohol is also relevant given the potential for disinhibition and interference with medication compliance.

With respect to a re-offence scenario in this context, the mostly likely pathway would involve discontinuation of his medication regime and relapse of manic symptoms. It is difficult to comment on how fast decompensation would occur, as well as how soon violent conduct would emerge following decompensation.

Mr. Norgaard's risk is Low if he were absolutely discharge to a supervised setting that provided assistance with his activities of daily living, monitoring of medication compliance, and access to a prescribing physician. In [Dr. Rose]'s opinion, Mr. Norgaard's risk profile does not require a forensic team. His Bipolar Disorder diagnosis is being treated under the consent of a substitute decision maker. Given long-standing issues with capacity and his diagnosis of a major neurocognitive disorder, [Dr. Rose) questions whether Mr. Norgaard will ever re-gain the capacity to consent to psychiatric treatment. Thus, it is likely that he will continue to be treated under substitute consent for the foreseeable future, which has a significant risk mitigating effect. The risk factors of active mania and medication non-compliance are manageable in a non-forensic setting. However, Mr. Norgaard's ability to access alcohol would change in this context, as some residential care facilities permit residents to have a set number of standard servings of alcohol per day.”

18. It is clear from the evidence before us, and from the Hospital Report, that the hospital needs to retain the ability to approve Mr. Norgaard’s housing to ensure that he remains adherent to his medication regimen, that his mental health is monitored, and that he remain abstinent from alcohol. As such, a Conditional Discharge is not appropriate.

19. In consideration of all the evidence, submissions of the parties and criteria set forth in s. 672.54, the paramount consideration being the safety of the public, in addition to the mental condition of Mr. Norgaard, his reintegration into society and his other needs, the necessary and appropriate Disposition is to continue with the existing Detention Order.

DATED this 20th day of March 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.

Mr. J. Weinstein Alternate Chairperson

__________________

Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board