Re: Michael Colatosti
ORB File No: 7719
Hearing held on: Friday, February 6, 2026, and
Friday, March 27, 2026 (Via Zoom Videoconference)
Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. M. Segal
Members: Hon. N. Kozloff
Dr. G. Chaimowitz
Dr. H. Moulden
Mr. S. Duffy
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Michael Colatosti
Counsel: Ms. A. Szigeti
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. M. Warner
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. C. Coughlan
Mr. M. Feindel
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated April 2, 2026)
Introduction
On April 15, 2020, Michael Colatosti was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of second-degree murder, and attempt to commit murder, contrary to the Criminal Code.
Mr. Colatosti is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ("ORB" and "Board") dated December 13, 2024, detaining him at the Forensic Service of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health ("CAMH" or hospital") with conditions up to and including living in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
On February 6, 2026, a panel of the Board convened to review Mr. Colatosti's current disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Colatosti was present and represented by counsel, Ms. A. Szigeti. The hearing was not completed and was ultimately adjourned to March 27, 2026, when it continued to conclusion by Zoom.
The issues to be determined are whether Mr. Colatosti continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public and, if so, the necessary and appropriate disposition to manage that risk having regard to the criteria set out in s. 672.54.
Counsel for the hospital and counsel for the Attorney General submitted that Mr. Colatosti still represents a significant threat to the safety of the public and should be discharged with conditions including reporting not less than once every two weeks, abstinence from alcohol and drugs and submitting samples to ensure same, no contact or communication with Larry and Louisa Colatosti and with John and Lee Marcucci or with their immediate families, not to travel outside Ontario without prior approved itinerary, and, in accordance with s. 672.55(1) and s. 672.92(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.
Counsel for Mr. Colatosti submitted that Mr. Colatosti no longer represents a significant threat and should therefore be absolutely discharged.
For the following reasons, the Board finds that Mr. Colatosti no longer represents a significant threat to the safety of the public and orders that he be absolutely discharged.
The Evidence
The Hospital Report dated January 25, 2026, was made Exhibit 1. Letters written in support of Mr. Colatosti were made Exhibits 2, 3, and 4.
Dr. I. Swayze, Mr. Colatosti's treating psychiatrist and one of the authors of the Hospital Report, and Mr. Colatosti, both testified at the hearing.
Background
- The Hospital Report contains information concerning Mr. Colatosti's personal background history including his childhood and family history, education history, employment history, and relationship history; his past psychiatric history; his substance use history; his past medical history; and his legal history. For our purposes, the following extracts from the Hospital Report will suffice:
“At the time of production of this report, Mr. Colatosti was a 39-year-old single gentleman, with no children, residing alone in the community in an independent apartment. He was diagnosed with a polysubstance use disorder, in partial remission in a controlled environment and a cannabis induced psychotic disorder, in sustained remission. Clinical care was provided by Dr. Ian G. Swayze, staff psychiatrist in the FOPS service at CAMH.
Mr. Colatosti was not being treated with any psychiatric medications. He was capable of consenting to treatment.
Mr. Colatosti supplied urine samples as requested/required, all negative for alcohol, cannabis or other substances of misuse over the past year. He was not attending formal substance relapse prevention programming or other risk management programs.
Mr. Colatosti was financially supported by occasional employment with an Events company and savings. He was capable of managing his finances. He was attending a Paralegal course at Seneca College. He was reporting in person to the FOPS service weekly, meeting with his FOPS case manager and monthly with his attending psychiatrist.
Prior to his arrest on August 18, 2018, Mr. Colatosti had resided with his maternal grandparents at the location of the index offences for approximately two years, to assist in the caretaking of his cognitively impaired grandfather. At the time of his arrest, Mr. Colatosti had no legal history or formal mental health diagnosis and was financially supported by ODSP.
Mr. Colatosti was admitted to the Forensic Assessment and Triage Unit (FATU) at CAMH on May 19, 2020, pursuant of a Warrant of Committal after being found Not Criminally Responsible. Prior to his admission, he had been incarcerated at the Toronto South Detention Centre (TSDC) since August 19, 2018. He had his initial ORB hearing on July 10, 2020, and received a disposition of detention on a secure forensic unit. He continued to reside on the FATU until his transfer to Forensic Secure Unit A (FSUA) on November 24, 2020. On November 1, 2021, he was transferred to Forensic General Unit A (LGUA).
Mr. Colatosti was discharged from inpatient care and moved into CMHA Toronto's Transitional Rehabilitation Housing Program 2 (TRHP-2) on March 25, 2024. As Mr. Colatosti did not cooperate with expectations at TRHP2, he was given a 90-day notice to move out. He was offered TRHP1 housing (less structure and supervision) but declined. In June 2025 he located then moved into a private apartment in the lower level of a house where he remains, with the landlord living above. He lives alone and pays market rent.”
The Index Offences
- The police synopsis is reproduced from the Hospital Report:
"According to the Toronto Police Services synopsis and record of arrest:
On August 18, 2018, Ms. Erhabor arrived at the home at 17 Acme Cres. in the early evening. Ms. Marcucci prepared dinner, and Ms. Erhabor assisted Mr. Marcucci as he ate in his wheelchair.
Michael Colatosti emerged from the basement carrying a kitchen knife. He told Ms. Erhabor "You are going to die today." She and Ms. Marcucci ran from the room, leaving Mr. Marcucci in his wheelchair.
Ms. Marcucci tried to escape to the bathroom. Ms. Erhabor ran to the living room and then to the front door of the house, but the door was locked. She then joined Ms. Marcucci in the bathroom.
Ms. Marcucci and Ms. Erhabor were unable to close the bathroom door behind them. Ms. Marcucci pleaded with Michael in Italian. Michael held the door open and repeatedly stabbed her. When paramedics and fire personnel arrived, she was declared vital signs absent. She was later pronounced dead at the scene. The pathology report listed her cause of death as stab wounds to the chest. She suffered 11 sharp force injuries to her neck, chest, and extremities. She had multiple blunt force injuries to her head suffered during the struggle. She also had defensive wounds to her hand. Mr. Marcucci was left unharmed during the entire incident.
Mr. Colatosti then stabbed Ms. Erhabor in the back, repeatedly saying "Die." He then lifted her head up and said, "I'm going to cut your neck." Ms. Erhabor was able to deflect some of these blows with her hands. She managed to escape from the house. She ran to a nearby plaza and civilians called 911. Ms. Erhabor was transported to hospital where she received treatment. Her treating physicians determined that her injuries were not life threatening. She had been stabbed in the neck and head.
At approximately 6:45 pm, police attended the scene and located Mr. Colatosti outside the residence. Police arrived before fire and paramedics. When police first came upon the accused, he had the knife in his hands and was observed to be covered in blood. Police issued commands to drop the knife and to put his arms up. He complied with that initial demand. When police moved in to arrest and handcuff him, the accused was not cooperative. He resisted and he was very agitated and screaming. He was screaming non sensical words like "Islam" and "Mohamed".
The accused had no apparent injuries.
Police placed the accused in a police car equipped with ICC video."
Course Following the Index Offences
- The Hospital Report sets out the details of Mr. Colatosti's course following the index offences:
"Toronto South Detention Centre Notes:
August 19, 2018: Mr. Colatosti denied any mental illness; however, informed before his apprehension, he would "get messages when watching TV."
September 10, 2018: Mr. Colatosti is reported to endorse auditory hallucinations and feelings of paranoia.
September 17, 2018: Mr. Colatosti endorsed his auditory hallucinations would happen "more and more" when using electronics (before incarceration); he reported hearing a specific voice.
September 20, 2019: reported anxiety, stated he is "functioning day to day." He was offered a referral to psychology and recommended a trial of anti-psychotic. Queried unspecified schizophrenia spectrum; reference is made to delusions and impression management. When asked about thought broadcasting, he replied "maybe." When asked if other's can control his body, he replied, "I don't know" and referenced some medical issues. He acknowledged being "a little paranoid" that he may have cancer, indicating "somebody told me they may have given me a cancer-causing virus." He elaborated he believed someone "injected" him with cancer in approximately 2016 or 2017.
CAMH Forensic Early Intervention Service Notes at TSDC:
August 19, 2018: Mr. Colatosti was referred to the CAMH Forensic Early Intervention Service (FEIS) Team for psychiatrist consultation. In his initial screening, Mr. Colatosti endorsed believing individuals could read his thoughts and mind. Additionally, he was noted to exhibit "symptoms of paranoia."
September 11, 2018: Mr. Colatosti was seen by FEIS psychiatrist. He was noted to "endorse paranoia, delusions of thought insertion, thought deletion and mind control." He reported he "feeling as though" someone may be controlling his sleep and mood.
September 14, 2018: Mr. Colatosti was noted to be "feeling suicidal." Currently on melatonin, 6mg, for sleep.
October 4, 2018: Mr. Colatosti reported on-going, low-grade paranoia. Currently taking Zantac and melatonin.
November 29, 2018: Mr. Colatosti was noted to speak about "generalized paranoia," such as, believing that he was aware of events before they happened; he made reference to events that occurred at St. Michael's School. He reported past auditory hallucinations and passive thoughts of suicide.
February 28, 2019: Mr. Colatosti endorsed "feeling paranoid and having déjà vu feeling." He endorsed he continues to see a General Practitioner regarding "lumps" on his body; he requested a biopsy after being displeased with the two previous physicians who assessed him.
March 28, 2019: Mr. Colatosti reported on-going feelings of paranoia; he endorsed he had premonitions when something was going to happen, as he would "feel that he knew it was going to happen and would recall someone having told him about the event occurring prior to imprisonment."
June 25, 2019: Mr. Colatosti reported "greater anxiety and low-level paranoia," which include ongoing feelings of 'deja-vu.' He reported "strange dreams" and nighttime awakening. He indicated further anxiety regarding the "lumps to his body."
Psychological Report dated February 12, 2020
- The Hospital Report sets out the results of psychological testing of Mr. Colatosti prior to the finding of NCR. For our purposes, the summary will suffice:
"Mr. Colatosti was referred for psychological testing to assist with the overall psychiatric assessment. Based on the current assessment results, Mr. Colatosti appears to be experiencing some mild cognitive disturbance associated with residual symptoms. His paranoid ideation is apparent during the interview, particularly if his answers are probed in more detail or when discussing his test item endorsement.
His behaviour at the material time appeared associated with a psychotic episode that was at least in part related to sustained substance abuse as well as acute intoxication. However, he appears to have a history of a decline and impairment in functioning, paranoid ideation and general psychotic experiences that cannot entirely be attributed to substance abuse.
Personality features likely contributed to Mr. Colatosti's withdrawal and avoidance of psychiatric care for his symptoms prior to the index offence. These features also appear to have contributed to periods of anger and physical aggression in his earlier years, his reticent style of reporting his symptoms, and negative self-image.
At the material time Mr. Colatosti was highly symptomatic and experiencing a range of paranoid ideation that he appeared unable to question in a meaningful manner and, thus, acted upon."
- Mr. Colatosti's course in hospital from his admission to CAMH up to the present is compiled in the Hospital Report. For our purposes it suffices to set out the following excerpts from the period November 2025 to January 2026:
"General Summary
Mr. Colatosti has had good clinical year. He began the year under the clinical care of Dr. Robert McMaster; his care was transferred to his present attending psychiatrist Dr. Ian G. Swayze in June of 2025 following Mr. Colatosti leaving the TRHP-2 residence (Dr. McMaster being the consulting psychiatrist for that residence).
Mr. Colatosti remains in the community, residing alone in an independent, market rate apartment. He has not required presentation for acute reassessment or hospitalization. He has not been a behavioural or management problem in the community. He has not engaged in violence, aggression or any concerning behaviours. He has complied with all reporting requirements.
Mental/Physical Health, Treatment, Insight
Mr. Colatosti' mental status remains stable; psychosis free. There has been no indication of thought disorder, delusions (including paranoia) or hallucinations. There have been no overt negative symptoms such as amotivation, apathy or avolition. There has been no clinically significant disturbance of mood or anxiety.
Mr. Colatosti is receiving no pharmacological psychiatric treatment (medications). There are no acute indications for treatment, albeit the use of low dose prophylactic antipsychotics has been discussed and recommended. The clinical course of his psychotic disorder remains certain, and ongoing close supervision monitoring of the prodromal signs continues.
Mr. Colatosti has an unremarkable medical and surgical history. He is generally in good physical health. He does report some knee and wrist pain, likely associated with his active lifestyle. He is receiving no medical treatments. He does have access to a community family physician as needed; GP Dr. Joseph Larson, at Village Family Health Team.
Mr. Colatosti is fully independent with his ADLs (activities of daily living). He successfully manages all aspects of his life. He has a rigorous schedule of physical activities.
Mr. Colatosti is able to articulate his diagnosis, associated acute symptoms and correlation with substance use. need for treatment. Unfortunately, his ability to recognize the early signs of decompensation and seek assistance remains an area of significant concern. Additionally, Mr. Colatosti's insight regarding the risk of substance use relapse is less than fulsome as is his risk of stress induced relapse. He impresses as both overestimating of his own coping abilities and underestimating of the potential deleterious effect of destabilizers on either his mental state or substance relapse risk. In these regards, his insight remains partial. Ongoing optimization of psychoeducation continues, remaining a primary focus. He declines risk management programming directed towards characterological issues impeding his progress.
Substances
Over the past clinical year, Mr. Colatosti generally supplied urine samples as requested/required (54 in total); all negative for alcohol, cannabis or other substances of misuse. 12 samples were low creatinine; questioning their validity. On occasion, while residing at TRHP-2 housing, he declined or "missed" providing samples (2 in total). He did not present on any occasion as intoxicated. He did not exhibit drug-seeking behaviours. He did not attend formal substance relapse prevention programming.
Concerning Behaviours/Incidents of Interest
Beyond some early interpersonal conflict, limit and boundary testing, there were no concerning behaviours or events over the past clinical year.
Housing, Programming, Activities, Supports. Reporting
Mr. Colatosti was discharged from inpatient care and moved into CMHA Toronto's Transitional Rehabilitation Housing Program 2 (TRHP-2) on March 25, 2024. As Mr. Colatosti did not cooperate with expectations at TRHP-2 (program engagement, curfews), he was given a 90 day notice to move out. He was offered (and recommended) TRHP-1 housing (less structure and supervision) but declined. In June 2025 he located then moved into a private apartment in the lower level of a house where with the landlord living above. He lives alone and pays market rent. Mr. Colatosti remains in the community, with no issues or concerns.
Mr. Colatosti has declined to enter into formal risk management programming since his move to independent housing. Colatosti was referred to the WRAP group (Wellness Recovery Action Plan) offered through the Forensic Outpatient Service. Mr. Colatosti opted not to continue with the WRAP group. He also declined referral back to FORCAT for one-to-one counselling.
Mr. Colatosti has increased his engagement with the community. He reports supportive peer relations, with frequent contact, social and recreational activities. He is not involved in an intimate interpersonal (romantic) relationship. He maintains close connections with his family. He is close to his parents and sister. He keeps in touch with his parents frequently via phone and visits them regularly. He attends holidays and family gatherings. He has had some cursory but optimistic contact with other family members.
Mr. Colatosti remains employed by "Green Event Ninjas", an events company. His work is episodic and somewhat unpredictable. During the fall and winter months, this is further curtailed. He is presently supported by savings. He remains capable to manage his finances.
Mr. Colatosti began a one-year paralegal course on May 5, 2025. He reports both satisfaction and academic success to date. He hopes to apply to a law program in the future.
Mr. Colatosti reports in person to the FOPS service weekly, meeting with his case manager. He is seen monthly by his attending psychiatrist. He has complied with all reporting requirements."
- The results of the psychiatric interview and mental status examination most recent to the date of the Hospital Report are reproduced below:
"MENTAL STATUS EXAMINATION
As of the most recent psychiatric interview and mental status examination conducted in person in The Forensic Outpatient Service, Mr. Colatosti presented as 39-year-old Caucasian gentleman of athletic build and average stature. He had a beard which was well groomed. As was his habit, he arrived by bicycle.
Mr. Colatosti described his mood as ""Good". His affect was somewhat labile, from euthymic to moderately anxious, at time irritable, primarily related to discussions regarding his past year under the ORB and potential recommendations to the Board at his upcoming hearing.
Mr. Colatosti's thought form was undisturbed. There were no overt delusions and he denied paranoid themes. He denied ideas of reference, thought withdrawal, insertion or broadcasting. He denied suicidal or homicidal ideations. He denied hallucinations and did not appear to be responding to internally generated stimuli. He reported stable neurovegetative signs including sleep, appetite, energy, concentration, libido and no anhedonia. He denied intent to access, or cravings to use, substances of abuse.
Mr. Colatosti's insight into the index offences, the impact of substance use and subsequent psychosis was good. His appreciation of the need for risk management interventions, and the impact of other potentially destabilizing variables, such as stress, was less fulsome. He believed the external oversight of the ORB and clinical team were unnecessary and unwarranted."
- In the portion of the Hospital Report dealing with risk assessment, the authors posit:
"Taken together, when weighing Mr. Colatosti's pertinent risk and protective factors, his risk of future violence would be low-moderate in the context of a Conditional Discharge."
- The authors then set out the clinical risk factors/re-offence scenario:
"Mr. Colatosti's risk factors of re-offence are directly related to his mental illness and substance use (cannabis). The index offences occurred as a result of florid psychosis impacting Mr. Colatosti's thought and perception sufficiently to cause impairments in reality testing and judgment.
If Mr. Colatosti is to re-offend, it will likely unfold in the following way: Mr. Colatosti might continue to experience intermittent soft, quasi-psychotic symptoms. Although not sufficient to cause gross impairments of reality testing or judgment, in specific circumstances, e.g., in the presence of stressors or concurrent use of substances that might have psychotogenic effects, in his case mostly likely cannabis, Mr. Colatosti's symptoms might become worse and the psychotic experiences might further consolidate to the extent that Mr. Colatosti is not able to retain his insight and follow his rational decision of starting treatment with antipsychotic in time. He thus might succumb to the paranoia and hallucinations as to act on the psychotic symptoms, as had happened in the index offence, and cause bodily harms to others."
Current Diagnoses
- The Hospital Report sets out Mr. Colatosti's diagnoses as follows:
"Diagnoses
a. Cannabis-Induced Psychotic Disorder, in remission
b. Substance Use Disorder, (alcohol and cannabis, severe, in partial remission in a controlled setting)
Differential Diagnoses
a. Unspecified psychotic disorder
b. Unspecified Personality Disorder"
- The Hospital Report sets out the team's composite assessment of the risk Mr. Colatosti poses:
"Composite Assessment of Risk
Mr. Colatosti' overall profile suggests a low-moderate risk potential. In addition, he has several salient clinical risk factors. Taken in totality, the clinical team opines that Mr. Colatosti continues to remain a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in Section 672.5401."
- The unanimous consensus of the clinical team as to the contents and implications of the Hospital Report is set out under Team Review of Recommendation:
"Team Review of Recommendation
The following report has been reviewed with the treating clinical team and there is unanimous consensus as to its contents and implications.
Current Exercise of Privileges
Presently, Mr. Colatosti is residing in the community.
Proposed Amendments to Order
The clinical team is of the opinion Mr. Colatosti remains a significant risk and as such does not warrant consideration of an absolute discharge at this time. The clinical team recognizes that Mr. Colatosti has remained successfully in the community and commends him for this. During the early part of past year, however, he had ongoing conflictual interactions with outpatient staff leading to his loss of housing. He has rejected recommended alternate housing options and risk management programming. Since obtaining his present independent housing, he has complied with the expectations of the clinical team. He still presents with limited rapport with the treatment team. To his credit, he has abstained from substance use. His daytime structure and routine, and his social support system has improved.
Mr. Colatosti has a history of severe substance use leading to acute psychosis with behavioural dyscontrol including violence. His psychotic symptoms remain in remission, increasing the likelihood Mr. Colatosti's psychotic symptoms were more likely substance-induced, however, it cannot be said with certainty that he does not have other vulnerabilities to psychotic relapse, nor can a primary psychotic illness be definitively ruled out. Mr. Colatosti remains in need of enhanced insight and transparent engagement with supports to respond to a reemergence of substance use and/or psychosis.
Taken in totality, Mr. Colatosti presents as appropriate for a conditional discharge.
It is the unanimous opinion of the clinical team that a conditional discharge, as outlined below, represents the necessary and appropriate, least onerous and least restrictive, disposition to manage Mr. Colatosti's risk to the public.
Conditional Discharge subject to conditions: report not less than once every two weeks; abstinence from alcohol and drugs; submitting samples to ensure same; weapons prohibition; no contact; not to travel outside of Ontario without prior approved itinerary and in accordance with s.672.55(1) and 672.92(1)(b) arrest if breach."
Evidence at the hearing
Dr. I. Swayze
Dr. Swayze took over as Mr. Colatosti's treating psychiatrist from Dr. McMaster in June 2025 after Mr. Colatosti lost his TRHP-2 housing, declined TRHP-1 housing, and secured his private rental accommodation.
Asked by counsel for the hospital about the change in housing, Dr. Swayze explained that in March 2024 Mr. Colatosti was initially discharged to TRHP-2 housing which provides structured supervision. He used the terms "confrontational", "difficult", “aggressive,” and "dismissive" to describe Mr. Colatosti's response to TRHP-2 supervisory staff, including that Mr. Colatosti did not engage in any programming. As a result, he was evicted from TRHP-2 housing. When Dr. McMaster was able to arrange TRHP-1 housing (which is less structured and provides independent units) for Mr. Colatosti he declined it and found his own private rental accommodation which was approved by the hospital.
Dr. Swayze described Mr. Colatosti as "mentally stable". He continues to decline any antipsychotic medication despite the recommendation of the clinical team. Mr. Colatosti has also declined to repeat substance relapse programming which Dr. Swayze observed was "highly relevant to his case". Of note, Mr. Colatosti has not experienced any reemergence of psychotic symptoms nor is there any evidence that he has used any intoxicating substances.
Regarding risk, Dr. Swayze opined that Mr. Colatosti does not deal well with stress, often responding with anger and blaming others.
He posited that Mr. Colatosti is doing well "on paper" regarding accommodation, employment and education, although his finances are tenuous. As for his plan to go to law school after completion of his paralegal course, Dr. Swayze expressed concern about the substantial risk of rejection and how that might affect Mr. Colatosti.
Dr. Swayze expressed concern that in dealing with acute stressors Mr. Colatosti would resume cannabis use and that he would not reach out for help if his psychotic symptoms return.
Dr. Swayze posited that Mr. Colatosti believes that the ORB is detrimental to his law school ambitions, noting that "getting into law school is a great challenge for anyone let alone someone with his makeup.
When they discussed (the hospital's recommendation of) a conditional discharge Mr. Colatosti's response was that an absolute discharge is appropriate as he is no longer a risk, and that the ORB will "delay his academic ambitions".
Dr. Swayze noted that Mr. Colatosti had "impressed" his previous inpatient treatment team as "somewhat overestimating of his own coping skills" specifically about "the potential impact of stress on his mental state. He predicted that if Mr. Colatosti was discharged absolutely, he would not seek out any programming (for example the Wellness Recovery Action Plan or WRAP) because he "does not believe he needs it."
Dr. Swayze opined that Mr. Colatosti still meets the threshold for significant threat, but that this risk can now be managed with a conditional discharge which is the necessary and appropriate disposition at this time, given that Mr. Colatosti has independent housing, employment and education prospects, and no behavioural issues.
In response to questions from counsel for the Attorney General about the complexity of Mr. Colatosti's diagnosis – i.e. suspected co-morbidity including cannabis use disorder, polysubstance abuse, unspecified psychotic disorder and unspecified personality disorder - Dr. Swayze noted that the difficulty in diagnosing Mr. Colatosti was compounded by his post-offence and post-cannabis use paranoia. He attributed Mr. Colatosti's will to abstain to the horrible consequences of the index offences but cautioned that relapses are very common in patients with the best of intentions.
Dr. Swayze observed that Mr. Colatosti is "confident in managing his own risk" whereas he believes that Mr. Colatosti is overconfident albeit he recognizes the risk of being offered access and opportunity. His concern is that Mr. Colatosti will turn to cannabis as a strategy for coping with stress as opposed to for recreational use.
In response to questions from counsel for Mr. Colatosti, Dr. Swayze acknowledged that following the index offences in 2018 and the NCR finding in 2020, Mr. Colatosti has been substances abstinent and that the last time he had experienced any psychotic symptoms was more than five years ago.
He observed that Dr. Wright – who was one of the authors of the February 2020 Psychological Report – believed that Mr. Colatosti's diagnosis was more likely a primary psychotic disorder, whereas currently the belief of the clinical team is that his psychosis was cannabis induced.
Dr. Swayze cautioned that he could never rule out a primary psychotic disorder but that each year (without psychotic symptoms) increases confidence that it is a cannabis use disorder. He acknowledged that Mr. Colatosti has always believed that his psychosis was cannabis induced (in combination with lack of sleep, as per the Hospital Report at p. 20).
With respect to antipsychotic medication, Dr. Swayne stated that it is no longer indicated as "the risks outweigh the benefits."
With regard to (his lack of) programming, Dr. Swayze did not disagree that Mr. Colatosti is very busy with pro-social activities including a full course load of paralegal studies, that he is active physically, that he has the social support of family, friends and colleagues, and that there have been no reports that he has been involved in any antisocial activities. Counsel suggested that Mr. Colatosti's only interpersonal issues were with the staff at TRHP-2, which Mr. Colatosti believed was unnecessary.
When counsel put to him that Mr. Colatosti is currently living successfully and independently, Dr. Swayze replied that he was concerned about Mr. Colatosti's coping mechanism should his application be rejected by law schools. When counsel then suggested that his concern was unfounded because it is not Mr. Colatosti's intention to apply in the immediate future, Dr. Swayze replied that Mr. Colatosti had specifically told him that it is his intention to apply to law school this year.
When counsel suggested to Dr. Swayze that being under the ORB's jurisdiction would be a problem for Mr. Colatosti in his practice as a paralegal, the doctor replied that he had suggested that Mr. Colatosti make inquiries to law schools about the impact of being under ORB jurisdiction – based as it is on a finding of significant threat – on his prospects for acceptance. The doctor added that it is Mr. Colatosti's belief that he will have more options if he is not under the jurisdiction of the ORB.
In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Swayze advised that his conversations with Mr. Colatosti about this hearing were very tense and that he was angry, aggressive and dismissive.
He opined that a Conditional Discharge would allow Mr. Colatosti to have his autonomy and afford him an opportunity to show that his intention to remain abstinent is well-founded.
The doctor believes that Mr. Colatosti will decline ongoing psychiatric follow up if he is discharged absolutely.
Dr. Swayze stated that Mr. Colatosti used cannabis for 12 years and the result was one catastrophic event. Asked about the likelihood of another catastrophic event should he relapse to cannabis use, he replied that it was a reasonable probability that Mr. Colatosti would become psychotic with the same cluster of symptoms that produced the index offence.
Dr. Swayze acknowledged that Mr. Colatosti has been substance abstinent for seven years and symptom free for five years, and that he is working, studying and living independently.
Asked what the likelihood was – if he uses again - that Mr. Colatosti will commit another catastrophic offence in the future, Dr. Swayze replied that if he was discharged absolutely, it was likely because he is unaware of his symptoms and would not reach out for help, whereas if he was discharged conditionally, it was not likely. He added that the constellation of symptoms would be replicated and would lead to serious violence.
The doctor stated that ORB oversight of Mr. Colatosti will mitigate a return to substance use, adding that "abstinence does not amount to insight." He acknowledged that Mr. Colatosti does have insight into the relationship between cannabis and psychotic symptoms and the risk of violence.
Asked what the advantage was of another year under ORB oversight, Dr. Swayze replied that the responsibility for his wellness is mainly on Mr. Colatosti, and that another year would give him the opportunity to show that he has internalized his commitment to abstinence. He added that Mr. Colatosti and the team would work together towards an absolute discharge as a natural transition.
Mr. M. Colatosti
At the outset of his testimony Mr. Colatosti was invited by his counsel to make a statement. He began by asking the panel to find that he is no longer a danger to the safety of the public and then related some of the details concerning his accommodation, employment and education since the NCR finding.
He acknowledged that he had told Dr. Swayze that he wanted to go to law school but clarified that he would only apply after having worked for several years as a paralegal. Mr. Colatosti explained that he knew law school was a "long shot" aspiration and denied that the possibility of his application being rejected was a potential stressor.
Regarding stressors, Mr. Colatosti asserted that he had not been psychotic since shortly after the index offences, notwithstanding a "series of blows" he experienced in and around February of 2025, namely:
his former romantic partner broke up with him;
his application to study to be a paralegal at triOS College was rejected;
his property including wallet and jacket was stolen at the gym; and
he was discharged from his TRHP-2 housing.
Mr. Colatosti explained that after experiencing these blows, he was accepted into the paralegal program at Seneca College, found a new place to live, and replaced the property he had lost.
He observed that he is now better able to accept criticism, adding that he was told by his employer in the summer of 2025 that he was doing well.
He explained that he "reality checks" when he thinks he is being paranoid.
He stated that he knows the importance of sleep and added that he had "eventually" agreed to take medication for sleep prescribed by Dr. Swayze.
At this point there was an extended pause in his testimony and at the suggestion of the Alt-Chair he took a short break.
On resuming Mr. Colatosti explained that he had become emotional thinking about his grandmother, that he thinks about her every day, that he loved her "more than I can explain", that she loved him unconditionally, that she was only trying to help him, that he cannot believe he was capable of doing her harm and what he did to her, and that she was beloved by all and deserved better. He added that he also thinks about the horror experienced by his grandfather's caregiver.
Mr. Colatosti acknowledged that he "can't guarantee no psychosis and I don't understand what happened that day", and he pledged that he would do his best to ensure it will never happen again.
Asked by his counsel whether he had been offered therapy or programming by CAMH to address his trauma, Mr. Colatosti said he had been offered many types of therapy and programming and that "talk therapy" in particular was helpful. He acknowledged having "difficulty talking about this", adding that "unfortunately I was unable to continue (talk therapy) because I didn't have the same rapport with the new therapist."
Asked whether he had been offered a program to address his feelings of guilt and remorse, he replied that he did not believe so and that he would participate in one if offered. He asserted that he was committed to a clean and healthy lifestyle and to never using alcohol or drugs again. He acknowledged that this is "my last chance" and stated that he is grateful to the forensic mental health system.
Asked why an absolute discharge is so important now, Mr. Colatosti replied that he is in his last couple of weeks of the final semester, that he has been maintaining a 3.9 grade point average, that the next step is a 240 hour field placement, that he has been "open and honest about my past", and that he will not be certifiable by the Law Society of Ontario i.e. following a good character hearing without an absolute discharge and will have to put off practice as a paralegal until he has received one.
Asked by counsel for the Attorney General what emotional supports he has, Mr. Colatosti replied that his parents are his biggest supports and also cited his sister and brother-in-law and the friends he has made at school and in a book club.
Asked about his diagnosis and the risks of cannabis use and specifically whether the risk would rise from using once versus repeated use, Mr. Colatosti replied, "Once is more than enough."
Asked what had driven him to cannabis use, Mr. Colatosti replied, "Initially social, then for sleep."
Asked what his sense is of the references in the Hospital Report to his "unusual experiences" (i.e. symptoms) namely, hearing voices from electrical devices, auditory hallucinations, conversations with a high school acquaintance over the radio etc. Mr. Colatosti replied that those were symptoms of psychosis. He clarified that they were "very different than the symptoms of psychosis on the date of the index offences,” adding that he would seek help in the event of any recurrence and replying "No" when asked whether he is currently experiencing any thought disorder or perceptual disturbance.
Asked whether at the time of the index offences he made any connection in his mind between cannabis use and his symptoms of psychosis he replied, "No".
Asked why he did not bring his symptoms to the attention of his family, he replied that they were alienated at the time and that he was uncomfortable talking to people.
Regarding his plan to abstain he was asked what he would do if he "fell off the wagon." He replied that he hadn't considered the possibility adding that if that occurred, he would reach out to the hospital (CAMH) for help.
Mr. Colatosti said his recollection about what triggered his symptoms at the time was that they were sleep-related and accompanied by feelings of hopelessness. Asked specifically if stress was a trigger he replied that he did not think so, and that it was "more anxiety about the future."
Asked if he thought he could cope with others using cannabis in his presence, he replied "Yes" and that he has already done so while observing that people (using cannabis) become "less better versions of themselves."
Asked about other substances, Mr. Colatosti replied that they held no appeal and that he has "grown out of it."
Asked about his suspicion that the cannabis he used leading up to the index offences was laced with crystal methamphetamine, Mr. Colatosti acknowledged that he had wondered about that because he hadn’t slept for the week between when he last used and the index offences. He added that he does not think it matters because he recognized that he had experienced psychosis even prior to using what he suspects was laced cannabis. He went on to explain that he purchased the last cannabis he had used before the index offences from an unknown source.
Asked if he had disclosed his history to triOS College and Seneca College, he stated that he had. Asked if it was his practice to be "up front" about his history Mr. Colatosti replied, "On a case-by-case basis", adding that he had not disclosed to his landlord because he "needed accommodation badly."
In response to a question from the panel regarding what impact he thought cannabis would have on his thinking were he to use, Mr. Colatosti replied, "I don't know. Best case, I would get high. Worst case, psychotic."
Asked what he thought was the likelihood of something terrible happening, he replied, "I don't know. I'm not willing to find out. Probably likely."
Asked what his sense is of why something terrible would happen, Mr. Colatosti replied, "The effects of cannabis on me."
Asked what his sense is of why he is at risk according to the treatment team, he replied, "My refusal to do substance relapse programming." Mr. Colatosti then explained that he found that programming harmful because when he took it, he felt like using again.
Asked what supports he would have in place and access in the event he was discharged absolutely, then triggered and used, Mr. Colatosti replied, "I haven't given that a lot of thought. I have good support from my clinicians, and I feel I could call on them, adding that he would attend CAMH Emergency if necessary.
Asked about his relationship with Dr. Swayze, Mr. Colatosti acknowledged that they did not have the best rapport but that he felt comfortable speaking with him and that their relationship was not adversarial. He did not agree that he and his treatment team were in a tug of war and asserted that he has a good relationship with his case worker.
Asked about his family physician (Dr. Joseph Larsen), Mr. Colatosti replied that he sees him very frequently – every three months – regarding various physical issues, and that "he knows I am a patient at CAMH but not why." He explained that he had not told Dr. Larsen about the circumstances surrounding his admission despite having confidence in him because the doctor is "very busy." He added that the doctor was someone to whom he could reach out.
Asked if there were any other professionals to whom he could reach out, Mr. Colatosti identified Ellie Litvack of the Canadian Mental Health Association whom he described as a good personal friend and aware of his circumstances.
Regarding his family supports, Mr. Colatosti said he was confident that he could speak to his parents if necessary, and that if they saw him in difficulty, they would encourage him to go to hospital.
Final Submissions of the Parties
Counsel for the hospital maintained the position that the significant threat issue continues to be met. She argued that the evidence supports a real concern about Mr. Colatosti's psychotic symptoms reemerging if he uses substances and that it discloses several sources of potential stress arising from his circumstances, namely:
his financial situation (the combination of seasonal and unpredictable employment coupled with the necessity of paying for private housing), and
his educational and employment situation (securing a coop placement, the heavy workload resulting from the simultaneous pursuit of his education and employment aspirations, and
his intention to apply to law school and the risk and potentially adverse effects on him of rejection.
She cited as complicating factors Mr. Colatosti's over-estimation of his coping strategies and his under-estimation of the adverse effects of stress and reiterated the concern of the treatment team about whether he would take the appropriate steps to address decompensation.
Finally, she pointed to the fact that notwithstanding his supports there is no professional mental health follow-up in place if he is discharged absolutely at this time.
Counsel for the Attorney General adopted the submissions of the hospital in their entirety. In addition, he argued that there are many unknowns regarding Mr. Colatosti's cannabis induced psychotic disorder arising from his long history of chronic heavy use, citing the concern set out in the Hospital Report about his overconfidence and pointing to the fact that Mr. Colatosti has only been living in the community for two years with the support of his treatment team and the drug testing protocol.
Counsel for Mr. Colatosti asked the panel to focus on Mr. Colatosti’s evidence as he addressed the points of concern raised by Dr. Swayze, specifically what the doctor identified as Mr. Colatosti's "obsession" with law school and the risk of rejection of his application(s). She argued that there is no obsession and no evidence that he would be disqualified from entrance to law school.
She posited that Mr. Colatosti was "candid and sincere with you" and that he "links his guilt and remorse with his commitment to abstinence.
She observed that what triggered Mr. Colatosti's psychosis at the time of the index offences "is and will always be a mystery" i.e. was it that the cannabis he last used was "laced", was it because of his cumulative use, and/or was it his hypersensitivity? Regardless, she argued that abstinence is prevention and that he is committed to abstinence.
She submitted that public safety would not be compromised by an absolute discharge because Mr. Colatosti is "on top of things" in terms of addressing his risk factors beginning with his demonstrated commitment to a healthy lifestyle of eating, sleeping and exercise and supported by his family.
She argued that no follow-up services are required for someone (like Mr. Colatosti) who has had no symptoms of psychosis or mental illness going on six years, who has not been on or in need of anti-psychotic medication during that time, and who has maintained abstinence from substance use for over seven years.
In summary, her position is that Mr. Colatosti no longer represents a significant threat to the safety of the public, that the risk he poses, if any, is miniscule, and that the Board should at a minimum be uncertain about whether he represents a significant threat, in which case as a matter of law there must be an Absolute Discharge.
Analysis and Conclusion
The central issue is whether Mr. Colatosti remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.
The relevant legal principles to be applied to the evidence with respect to the issue of significant threat are summarized in the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Marmolejo (Re), 2021 ONCA 130 at paras 34-37:
"…the role of the Board is first to determine whether an NCR accused represents a significant threat to public safety. If the answer to that question is "no" or uncertain then the NCR accused must be discharged absolutely: Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625, [1999] S.C.J. No 31, at pp. 659-61, 669 S.C.R. If the NCR accused does present a significant threat, the Board must either conditionally discharge or detain the individual: Winko, pp. 662, 669 S.C.R.
It is important to bear in mind that the Board's responsibility to grant an absolute discharge is non-discretionary in the event that it harbours any doubt about whether the NCR accused represents a significant threat: Carrick (Re), [2018] O.J. No. 4878, 2018 ONCA 752, at para. 16. As the majority of the Supreme Court emphasized in Winko, at pp. 652-53 S.C.R.: "Once an NCR accused is no longer a significant threat to public safety, the criminal justice system has no further application."
Individuals with mental disorders are not inherently dangerous: Winko, at p. 653 S.C.R. There is no presumption of dangerousness and no burden on the NCR accused to prove a lack of dangerousness: Winko, at pp. 660-61, 662 S.C.R. Rather, the legal and evidentiary burden of establishing significant threat rests on the Board or the court: Winko, at p. 663 S.C.R.
The threshold for significant risk is "onerous": Carrick (Re) (2015), 128 O.R. (3d) 209, [2015] O.J. No. 6524, 2015 ONCA 866, at para. 17. A significant threat to the safety of the public means a foreseeable and substantial risk of physical or psychological harm to members of the public: R. v. Ferguson, [2010] O.J. No. 5138, 2010 ONCA 810, at para. 8. The conduct must be of a serious criminal nature: Ferguson, at para. 8. A very small risk of grave harm will not suffice, nor will a high risk of trivial harm: Ferguson, at para. 8. The threat must be more than speculative in nature; it must be supported by evidence: Winko, at p. 665 S.C.R.; Pellett (Re) (2017), 139 O.R. (3d) 651, [2017] O.J. No. 5025, 2017 ONCA 753, at para. 21."
- The Board has carefully considered the following factors all of which are gleaned from the Hospital Report:
a. For almost six years, Mr. Colatosti has not exhibited active psychotic symptoms or mood symptoms notwithstanding the fact that he has continued to decline the use of "low dose prophylactic antipsychotics" which have been discussed with and offered to him by the clinical team.
b. He had no prior criminal record before the time of the index offences and has had no criminal charges since that time.
c. He has not engaged in any violent behaviour since the time of the index offences.
d. There is no evidence that he has used any illicit substances since the time of the index offences, notwithstanding his "history of severe substance use leading to acute psychosis with behavioural dyscontrol including violence."
e. He has now been living successfully in the community since March of 2024, notwithstanding that he was asked to leave the TRHP-2 housing to which he was initially discharged for failing to cooperate with their program engagement and curfew expectations, notwithstanding that he declined the less structured and supervised TRHP-1 housing that was offered and recommended to him, and notwithstanding that he has declined to enter into formal risk management programming since he received independent housing in June of 2025.
f. He has stable housing, and lives alone in the lower level of a private dwelling where he pays market rent to the landlord who lives above.
g. He is currently employed by an events company albeit the work is episodic and somewhat unpredictable.
h. He has been pursuing his education, having begun a paralegal program in May of 2025, and hopes to apply to a law program in the future.
i. He enjoys good family support.
- The clinical team identifies the following areas of "significant concern":
"Mr. Colatosti's ability to recognize the early signs of decompensation and seek assistance…
Mr. Colatosti's insight regarding the risk of substance use relapse
Mr. Colatosti's risk of stress induced relapse
Mr. Colatosti's overestimation of his own coping abilities and underestimation of the potential deleterious effect of destabilizers on either his mental state or substance relapse risk."
- Regarding these concerns, the clinical team makes the following observations:
"In these regards, his insight remains partial. Ongoing optimization of psychoeducation continues, remaining a primary focus. He declines risk management programming directed towards characterological issues impeding his progress.
Despite ongoing psychoeducation, Mr. Colatosti continues to exhibit a limited appreciation for and resistance towards the ongoing need for Treatment/Supervision from the team. He has also continued to engage in minor pushing of boundaries and externalizes interpersonal conflict. He declines relevant risk management programming."
- At the same time, the clinical team observes that:
"Mr. Colatosti remains in the community, residing alone in an independent, market rate apartment. He has not required presentation for acute reassessment or hospitalization. He has not been a behavioural or management problem in the community. He has not engaged in violence, aggression or any concerning behaviours. He has complied with all reporting requirements."
The panel recognizes that Mr. Colatosti has some personality features that probably contributed to his less than optimal relationships with both the CAMH clinical team and the TRHP-2 housing team. Moreover, we are not entirely convinced that his testimony about his insight in general and the contribution of cannabis use to the index offences specifically can be relied upon.
That said, the index offences were not a function of a recurrent major mental illness; he has been free of psychosis and abstinent from cannabis use for many years. While the index offences were extremely serious, the threat of a recurrence of offending behaviour in the event he uses cannabis again is sufficiently low that - per Winko - it is no more than speculative in nature and unsupported by the evidence.
Having carefully considered the totality of the evidence as well as the submissions of counsel and the applicable case law, the members of the panel unanimously agree that we are unable to make a finding that Mr. Colatosti remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.
Accordingly, the Board orders that Mr. Colatosti be absolutely discharged.
The panel urges Mr. Colatosti to make full disclosure of his history to his family physician (Dr. Larsen) at a minimum and recommends that he give strong consideration to having a civilian psychiatric team in place going forward.
DATED this 2^nd^ day of April, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Hon. N. Kozloff
Legal Member
__________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board