Re Zachary Randal Nayda, 2026 CanLII 26887

Ontario Review Board

Re: Zachary Randal Nayda

ORB File No: 7685

Hearing held on: Tuesday, March 3, 2026

Place of Hearing: Providence Care Hospital

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

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Weinstein

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

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Zachary Randal Nayda Counsel: Ms. E. Holder

Person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Szabo Representative: Dr. Z. Selhi

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

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated March 16, 2026)

Introduction

1. On January 24, 2020, Mr. Zachary Randal Nayda, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, on charges of breaking and entering (intent), assault with a weapon (x2), possession of weapon for dangerous purpose, utter a threat to cause death or bodily harm (x2), and assault with intent to resist arrest, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. (“Criminal Code”).

2. Mr. Nayda is subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”), dated May 12, 2025, which ordered that he be detained at the Secure Forensic Unit of Providence Care Hospital, Kingston (“Providence Care”).

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

4. Mr. Nayda was present at the hearing and was represented by his counsel, Ms. Erin Holder.

5. A Hospital Report, dated February 19, 2026 (the "Hospital Report"), was entered as Exhibit 1.

6. The issues at this hearing were whether Mr. Nayda 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. Nayda 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:

• Alcohol Use Disorder in early remission in a controlled environment
• Personality Disorder (narcissistic and obsessive-compulsive traits)
• ADHD, combined type
• Schizophrenia by history
• Cannabis Use Disorder by history

Position of the Parties

8. Counsel for the hospital, the Attorney-General, and Mr. Nayda advised that this was a joint submission; all agreed with the hospital’s recommendation for a continuation of the existing Detention Order.

9. Counsel for Mr. Nayda advised that the issue of significant threat was not in dispute for the purpose of this hearing.

Index Offences

10. The circumstances giving rise to the Index Offences are extracted from last year’s Board’s Reasons, as follows:

" On September 16, 2019, Mr. Nayda kicked in the door of a home occupied by a 76-year-old woman. He held a knife to her throat (and caused a small cut) and said he wanted money. The woman ran out of the house and called for help. Two neighbours came to her aid. As one of them called 911, Mr. Nayda emerged from the home, charged at her and said: “I’m going to fucking kill you bitch.” He then ran at the original victim and threatened to kill her. A man was walking down the street and Mr. Nayda picked up a rock and attempted to hit the man on the head with the rock but another neighbour grabbed the rock before he made contact. The rock weighed about 15 lbs. Mr. Nayda then “collapsed on the ground” before going after the man again and putting him in a head lock. While doing so Mr. Nayda asked who was going to be the one to kill him. He said he wanted to die. The neighbours were able to get Mr. Nayda off the man.

When the police arrived, Mr. Nayda removed all his clothes and ran up the street. As they tried to arrest him, he swung his arms and kicked.”

Evidence at the Hearing

11. The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence from Dr. Selhi. Dr. Selhi co-authored the Hospital Report, and she testified as follows:

a) Mr. Nayda had four readmissions to Providence Care after his initial discharge into the community in 2022. He was discharged to Transitional Rehabilitation Housing program (“TRHP”) housing in August 2025. This discharge has been very successful. The success of this current discharge can be attributed to Mr. Nayda’s lengthy readmission, from March 2024 to August 2025. During this time, he attended an inpatient rehab facility in Toronto, and he engaged in intensive therapy with a psychologist at Providence Care.

b) His engagement with the rehab facility and the psychologist has helped him maintain his sobriety in the community.

c) The plan for the upcoming reporting year is to transition Mr. Nayda from his TRHP housing to independent living and to assess how he handles this transition. Historically, Mr. Nayda has found living independently in the community very difficult.

12. In response to questions from counsel for the Attorney-General, Dr. Selhi testified:

a) Mr. Nayda is currently engaged in several programs, including Smart Recovery, and AA for Substance Abuse Treatment, Solution Seekers (for mental health).

b) Mr. Nayda has been adherent to his medication regimen, without issue.

c) Mr. Nayda has been able to maintain his TRHP apartment appropriately during this placement, unlike his previous times there.

13. In response to questions from counsel for Mr. Nayda, Dr. Selhi testified:

a) Mr. Nayda’s insight into his need for abstinence has improved significantly in this last reporting period.

b) She would like to see him engage in some type of occupational or educational endeavours.

c) Mr. Nayda now is engaging in programming.

14. In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Selhi testified:

a) Before the treatment team would be ready to recommend an Absolute Discharge, they would like to see Mr. Nayda accomplish the following: a successful transition to an independent apartment; remain abstinent from substances; remain adherent to his medication regimen independently; and demonstrate that he can handle the stress of living independently.

b) Mr. Nayda’s engagement in educational, or vocational, opportunities can be described as a double-edged sword; while working on personal development can be very beneficial, it can sometimes overly stress him, which can lead to his relapse into substance use. The team is not making engagement in further occupational, and educational opportunities a prerequisite for an Absolute Discharge.

15. No other evidence was called.

Analysis and Conclusions:

16. 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. Nayda remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.

17. 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. Selhi, in addition to the documentary evidence before us.

18. We commend Mr. Nayda for his progress. He has engaged in programming, developed his insight, adhered to his medication regimen and maintained his accommodations appropriately. However, these are still early days in his abstinence.

19. Mr. Nayda has a history of relapse and readmissions; in the past, alcohol use served as a destabilizer of his major mental illness, which made him a risk to the safety of the public. The team needs to assess Mr. Nayda’s ability to cope with independent living and the added stressors it entails. Before concluding that he no longer poses a significant threat, they would need him to complete a lengthier period of stability in the community, including medication adherence and abstinence from substances

20. The treatment team still needs to retain the ability to approve Mr. Nayda’s housing, especially as he transitions to living independently. Therefore, a Conditional Discharge would not be appropriate.

21. 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. Nayda, his reintegration into society and his other needs, the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a continuation of his Detention Order.

DATED this 16th 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