Re W. (S.C.), 2026 CanLII 26889

Re: W. (S.C.)

ORB File No: 8004/8079 Hearing held on: Monday, March 9, 2026 Place of hearing: St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton West 5th Campus, 100 West 5th Street

Pursuant to: Section 672.81(2) of the Criminal Code

Before: Alternate Chairperson: Ms. C. Fromstein Members: Dr. S. Chatterjee (via Zoom) Dr. P. Wright Mr. M. Garfield Mr. S. Doherty

Parties Appearing: Accused: W. (S.C.) Counsel: Ms. C. Currie (via Zoom) The Person in charge of Hospital: Counsel: Mr. S. O’Brien Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. C. Gzik

*Pursuant to s. 672.501(1) of the Criminal Code, the Ontario Review Board prohibits the publication, broadcasting, or other transmission of any information that could identify a victim in this matter or a witness who is under 18 years of age.

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated: March 26, 2026)

Introduction

1On January 5, 2022, Mr. W. (S.C.) was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of indecent acts and criminal harassment, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”). On April 14, 2022, he was also found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of indecent acts and assault causing bodily harm, contrary to the Criminal Code.

2Mr. W. (S.C.) is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board ("Board" or “panel”) dated June 23, 2025, detaining him at the Forensic Psychiatry Program of St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, West 5th Campus (“St. Joseph's”, “Hospital” or “SJHH”), with privileges up to “hospital and grounds, escorted by staff or accompanied by staff”.

3On March 9, 2026, a panel of the Board convened an early review hearing pursuant to s. 672.81(2) of the Criminal Code. Mr. W. (S.C.) was in attendance and was represented by his counsel, Ms. Currie.

4The issue at this hearing is whether Mr. W. (S.C.) continues to represent 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, taking into account the factors listed in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code. If he is found to not pose a significant threat to public safety, then an Absolute Discharge Disposition must be granted.

5For the reasons set out below and based on the expert evidence before it, the panel has determined that Mr. W. (S.C.) continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board has further decided that his risk could be best managed with a continued Detention Order at St. Joseph’s on the current, plus additional, terms and conditions as found in the Board’s new Disposition Order dated March 18, 2026. The panel finds that this is the necessary, appropriate, least restrictive and least onerous Disposition in the circumstances.

Index Offences

6The circumstances of the index offences are taken from the most recent Reasons for Disposition dated August 14, 2025, as follows:

“Index Offence 1 – June 1, 2021 – Indecent Act

On Tuesday, June 1, 2021, at approximately 1:50 p.m., at apartment [number] at [downtown Toronto street address] in the City of Toronto, police received a radio call for an Exposure Just.

The complainant’s [elementary school aged] daughter alerted her father, advising that she had heard what sounded like a small knock at the front door; then the doorknob jingling. She looked out of the peephole and did not recognize the person in front of the front door of her apartment. She went to the complainant and told him there was a stranger at the front door.

The complainant went to the front door and proceeded to look through the peephole. He saw the accused, standing in front of his door, in the act of masturbation. The complainant described the accused standing there without his shirt on, his pants along with his underwear below his waist, with his penis in his hand, stroking his penis back and forth in front of their apartment front door.

The complainant called 9-1-1 to alert them as to what he had just witnessed; when he looked out the peephole, the accused was still standing there in the act. The complainant yelled through the door to the accused, “Get out of here”. The accused then mumbled something in response, pulled up his underwear and walked down the hallway towards the south entrance.

After approximately 10 minutes, the complainant thought the accused had left down the stairwell towards the ground level, Wellington Street West near Strachan Avenue; the complainant opened his front door and observed the accused walking towards him, as well as the elevators, fully clothed at this point.

The complainant notified the property manager along with the condo board president, who located the accused on the third floor and escorted him off the premise.

Police arrived on scene shortly afterward and took statements from the witnesses on scene. While police were on scene, the accused walked back towards the building; the complainant recognized him and called police to advise of his whereabouts.

The accused was arrested by police, read his Rights to Counsel, and transported to 14 Division Toronto Police Service.

Index Offence 2 – June 15, 2021 – Assault Cause Bodily Harm

On Tuesday, June 15, 2021, at approximately 1955 hours, the accused was in the Emergency Department seclusion room of the Centre of Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) on 1050 Queen Street West, Toronto. The victim [female staff member’s name], and three other staff members, two nurses and one student, attended the seclusion room in order to conduct a risk assessment of the accused, W. (S.C.), in order to determine suitability for transfer to an inpatient unit.

Mr. W. (S.C.) became agitated when they attempted to take vital signs, at which point staff attempted to disengage and exit the room. Without provocation, Mr. W. (S.C.) leapt from the hospital bed and struck the female victim in the head with his fist that caused her glasses to break and the impact caused her to fall to the ground, where she briefly loses consciousness. Mr. W. (S.C.) continued to violently struggle with staff before being subdued and sedated.

Index Offence 3 – June 28, 2021 – Criminal Harassment Indecent Act

On Monday, June 28, 2021, at approximately 12:00 p.m., the victim was walking her dog along [street name] in the City of Toronto. The victim observed the accused at the end of the road, and heard him yell, “Hey, hey,” as he was walking slowly towards her.

The victim noticed the accused was not wearing a shirt, and his hand was inside the waist of his pants. The victim started walking and then running to her house scared, as the accused appeared to be touching himself. The accused picked up his pace and walked faster and closer, following the victim (Charge 1).

The victim was already located near her home and managed to get safely inside her home and lock her front door. The victim looked through the glass portion of her door and saw the accused standing on her porch, exposing his bare penis while stroking it with his hand, up and down on it (Charge 2). The accused again yelled, “Hey, hey, hey,” and the victim advised him that she is not opening the door.

The accused ended up walking away while still exposing his bare penis, while stroking it up and down with his hand. The victim got her cell phone and recorded the accused in the act of masturbation.

The victim contacted the police, and the accused was located in a nearby neighbourhood and further arrested by the attending officers. The victim provided the police with the video she captured as evidence.” [Italics added.]

Current Psychiatric Diagnoses

[7] • Schizophrenia

• Amphetamine Use Disorder, Moderate, in sustained remission, in a controlled environment
• Cannabis Use Disorder, Moderate, in sustained remission, in a controlled environment
• Gambling Disorder

Initial Position of the Parties

8Counsel for St. Joseph’s submitted that the Hospital would be asking the Board to maintain the Detention Disposition, as Mr. W. (S.C.) continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public, but with additional, broader privileges and conditions, which are listed at page 69 of the most recent Hospital Report dated February 23, 2026 (“Hospital Report”). These include up to “hospital and grounds, indirectly supervised”, “enter community of Hamilton, indirectly supervised”, and “enter community of Southern Ontario, accompanied”.

9Both counsel on behalf of the Crown and Mr. W. (S.C.) joined with the Hospital’s position. All parties maintained the joint position in final submissions.

Evidence at the Hearing

10The Board had before it the documents forming the Record and with the following exhibits marked and entered:

Exhibit 1: Letter from St. Joseph’s to Board requesting early hearing, dated December 17, 2025; Exhibit 2: Letter from Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care (“Waypoint”) to Board regarding transfer, dated September 29, 2025; Exhibit 3: Letter from Board to St. Joseph’s agreeing to schedule early hearing, dated January 26, 2026; Exhibit 4: St. Joseph’s Hospital Report, dated February 23, 2026.

Dr. A. Wu was the sole witness to testify before the Board, on behalf of the Hospital. No other evidence was tendered.

Hospital Report

11The Hospital Report states at page 65: “Since the time of his admission [to St. Joseph’s], Mr. W. (S.C.)’s mental status has been stable. There has been no evidence of mood disturbances or psychosis…He has not displayed irritability or aggressive behaviour…Mr. W. (S.C.) exhibits religious pre-occupation. He describes a near death experience from a fentanyl overdose, in which he claims to have gone to hell, seen Mohammad burning and received a divine message to forgive. Mr. W. (S.C.) expresses that he believes all Muslims will suffer similarly unless they convert to Christianity.”

12The Hospital Report also states at page 66: “Mr. W. (S.C.) accepts his scheduled medication without incident. His insight into his mental illness and need for treatment is fair. He has provided urine samples for regularly [sic] drug and alcohol screening. All samples collected since his admission have returned negative.”

13St. Joseph’s “Psychological Risk Assessment Note” is found at page 67:

“Mr. W. (S.C.)’s most recent psychological risk assessment was completed at the Waypoint Centre by Dr. Kristin Grimes in June 2025. At that time, his risk for violent reoffending was considered to fall in the Low range in a high secure setting (such as Waypoint Centre) with the monitoring and support in place by virtue of his Detention Order disposition. His risk to violently reoffend was considered Moderate in a secure setting (such as SJHH). Absent ORB oversight, his risk to act out violently was considered to fall in the High range. Mr. W. (S.C.)’s sexual recidivism risk, should he be granted an Absolute Discharge, was considered Well Above Average.”

14The Hospital Report’s current “Clinical Risk Summary” outlines the following at pages 68-69:

“Mr. W. (S.C.) was evaluated for whether he continues to meet the threshold for significant threat to the safety of the public. His static and clinical risk factors were assessed. With regard to static factors, Mr. W. (S.C.) has a history of a major mental disorder, namely Schizophrenia. He also has a history of treatment noncompliance and psychotic decompensation. When psychotic, Mr. W. (S.C.) becomes violently aggressive, resulting in assaultive behaviour towards staff. He also has a history of substance use disorder and relapses into illicit psychoactive drug use. Furthermore, Mr. W. (S.C.) has a documented diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder and gambling disorder. Even in a controlled and restricted environment like Waypoint, there were ongoing issues with gambling.

In terms of clinical factors, Mr. W. (S.C.) experiences some residual symptoms of psychosis with his religious preoccupation. He has participated in some recreational programming but has not had much extensive engagement with targeted therapeutic interventions to address his clinical risk factors.

With regard to protective factors, Mr. W. (S.C.) was settled during clinical interactions and assessments. He has adhered to his medication regime and he is capable to consent to treatment for his mental disorder. He did not have any incidents of agitation, aggression, or rule non-adherence. Mr. W. (S.C.) was also using his passes appropriately.

When all risks factors are considered, it is the treatment team's unanimous opinion that Mr. W. (S.C.) continues to meet threshold for significant threat to the safety of the public. He only has had limited privileges within an intensively structured, controlled and supportive environment. Absent such oversight, Mr. W. (S.C.) does not have significant professional or social community support and has not fully engaged in sustained and rigorous structured rehabilitative programming to demonstrably show reduction in his clinical risk factors. Without the oversight of the forensic system, Mr. W. (S.C.)’s clinical history and dynamic factors suggest that he would more than likely relapse into substance use and stop medications. Subsequently his psychotic symptoms would acutely worsen, and he would become disorganized, agitated and aggressive. Members of the public within proximity of Mr. W. (S.C.) would be at significant risk of physical and psychological harm. Based on the totality of his clinical risk profile, he still requires intensive inpatient support and external restrictions to maintain the safety of the public, and therefore the most appropriate disposition is a detention order.

Due to Mr. W. (S.C.)'s overall settled reporting period and certain protective factors, he has the capacity to engage in further rehabilitative and therapeutic programming to reduce his clinical risk. With continued therapeutic engagement, he can progress towards having indirect [indirectly supervised] privileges in the community. The goal of the upcoming reporting year is to engage Mr. W. (S.C.) in structured activity to address his outstanding clinical risk factors.” [Italics added.]

Dr. Wu’s Testimony

15Dr. Wu adopted the contents of the Hospital Record. He has treated Mr. W. (S.C.) since he first arrived at St. Joseph’s on September 24, 2025. Prior to the transfer, Mr. W. (S.C.) was detained at Waypoint. Dr. Wu testified that since Mr. W. (S.C.) has been at St. Joseph’s, there have not been any significant incidents of aggression. He seemed settled and has been co-operative and adhering to the rules, taking his medications and participating in group activities, like cooking and fitness. There has not been any worsening of his disorders like schizophrenia. He still exhibits a religious pre-occupation similar to his behaviour while at Waypoint. But this has neither worsened at St. Josephs nor affected his behaviour here. Regarding the gambling, money-lending and collection of debts incidents, including the related “interpersonal difficulties” with other patients that took place while at Waypoint, Dr. Wu stated that these acts or incidents “have not occurred at all here.” However, “we recognize this is a risk factor here and will monitor it carefully.”

16Notwithstanding the progress made by Mr. W. (S.C.) at Waypoint and in particular during his near-six month stay at St. Joseph’s, Dr. Wu averred that it was the unanimous opinion of the clinical team that Mr. W. (S.C.) continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public and requires a continued Detention Order at St. Joseph’s. This is based on static factors assessed (i.e., current diagnoses of schizophrenia, substance abuse, previous relapses into illicit drug use in the community, nature of index offences, including serious assault causing bodily harm (index offence #2), and criminal conviction history). (The Board notes that the Hospital Report includes a list of dozens of criminal charges and convictions from 1998-2022, many involving serious, violent offences.) Dr. Wu also outlined the clinical risks, as stated in the Hospital Report. (The Board notes that the static, clinical and protective factors are discussed in the Hospital Report at pages 68-69.)

17Dr. Wu testified that he and the team wanted to see further improvements in Mr. W. (S.C.)’s mental health over the next twelve months with the additional privileges and terms in a new Disposition Order: “There is further work to be done.” His current privileges were too restrictive, opined the witness. The team had reached a ceiling with the privileges from the 2025 Disposition Order. That is why the team asked the Board to convene an Early Disposition Hearing. With continued, structured therapy and other rehabilitative resources, like vocational counselling - writing and music are interests of Mr. W. (S.C.) - and other pro-social pursuits, the hope is for continued progress. Dr. Wu stated that the team believes that Mr. W. (S.C.)’s risks can be managed with some “indirectly supervised” passes.

18During the Board’s questioning, Dr. Chatterjee asked the witness whether it was an oversight that antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) was neither listed in the diagnoses (at page 1 of the Medical Report) nor reviewed or assessed in the Medical Report. Dr. Wu responded that it should be added. Acknowledging that a PCL-R was not done in the current assessment, the witness said that he will discuss this with his colleagues. The Board notes that at page 61 in the “Clinical Assessment of Risk” authored by Mr. W. (S.C.)’s then-attending psychiatrist at Waypoint on May 23, 2025, “Antisocial personality traits vs. disorder” is listed as one of the four “most salient” risk factors.

19In addition, Dr. Chatterjee raised the issue of sexological disorder, including incidents of inappropriate sexual comments by Mr. W. (S.C.) and that he was assessed previously at the highest risk factor. (At page 59 of the Hospital Report, it refers to the May 10, 2022 Risk Assessment Report which states: “To assess Mr. W. (S.C.)’s risk to recidivate in a sexual manner, the Static-99R was completed. Mr. W. (S.C.)’s score…puts his total score of 8 in the Well Above Average risk category…for being charged or convicted of another sexual offence.”)

20Dr. Wu acknowledged that Mr. W. (S.C.) was not assessed for sexological disorder in the current Medical Report and that he would “fully explore” both this and the ASPD risk factors before the Hospital granted any “indirectly supervised” privileges to Mr. W. (S.C.).

21Panel member Dr. Wright queried the witness regarding how they intended to monitor the impulsive aspect of Mr. W. (S.C.)’s disorders. Dr. Wu responded by saying, at first, the Hospital would grant short intervals for passes and conduct in-person spot checks confirming Mr. W. (S.C.) was at the proper location.

Final Submissions

22Counsel for the Hospital submitted that Mr. W. (S.C.) continues to pose a significant threat to public safety, requiring that a Detention Disposition be kept in place. In terms of appropriate privileges and conditions, Mr. W. (S.C.) needs more room to progress with less tight restrictions and “a graduated, step-wise” approach or process to see how Mr. W. (S.C.) does at every point. The team is aware of his issues, but “so far his progress is such that strict terms have hit a progress impasse.” Mr. O’Brien stated that “the troubling nature of the index offences is understood by the team” and they will watch carefully, but “things have to be tried.”

23The Crown maintained its initial position. Ms. Currie, on behalf of Mr. W. (S.C.), also maintained their initial position. She added that if the Board grants a “loosening” of the conditions her client will have a very successful year.

Findings of the Board

Significant Threat to the Safety of the Public

24In making findings regarding continued significant threat to public safety, the panel is mindful of and applies the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625, in particular those dealing with provincial/territorial review boards’ obligation and factors to consider when determining if an accused constitutes a significant threat to the safety of the public.

25The Board unanimously accepts the joint submission of the parties that Mr. W. (S.C.) continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public and so finds. In arriving at this determination, the panel considered the joint position of the parties, the contents of the Hospital Report including its risk assessment and the uncontroverted testimony of Dr. Wu. The Board finds that he was a credible witness and that his evidence was reliable. The panel accepts the contents of the Hospital Report, on which Dr. Wu was cross-examined by the parties and questioned by members of the panel. Dr. Wu’s testimony was consistent with the contents of the Hospital Report.

26The Board finds that, absent a Detention Disposition, Mr. W. (S.C.) would likely become non-compliant with prescribed medications which would lead to decompensation, abuse of substances and the re-emergence of violent and sexual behaviour similar to those found in the index offences and in his considerable history of convictions of serious offences over a period of 23 years. His gambling addiction would also be unchecked without the stringent supervision provided at St. Joseph’s. He would represent a real threat of committing offences similar to the index offences.

Appropriate and Least Restrictive, Least Onerous Disposition

27The panel unanimously accepts the joint submission of the parties and finds that the appropriate, least restrictive and least onerous disposition to be made is to continue the Detention Order dated June 23, 2025, but with additional, expanded privileges and conditions as ordered in the new Detention Order dated March 18, 2026. This will assist St. Joseph’s in raising the ceiling of the privileges on a step-by-step basis as Mr. W. (S.C.)’s mental health condition improves. The Board also agrees with the parties that Mr. W. (S.C.)’s risk factors can be managed best at a medium secure hospital like St. Joseph’s.

28As well, given the risk factors present as stated in the Hospital Report and testified to by Dr. Wu, the Board finds that a conditional discharge would be premature as insufficient to manage his risk.

Comment About ASPD and Sexological Risk Assessments

29Further to the Board’s earlier comments in these Reasons, we are concerned that the ASPD and sexological disorder risk factors were not addressed and assessed in the latest Hospital Report, including no PCL-R having been completed. The panel is encouraged by Dr. Wu’s plan to fully address this issue before any increased privileges are granted to Mr. W. (S.C.). In that regard, the Board suggests that a sexological disorder assessment be completed either at St. Joseph’s, or at another facility with expertise in that area, such as CAMH.

Conclusion

30In making this Disposition, the Board has considered the Hospital Report, the testimony of Dr. Wu, the joint submissions of the parties, and the criteria set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code. We have considered the paramount need to protect the safety of the public, Mr. W. (S.C.)’s current mental health condition, his reintegration into society along with his other needs. The Board wishes Mr. W. (S.C.) continued improvement toward his eventual transition to the community.

DATED this 26th day of March 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

Mr. M. Garfield Legal Member

____________________________

Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board