Re: Jerry Jacob
ORB File No: 5818 Hearing held on: Friday, February 20, 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: Jerry Jacob Counsel: Ms. M. Perez 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 March 3, 2011, Jerry Jacob was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on two charges of assault, and one charge of failure to comply with probation order, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (the Criminal Code). Mr. Jacob is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the "Board") dated February 24, 2025, detaining him at the Forensic Service of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto (“CAMH”) with privileges up to living in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
2On February 20, 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. Mr. Jacob was in attendance and was represented by his counsel, Ms. Perez.
Without Prejudice Position of the Parties
3Ms. Warner, for the hospital, stated that no changes were recommended to the current Detention Disposition. Mr. Feindel, for the Attorney General, advised that a Conditional Discharge was being sought with two additional terms:
that Mr. Jacob report any contraventions of his Disposition to both the ORB and the police;
that Mr. Jacob reside at 96 Dowling Street, Toronto.
4Ms. Perez stated that she also supported a Conditional Discharge with the additional terms and conditions advanced by Mr. Feindel. She added that the s. 672.55 consent to treatment clause was agreed to by Mr. Jacob. Further, that no changes to the reporting or testing provisions were requested. Finally, Ms. Perez advised that she was not contesting the ongoing presence of significant threat.
Background and Index Offences
5The Hospital Report outlines Mr. Jacob's personal history before he came under the authority of this Board.
6Briefly, Mr. Jacob was born in Calcutta, India on December 15, 1967. He has one sister. As a child, he was friendly and social. During his teenage years, his behaviour changed significantly. He became withdrawn and isolated himself in his room. He also experienced episodes of rage and violence. At age 19, he was diagnosed with schizophrenia and at age 21, he attempted suicide.
7In 1989, Dr. Goldbloom assessed Mr. Jacob and noted that he had already been admitted to nearly every hospital in Toronto and had already tried almost all available psychotropic medications. Those medications included risperidone, olanzapine, clozapine, and several injectable antipsychotics. These were often combined with mood stabilizers such as lithium, Epival, and Tegretol, medications used to manage mood swings and prevent episodes of extreme behaviour.
8Mr. Jacob was also diagnosed with "probable paraphilia," meaning he displayed recurring and abnormal sexual urges or behaviours. To address this, he was prescribed Lupron, a medication to reduce his sex drive. This treatment appeared to reduce his inappropriate sexual behaviour and aggression.
9Mr. Jacob was accepted into the Bachelor of Commerce program at the University of Toronto. However, he left the program just two credits short of completing his degree. He found it difficult to connect with other students and felt that the demands of university life were too overwhelming.
10After leaving school, he worked at various general labour jobs, including factory work.
11Mr. Jacob's violent behaviour seriously damaged his relationships with his parents and sister. As a result, they obtained restraining orders against him. Since leaving the family home, he has lived in a variety of unstable housing situations, including apartments, boarding houses, rented rooms, shelters, and at times, on the streets.
12Mr. Jacob has an extensive criminal record. His convictions include making threats, assaulting a peace officer, criminal harassment, and uttering death threats. He has served multiple periods of incarceration as a result.
13The circumstances of the index offences are taken from last year’s Reasons for Disposition as follows:
“Charges 1 and 2:
Assault On Friday, April 2, 2010, at 2:10 p.m., Victim #1 [male victim’s name] had just exited a TTC bus at Keele and Dundas Street West and was speaking to someone on his cell phone. As Victim #1 was crossing from the east side of Dundas Street West to the west side, the accused who is not known to the victim was approaching from the east. The accused, without provocation, bumped the victim as he walked by and then in an aggressive tone challenged the victim to a fight.
Victim #1 ignored the accused and continued walking westbound while talking on his phone. The accused then continued crossing the intersection eastbound and approached Victim #2 [female victim’s name], who was standing on the southeast sidewalk at Keele Street and Dundas Street West. The accused again without provocation shoved Victim #2 with both hands on her shoulders causing her to fall backwards striking a stationary vehicle. The victim then fell to the ground. Victim #1, not wishing to fight, ignored the accused and started walking away. Victim #2 began arguing with the accused, when he turned towards Victim #1 with a closed fist, striking him on the left side of his face causing his hearing aid to fall on the ground. The accused then kicked Victim #1 in the groin area as he attempted to pick up his hearing aid.
Victim #2 and several citizens then told the accused that police were on their way. Police arrived on scene shortly after and located the accused who was arrested without further incident.
Injuries:
Victim #1: Slightly swollen left side of face. (No medical attention required.).
Victim #2: Four inch scrape to right forearm. (No medical attention required.) Swollen right thumb. Sore hip.
Charge 3: Failure to Comply with Probation.
On the 1st day of May 2008, the accused attended the Old City Hall courthouse and was convicted of the offence of Assault. He was placed on probation for a term of two years with the condition of keeping the peace and being of good behaviour. The accused was then placed on several more probation orders (approximately 8 to date) dating from the 27th day of May 2008, 5th day of September 2008, 19th day of November 2008, 2nd day of December 2008, 10th day of March 2009, 6th day of April 2009 and the 21st day of October 2009. All of the probation orders stipulated that the accused keep the peace and be of good behaviour. On today’s date of 2nd day of April 2010, the accused was arrested and charged with two counts of Assault. As a result of the two new criminal charges being laid, the accused was found to be in breach [of] his conditions of keeping the peace and being of good behaviour. The accused was charged accordingly and held pending a bail hearing the following day.”
Current Diagnoses
Schizophrenia,
Substance Use Disorder, in remission,
Paraphilia Not Otherwise Specified.
Evidence at Hearing
14Ms. Warner called Dr. Arnold to testify for the Hospital. Dr. Arnold is a Psychiatric Resident who has been involved in Mr. Jacob’s care since July 2025. He co-authored the Hospital Report with his supervisor, Dr. Ali. Both endorse its contents having prepared it together.
15Dr. Arnold advised that there was one update to the Hospital Report. The staff at Progress Place, where Mr. Jacob volunteers, advised that subsequent to the preparation of the January 30, 2026, Hospital Report, Mr. Jacob engaged in inappropriate behaviours with females that have caused concern. Staff at Progress Place are therefore reviewing his volunteer role and considering further actions.
16His volunteer position adds structure to Mr. Jacob’s day although he would often return late to Regeneration House, his community residence. Regeneration House is considered adequate housing for this patient. It provides 24/7 staffing, meal support and medication oversight. There have been no hospital readmissions since March of 2021 when Mr. Jacob transitioned to Regeneration House.
17Mr. Jacob minimizes the support he receives at Regeneration House. He would prefer to live in independent, non-supportive housing. He continues to talk about wanting housing that allows for female visitors which Regeneration House does not. If a Conditional Discharge were ordered, the hospital would be satisfied with the suitability of Regeneration House for the coming year.
18Ongoing concerns remain with the hugging and kissing of females as referenced at page 44 of the Hospital Report:
"..there were several occasions during which Mr. Jacob engaged in inappropriate social behaviour. On June 25, 2025, Mr. Jacob received a one-day suspension from volunteering or attending Progress Place after asking a client to purchase him a coffee. There continued to be concerns expressed by housing staff with respect to Mr. Jacob’s behaviour towards female coresidents at times, such as buying gifts in exchange for physical intimacy (e.g. kissing)."
19Dr. Arnold agreed that Mr. Jacob’s giving of gifts for hugs is a manifestation of his paraphilic interest via touching.
20If Mr. Jacob was to lose stable housing, there would be concerns regarding his medication stability and ability to have him returned to hospital in the event of decompensation although he states he would return if asked.
21Dr. Arnold referenced recent incidents where Mr. Jacob has told the outpatient team one thing and done another. When asked for a specific example by a panel member, Dr. Arnold alluded to the withholding of a rent payment until the outpatient team learned he was in deeper arrears.
22The provisions of the Mental Health Act (“MHA”) are currently insufficient to ensure Mr. Jacob’s return to hospital in the event of mental decompensation because he remains treatment capable. As a result, he would have to meet Box A MHA criteria to enable an admission. This impediment/delay would place him and others at risk if he was to mentally deteriorate.
23Over the summer, staff at Regeneration House advised the Forensic Outpatient Service (“FOPS”) team that Mr. Jacob’s room was becoming cluttered/dirty, at risk of infestation and posed an eviction risk. He was provided training with regard to activities of daily living to mitigate the risk of eviction. Mr. Jacob responded well and also began weekly CBT on a 1:1 basis with a psychologist.
24Mr. Jacob is working with a voluntary trustee for his finances. There have been no recent issues with rent payment, although this has been a concern in the past. At times, he overrides the guidance of the trustee and will demand the full ODSP payment for his own use. He continues to struggle with debts, taking cash loans and asking co-residents for loans. Mr. Jacob stands to come into some inheritance monies as his father passed away in April 2025. He has had issues in the past managing larger sums of money.
25Responding to questions from Mr. Feindel, Dr. Arnold agreed that the recently reported incidents of hugging and kissing is attributable to characterological issues rather than from psychosis. His psychosis has been effectively treated for years, and he has been largely compliant with taking prescribed medications under supervision.
26The most likely scenario requiring rapid readmission would be generated by some conflict with his housing whereby he would disengage, resulting in eviction. Scenarios could involve:
issues with the volunteer trustee for finances;
pursuing the longstanding goal to return to independent housing and then resuming
substance use resulting in violence.
27To date, neither of these issues have imminently put Mr. Jacob’s housing at risk. Incidents of hugging/kissing have never resulted in Mr. Jacob’s readmission.
28Ms. Perez noted that last year's Reasons for Disposition state that Mr. Jacob’s housing was temporary. Dr. Arnold responded that that was not the case. Further, aside from socially inappropriate behaviours nothing more serious has been seen.
29Dr. Arnold agreed that Mr. Jacob:
continues to abstain from substances following removal of the abstain clause in last year's Disposition;
has had no issues with reporting requirements which were loosened in last year's Disposition;
continues to attend at CAMH independently;
borrowing of money has not led to a straining of the relationship with his sister;
has been open for years that he wants independent housing but has never absconded from Regeneration House which is indicative that he values having stable housing.
30Dr. Arnold was asked if he was concerned that if Mr. Jacob’s hugs/kisses were rejected that his patient would react aggressively. He responded that Mr. Jacob is often rebuffed which can result in him feeling slighted or becoming verbally abusive.
31A panel member asked Dr. Arnold to address Mr. Jacob’s paraphilic diagnosis. The doctor responded that over the years, this patient has displayed deviant sexual behaviour involving inappropriate touching that has compromised his functioning. He misreads social situations and has had difficulties managing those encounters.
32Another panel member inquired if in the past clinical year Mr. Jacob ever came close to receiving an eviction notice. Dr. Arnold responded that this issue was raised but he cannot say more.
33Dr. Arnold testified that Mr. Jacob has told him that his desire for independent housing is the only reason he is seeking a Conditional Discharge.
34Following a break enabling Ms. Perez to speak with Mr. Jacob, Ms. Perez advised that her client agreed with the proposed Conditional Discharge clauses recommended by Mr. Feindel.
Closing Observations
35Ms. Warner noted that Mr. Jacob has had a number of years of stability living in the community. The Hospital is nevertheless recommending a Detention Disposition because the need to approve housing represents the cornerstone of Mr. Jacob’s community risk management. The Hospital does not want to jeopardize where he lives due to his inadvertence or his purposeful intent to not wanting to live there. Issues of concern include:
cleanliness/hoarding;
nonpayment of rent;
interpersonal conflicts with co-residents.
36Ms. Warner submitted that the aforementioned issues are incidents that will reoccur. Mr. Jacob has put himself on independent housing lists without the Hospital’s approval and a spot has yet to come up for him. The MHA would not enable his admission to hospital for a sufficient period of time if required to find appropriate housing for him in the event he lost his room at Regeneration House. Ms. Warner expressed little confidence that Mr. Jacob would present to hospital voluntarily due to previous contradictory statements and characterological factors.
37The fact that his psychosis is well controlled would challenge the ability of the MHA to enable and sustain an admission. Referencing the contents of the Maladaptive Personality Traits heading at page 48 of the Hospital Report, Ms. Warner submitted that inappropriate touching and characterological traits do not readily lend themselves to meeting MHA Box A criteria. That excerpt is reproduced below:
“...there is evidence of maladaptive personality traits and functioning throughout his adult years that has persisted in the absence of active psychosis. These include difficulties with intimacy, hostility, impulsivity, self-direction, empathy, callousness, and disinhibition.”
38Mr. Feindel submitted that he agreed with Ms. Warner's submissions providing that a Conditional Discharge was ordered that required Mr. Jacob to:
report any contraventions of his Disposition to both the ORB and the police;
reside at 96 Dowling Street, Toronto, Ontario;
consent to treatment per s. 672.55.
39Mr. Feindel noted that s. 672.16 of the Code provides the Board’s ability to specify an address within a Conditional Discharge and submitted that Mr. Jacob’s current housing is more than adequate to manage his risk. None of the issues raised at this hearing have required readmission or a request for Mr. Jacob to return to hospital. Further, issues of eviction/loss of housing would not cause an imminent need for him to leave his current housing. Nonpayment of rent, clutter and money loaning happens over weeks/months prior to a crisis point that would result in the loss of housing. Therefore, the loss of housing is highly speculative. Housing issues have been managed successfully by Regeneration Place staff and the FOPS team. This risk is chronic, rather than acute.
40Socially inappropriate behaviour has not attained a level of risk but has reached high levels of concern. It is being properly addressed by staff in the community as has been the case for several years.
41There is no evidence that Mr. Jacob has previously refused to return to hospital when asked. If he lost housing in a precipitous way, it would represent a breach of his Disposition as he would no longer be residing where ordered.
42A disposition breach requires a legal instrument enabling Mr. Jacob’s return to hospital. This is why a provision within a Conditional Discharge requiring that Mr. Jacob report any contravention of his Disposition to the ORB and to the police is essential.
43Mr. Feindel referenced the recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Ramos (Re), 2025 ONCA 8201 as directing at paragraphs 35-36 that when a patient is brought to the steps of a hospital pursuant to a Conditional Discharge, he/she can be admitted.
44Ms. Perez adopted Mr. Feindel’s submissions. She further highlighted that Mr. Jacob has successfully resided in the community since 2021, absent any incidents where hospitalization was contemplated. She also submitted that a Detention Disposition has not addressed some of the key areas of concern such as chronic socially inappropriate behaviour and the borrowing of money. These are issues likely to persist for some time. It is evident that Mr. Jacob wants to live in independent housing. She conceded that her client has independently placed his name of housing wait lists. However, he has not been precipitous or unmeasured in seeking to leave or put his current housing at risk. This is therefore a speculative preference.
45Ms. Warner requested the opportunity to respond to Mr. Feindel’s submissions regarding the Ramos Decision. She submitted that Mr. Feindel’s first additional proposed Conditional Discharge clause:
that Mr. Jacob report any contraventions of his Disposition to both the ORB and the police;
has not yet been seen in operation. Ms. Warner therefore asked the panel to consider how this clause would play out in practice. A number of steps would have to take place for someone to land on the doorstep of the hospital:
breach of disposition (not living in stipulated residence);
the breach reported to police who would have discretion to take the patient into custody and bring the patient before a judge who MAY order them detained or released;
this cannot be challenged as an involuntary admission under the MHA;
questions whether this mechanism may constitute a restriction of liberty.
46Therefore, Mr. Feindel’s first proposed Conditional Discharge provision, supported by Ms. Perez, presents a speculative applicability in practice and would result in a Conditional Discharge whose terms and conditions are more onerous than those of a Detention Disposition. Ms. Warner submitted that inclusion of this provision would present a “real stretch” if there is a need to readmit Mr. Jacob to hospital.
47Mr. Feindel observed that the proposed provision was in use prior to 2012. Citing the Board’s decision in Krist, 2010 ORBD, 317, paragraph 1. Mr. Feindel added that any action that a Justice takes triggers a s. 672.93(2) review.
“672.93 (2) If the justice is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has contravened or failed to comply with a disposition or an assessment order, the justice, pending a hearing of a Review Board with respect to the disposition or a hearing of a court or Review Board with respect to the assessment order, may make an order that is appropriate in the circumstances in relation to the accused, including an order that the accused be returned to a place that is specified in the disposition or assessment order. If the justice makes an order under this subsection, notice shall be given to the court or Review Board, as the case may be, that made the disposition or assessment order.”
Analysis and Decision
(a) Significant Threat
48Ongoing 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.
49In determining whether Mr. Jacob 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.
50The Board unanimously finds that Mr. Jacob 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. Arnold that Mr. Jacob continues to pose a significant threat. The Board also relies on the Hospital Report and more specifically the second paragraph under the Re-offence Scenario heading at page 49. The relevant excerpt is reproduced below for ease of reference:
“If Mr. Jacob is to re-offend, this will transpire in the context of discontinuation of psychotropic medication, followed by him falling away from treatment services, leading to a return of psychosis. As he experiences escalating symptoms of psychosis, this will lead to further affect and behavioural instability. Active psychosis will also exacerbate underlying maladaptive personality traits and paraphilic interests. Additional destabilizing factors would include a return to substance abuse. In such a situation, Mr. Jacob would be more likely to engage in physically and/or sexually violent behaviour, such as those at the time of the index offence.”
51The Board therefore accepts that absent an ORB Disposition, Mr. Jacob 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 Mr. Jacob will cause serious physical or psychological harm to members of the public and such conduct will likely be criminal in nature.
(b) Disposition
52Flowing from the Board’s finding that Mr. Jacob 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 Mr. Jacob’s needs pursuant to s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
53The necessary and appropriate disposition for Mr. Jacob provides him as much freedom as possible without subjecting the community to a real risk of dangerous behaviour.
54In considering Mr. Jacob needs, the Board determined that it is both necessary and appropriate to transition Mr. Jacob from a Detention Order to a Conditional Discharge with an address specified and the inclusion of a s. 672.55 consent to psychiatric treatment provision to which Mr. Jacob has consented. These additional provisions enable a transition to a more liberal disposition under the auspices of the same outpatient team at a previously approved residence. The panel accepts the entitlement to approve and specify Mr. Jacob’s housing as an essential component of his risk management. The staff of Regeneration Place, together with the FOPS team, have enabled Mr. Jacob to remain at the same community residence, absent re-admission, for the past five years. As there is no evidence that Mr. Jacob has been evicted, the identified risk of eviction is speculative.
55The instant case is distinguishable from the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in Ramos as a Young2 clause, requiring Mr. Jacob to attend at CAMH at its request for the purpose of assessment and readmission was not proposed by either Mr. Feindel or Ms. Perez. In Ramos, the accused proposed a conditional discharge including a Young clause in tandem with the inclusion of a s. 672.55 consent to psychiatric treatment provision.
56Further, the panel finds no evidentiary basis requiring the inclusion of a Young clause in this instance. This is because Mr. Jacob has never refused to return to hospital when asked. Although there have been other documented refusals, it is speculative to analogize those to a refusal to return to hospital particularly, in light of Mr. Jacob’s continued independent attendance at CAMH.
57Finally, since 2021, all characterological/socially inappropriate behaviours have been continually addressed by staff at Regeneration Place and FOPS, thereby negating the need for Mr. Jacob’s re-admission. Therefore, this identified need for a detention disposition, is also speculative.
Conclusion
58The Board unanimously determines that the necessary and appropriate Disposition required to manage the threat Mr. Jacob poses to the safety of the public while still meeting his needs, is a Conditional Discharge with the residence specified and the addition of a consent to treatment clause.
59In making this Disposition, the Board carefully considered the positions and submissions of the parties and the evidence of Dr. Arnold 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, Mr. Jacob’s mental condition, his reintegration into society and other needs.
DATED this 2nd day of April, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. P. Capelle Alternate Chairperson
__________________ Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board
Footnotes
- Ramos (Re), 2025 ONCA 820
- Young (Re), 2011 ONCA 432