Re: Leah Valdez, 2026 CanLII 29944

Re: Leah Valdez

ORB File No: 8609

Hearing held on: Wednesday, February 18, 2026

Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health

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

Before: Alternate Chairperson: Mr. P. Capelle Members: Dr. P. Prendergast Dr. M. Mamak Hon. B. Allen Mr. A. Mete

Parties Appearing: Accused: Leah Valdez Counsel: Ms. A. Ross

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

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. M. Feindel

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated April 2, 2026)

Introduction

1On August 15, 2024, Ms. Leah Valdez was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on a charge of aggravated assault, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (the "Criminal Code"). Ms. Valdez is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the "Board") dated December 27, 2024, detaining her at the Forensic Service of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto (“CAMH”), with privileges up to enter the community of the Greater Toronto Area, accompanied by staff or person approved by the person in charge.

2On February 18, 2026, a panel of the Ontario Review Board (the "ORB" or the "Board") convened a hearing pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada. Ms. Valdez was in attendance and was represented by her counsel, Ms. Ross.

Without Prejudice Position of the Parties

3The following joint position was arrived at through the course of the hearing ... continuation of the existing Detention Disposition at the Forensic Service of CAMH with the entitlement to enter the community of the GTA indirectly supervised as well as community living in supervised accommodation with a reporting requirement of not less than once per week.

4Finally, subparagraph 4(d) was amended by adding: “not to attend anywhere the victim is known to reside, work, attend school, or worship.”

Background and Index Offences

5The Hospital Report contains extensive background information, which need not be repeated here in detail.

6Briefly, Ms. Valdez is a 46-year-old single woman with no children. She was born in the Philippines and moved to Canada with her family when she was 2 years old. She grew up in Etobicoke, Ontario.

7She left high school in 1996 but subsequently returned and earned her diploma in 2001. That same year, she enrolled at George Brown College. There, she attended for two semesters but left in 2002 because she was experiencing troubling symptoms — she felt as though people were watching her, and she was hearing voices telling her what to do.

8Prior to the index offence Ms. Valdez lived in supported housing through LOFT Community Housing. She has received Ontario Disability Support Program (“ODSP”) benefits since she was 20 years old and has not been employed since then.

9Ms. Valdez began using cannabis in 1995 and used it heavily until 1999. She has also used alcohol, psilocybin-containing mushrooms and ecstasy in the past. A psychiatrist who assessed her in October 2000 noted that her earlier substance use may have been a contributing factor to the development of her schizophrenia.

10Ms. Valdez has a lengthy mental health history dating back to 1999. She has received both inpatient and outpatient psychiatric care at St. Joseph's Health Centre, the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (“CAMH”) and the Norfolk Psychiatric Centre in Virginia.

11On January 24, 2023, Ms. Valdez was arrested for the index offence and held at the Vanier Centre for Women. A year later, on January 22, 2024, she was admitted to the Brief Assessment Unit (“BAU”) at CAMH to assess whether she was criminally responsible for her actions at the time of the index offence. She has remained as an inpatient on the Women’s Secure Forensic Unit over the reporting year with Dr. I. Ray serving as her assigned psychiatrist.

12Ms. Valdez has no prior criminal record.

13The circumstances of the index offence are taken from last year’s Reasons for Disposition as follows:

“On January 24, 2023, Ms. Valdez was on a streetcar in Toronto searching through her bag with her gaze fixated toward the victim. As the streetcar approached Sussex Avenue, Ms. Valdez located her knife, unfolded it, and without provocation immediately lunged at the victim slashing her across the face. Ms. Valdez pinned the victim to the floor and stabbed her head, neck and upper torso a further 23 times. An uninvolved passenger intervened and pushed Ms. Valdez to the ground. Police arrived on scene and arrested Ms. Valdez. She was charged with aggravated assault.”

Current Diagnoses

• Schizophrenia
• Cannabis Use Disorder, in remission in a controlled environment

Evidence at Hearing

14Dr. Ray adopted the contents of the Hospital Report. She updated those present that Ms. Valdez had attained Level 5 passes, indirectly supervised for programming, as of January 26th, 2026, and has been using them appropriately.

15To date, Ms. Valdez’s medications have not been optimized. It was noted that Ms. Valdez is treatment resistant. Ms. Valdez does not fully understand the symptoms of her schizophrenia. She is sensitive to side effects of psychotropic medication.

16Auditory hallucinations and paranoid delusions were present at the start of the reporting year when Ms. Valdez’s daily dosage of clozapine was 300 mg. In September of 2025, her injectable Invega was switched to Abilify at an increased daily dose of 400 mg. Thereafter, she improved and reported that continuing erotomanic hallucinations caused her minimal distress. Other voices are heard telling her to return to the Vanier Centre for Women. No reported voices are heard telling her to hurt herself or others.

17In December 2025, the daily dosage of clozapine was increased to 350 mg. and the dosage of valproic acid was also increased. The plan is to further optimize her medications through the course of this reporting year. She now shows more engagement in therapy and groups as well as some insight vis-à-vis the relationship between the index offence, her illness and the need for medication to stay well. Substance relapse prevention still needs to be addressed.

18It is anticipated that Ms. Valdez will move to a general forensic unit later this year once she has obtained level 6 passes which allow for indirectly supervised access to hospital grounds. Community living is not seen as feasible in the coming year although the inclusion of that privilege in her Disposition will allow for the initiation of housing applications and will be motivating for Ms. Valdez.

19It was noted that Ms. Valdez’s sister-in-law, present at this hearing, recently became an approved person.

20Mr. Feindel inquired if there is a history of acquired brain injury that may have contributed to this patient’s recent seizure. Dr. Ray responded that a subsequent CT scan was normal. There is therefore no other explanation for the seizure other than an elevated dosage of clozapine.

21Responding to a question from the panel, Dr. Ray advised that if placed in the community Ms. Valdez will require medication oversight such that some degree of supervised accommodation will be necessary.

22Responding to another panel question, Dr. Ray advised that it is difficult to ascertain if Ms. Valdez openly communicates her delusions to the treatment team as her insight is lacking.

Closing Observations

23Ms. Warner noted that Ms. Valdez engaged well during this past reporting year especially with the optimization of her medications. Ms. Valdez remains in the early days of her rehabilitation and use of passes and engagement in programming is going well.

24Mr. Feindel echoed the comments of Ms. Warner noting that Ms. Valdez has done well this past year and that more work is required in order to optimize her medication regimen.

25Ms. Ross adopted the recommendations and noted that her client is fortunate to have the support of her sister-in-law.

Analysis and Decision

(a) Significant Threat

26Ongoing significant threat to the safety of the public cannot be speculative. It must entail a real risk of serious physical or psychological harm arising from conduct that is both serious and criminal in nature.

27In determining whether Ms. Valdez continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public the Board carefully analyzed the evidence as it relates to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Winko, 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625.

28The Board unanimously finds that Ms. Valdez continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public. In arriving at this determination, the Board considered the joint position of the parties and accepted the uncontroverted evidence of Dr. Ray that Ms. Valdez continues to pose a significant threat. The Board also relies on the Hospital Report and more specifically the Reoffence Scenario found at page 19 of the Hospital Report, reproduced below for ease of reference:

“In risk assessment, one of the best predictors is a patient’s history of violence. Ms. Valdez’s offence occurred when she was in a floridly psychotic state. If Ms. Valdez were to re-offend, this will likely transpire in the following way: absent treatment and supports (both professional and personal), psychosocial destabilizers will likely lead to non-compliance with medication, failure to cope, which will result in inadequate psychiatric treatment, and worsening of her mental state including exacerbation of psychotic symptoms, which will then increase her risk of violence.”

29Given the foregoing, this panel of the Board accepts that absent an ORB Disposition, Ms. Valdez would likely become non-compliant with prescribed medications which would lead to decompensation, the use of substances and the re-emergence of behaviours similar to those seen at the time of the index offences. We are satisfied that absent an ORB Disposition, it is likely that Ms. Valdez will cause serious physical or psychological harm to members of the public and such conduct will likely be criminal in nature.

(b) Disposition

30Flowing from the Board’s finding that Ms. Valdez continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public it must shape a Disposition for the year ahead. Its paramount consideration in doing so must be the safety of the public while also considering Ms. Valdez’s needs pursuant to s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

31The necessary and appropriate disposition for Ms. Valdez provides her as much freedom as possible without subjecting the community to a real risk of dangerous behaviour.

32In considering Ms. Valdez needs, the Board was attentive to the treatment objectives that foresee a progression leading to placement on a general forensic unit within the upcoming clinical year. The treatment team will now be able to place her name on housing waiting lists. While the extent of supervision required to oversee and ensure medication compliance has yet to be determined, the inclusion of a community living provision should prove motivational for Ms. Valdez’s rehabilitation and recovery. The Board is hopeful that her progress will continue.

Conclusion

33The Board unanimously determines that the necessary and appropriate Disposition required to manage the threat Ms. Valdez poses to the safety of the public while still meeting her needs remains a Detention Disposition with the changes as outlined above.

34In making this Disposition, the Board carefully considered the positions and submissions of the parties and the evidence of Dr. Ray and is satisfied that this determination is both necessary and appropriate. The Board reviewed the provisions of s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code and carefully considered the need to protect the public from dangerous persons, Ms. Valdez’s mental condition, her reintegration into society and other needs.