Re Joanne Woods, 2026 CanLII 29961

Re: Joanne Woods

ORB File No: 6114

Hearing held on: Thursday, March 12, 2026

Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health

Pursuant to: Sections 672.81(1) and 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Goldenberg

Members: Dr. P. Prendergast Dr. G. Nexhipi Ms. A. Israel Mr. J. Cyr

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Joanne Woods Counsel: Ms. A. Szigeti

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

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

AMENEDED REASONS FOR DECISION AND DISPOSITION

(Dated March 30, 2026)

Please see underlined change to original reasons, made April 8, 2026 at paragraph 35.

1. On May 9, 2012, Joanne Woods was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of utter threat to cause death or bodily harm, and possession of a weapon for dangerous purposes.

2. Ms. Woods is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board by which she was ordered to be detained at the Forensic Service of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, with a number of privileges and prohibitions, including the privilege of living in the community in the Greater Toronto Area in approved accommodation.

3. On March 12, 2026, the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (“CAMH”) in order to conduct the annual review of Ms. Woods’ Disposition.

4. In addition to the annual review, with the agreement of all parties, the Board also dealt with a Restriction of Liberty (“ROL”).

5. Briefly, Ms. Woods was an inpatient at CAMH for the last number of years. She, however, had rented and still is a tenant in an apartment located at 100 Lower Ossington Avenue. We stress that this property is close to CAMH but is not part of the hospital grounds.

6. For a number of months, Ms. Woods was able to attend on a daily basis at her apartment. Ms. Woods has a cat who stays in that apartment and whenever she was able to do so, Ms. Woods would attend at the apartment and spend considerable time with her cat.

7. Ms. Woods was in the process of being discharged to this apartment. On June 25 and June 29, 2025, she was able to use her passes for overnight visits at that apartment. Those two visits went without difficulty.

8. On July 2, 2025, Ms. Woods was permitted to use her pass for a further overnight visit at her apartment. The Board understands that someone advised CAMH that Ms. Woods had used crack cocaine during her July 2 overnight visit. Ms. Woods initially denied the use of crack cocaine but subsequently agreed that she had done so. Ms. Woods explained that she was feeling very stressed and went to visit a friend who lived nearby and used crack cocaine. Ms. Woods was not permitted any further indirectly supervised community passes. At some point, Ms. Woods was told that going forward, she would only have pass levels 1, 2 and 3. People with those permitted passes do not have any indirectly supervised hospital and grounds passes and do not have any indirectly supervised community passes. Ms. Woods, however, did not receive a Restriction of Liberty Notice from the hospital after seven days of her liberties being restricted. We note that Ms. Woods had used her level 9 passes for the 3 overnight stays.

9. It is important to note that the use of crack cocaine was prohibited by Ms. Woods’ Disposition. It is also important to note that her use of crack cocaine did not result in any deterioration of her mental stability on this occasion. She did not, in any way, act aggressively to anyone.

10. By letter dated September 22, 2025, CAMH wrote to the Ontario Review Board. That letter stated that on July 3, 2025, Ms. Woods’ indirectly supervised passes into the community and the hospital grounds were suspended after she disclosed that she had smoked crack cocaine during an overnight pass to her apartment.

11. The letter went on to state that CAMH takes the position that “a reasonable person considering all of the circumstances, would not think it necessary that the Board be called upon ahead of the next annual review to hold a Restriction of Liberty hearing.”

12. We stress that this letter was sent to Ms. Woods approximately 10 weeks after the events of July 2.

13. In the day following September 22, counsel for Ms. Woods asserted that the Board should conduct a Restriction of Liberty hearing. Counsel for the hospital opposed an independent ROL hearing as did counsel for the Attorney General. The parties’ position was set out in a series of emails. The Review Board was given copies of those emails.

14. Subsequently on October 2, 2025, Mr. Gavin MacKenzie, General Counsel of the Ontario Review Board, wrote to the parties, outlined the position of the three parties and stated “The Board is of the view that in this case there is an arguable basis that suggests the accused’s loss of indirectly supervised community passes on July 3, 2025, for more than seven consecutive days, amounted to a significant increase in the restrictions on the accused’s liberty that should have resulted in an ROL Notice. Ultimately, it will be up to a panel to determine whether an ROL Notice should have been provided in this case. If the panel determines that an ROL Notice should have been provided, the panel will review the restriction.” Ultimately, for a number of reasons, including the time lost by the failure of CAMH to serve an ROL Notice and the further 10-week delay in CAMH serving a Campbell letter, the parties agreed to hear the ROL at the time of the annual review.

Position of the Parties

15. At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as to their recommendations to the Board.

16. With respect to the annual review, the parties were making a joint recommendation. All parties accept that at the present time, Ms. Woods remains a significant threat to public safety and at the present time, the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a finding of significant threat and a finding that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a continuation of a Detention Order with the exact terms set out in last year's Disposition. Subsequently, but not at the outset, in response to a question from the Alternate Chair, Ms. Warner advised that if the Board were to specify a level of security in connection with Ms. Woods’ Detention Order, it is the hospital’s position that detention on a General Forensic Unit would be the necessary and appropriate position.

17. With respect to the Restriction of Liberty, CAMH’s position is that the provisions set out in the Campbell letter should apply and it was accordingly not necessary for CAMH to provide a Restriction of Liberty letter.

18. Mr. Feindel appeared for the Attorney General. Mr. Feindel advised that he has changed his position from the position he took in his emails considered by Mr. MacKenzie. Mr. Feindel now takes the position that there was a significant restriction of liberty and that dropping Ms. Woods from a pass level 9 to pass level 3 requires the Board to conduct a Restriction of Liberty hearing. Mr. Feindel went on to say that possibly Ms. Woods’ liberty norm was only up to level 8, but he would leave that issue to the panel.

19. Ms. Szigeti submitted that CAMH wrongfully did not give a Restriction of Liberty Notice seven days after July 3. Ms. Szigeti accepted that Ms. Woods was in breach of her Disposition when she used cocaine on July 2 but that no one suffered in any way from Ms. Woods’ use of crack cocaine on that night.

Index Offence

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

“In December of 2010, the accused boarded a TTC bus. The driver noticed the accused sitting in the middle of the bus, mumbling and it was apparent that the accused was upset. The bus driver heard the accused yell “I’m going to kill someone.” The driver looked in his rear-view mirror and saw the accused looking through her bag. The driver stopped the bus and observed the accused still looking through her bag and heard her say “I have a knife.” The driver opened all doors and all the passengers exited the bus quickly. The driver was now alone with the accused female. He observed her remove a shiny object with a black handle that appeared to be a knife. The female concealed the knife and ran off the bus. Police were called and the female was located a short distance away still in possession of the knife.”

Evidence at Hearing

21. The Board admitted into evidence the Hospital Report dated February 4, 2026. As the Hospital Report was made an exhibit in this hearing, it is not necessary to reproduce the information contained in the Hospital Report in these Reasons. We do note, however, the stated diagnoses of:

i) Schizoaffective Disorder, bipolar type

ii) Cocaine Use Disorder, severe, in early remission in a controlled environment

iii) Alcohol Use Disorder, in sustained remission

iv) Cluster B Personality Disorder Traits

22. We do note the email stream of counsel that was considered by Mr. MacKenzie has been filed as an exhibit at this hearing.

23. In addition to the documentary evidence, the Board heard from Dr. Valoo. Dr. Valoo has been following Ms. Woods since May 2025. Dr. Valoo provided an update to the hearing, namely, that this past February 17, Ms. Woods had been approved to move from level 8 to level 9.

24. Dr. Valoo noted that the clinical team is once again working on discharging Ms. Woods back to the community. Dr. Valoo’s understanding of the events of July 2 was that Ms. Woods had a great deal of difficulty sleeping and believed that “gas was entering her unit”. Dr. Valoo noted that Ms. Woods’ relationship with her cat “Ziggy” is extremely important to Ms. Woods. Ms. Woods would visit her apartment and visit with her cat on a daily basis if her level of privileges allowed for same.

25. The panel was aware that the apartment is located at 100 Lower Ossington Avenue and is not on hospital grounds. Accordingly, Ms. Woods would have to reach pass level 8 in order to have the right to visit at the apartment. When she had the appropriate privilege level previously, Ms. Woods attended at her apartment daily. When she had accompanied community passes, she was able to visit her apartment only if a staff member was agreeable to do so.

26. The hospital is again contemplating a move into the community. There is some concern about Ms. Woods moving back to her apartment at 100 Lower Ossington given historic difficulties that Ms. Woods has experienced in that building. The Board understands that Ms. Woods did agree to look at other prospective residences, especially if those residences permitted Ms. Woods to bring her cat with her.

27. Dr. Valoo advised that there are currently two potential residences for Ms. Woods to consider. Dr. Valoo, in response to a question from a panel member, noted that one potential residence at the Transitional Rehabilitation Housing Program (“TRHP”) property on White Squirrel Way does not allow pets. The other potential residence is Madison House at Queen Street and Lawrence Avenue. Dr. Valoo did not have any information whether that residence does permit pets.

28. On other occasions, Ms. Woods states that she is “very interested” in moving back to her 100 Lower Ossington Avenue apartment. Once again, the clinical team would start with a number of overnight visits to any of the acceptable residences.

29. Dr. Valoo noted that once again Ms. Woods is greatly helped by the members of the clinical team. In particular, Ms. Woods has been working with Dr. Cripps, a psychologist at CAMH.

30. Our attention was drawn to page 48 and the following comment:

“This included appointments with Dr. Cripps twice per week, connection to Cognitive Adaptive Training to optimize her living environment and self-care skills, and participation in weekly cooking groups and community outings through FOPS.”

31. Dr. Valoo noted that an application to a residence known as Progress Place was not accepted and unfortunately, Dr. Valoo has no understanding of the basis for that refusal.

32. In response to a question from Mr. Feindel, Dr. Valoo stated her opinion that Ms. Woods would benefit from being placed in a residence with staff on site.

33. In response to a question from Ms. Szigeti, Dr. Valoo noted that Ms. Woods’ last use of crack cocaine occurred in September 2022. Again, in response to further questions from Ms. Szigeti, Dr. Valoo accepts that Ms. Woods is afraid to be alone and that was potentially why Ms. Woods used crack cocaine on July 2.

34. Ms. Szigeti suggested that a drop from pass level 9 to pass level 3 was quite significant and detrimental to her client. In response to a question from Ms. Szigeti, and as set out in the Hospital Report at page 48, the reduction to level 3 was consistent with the CAMH Forensic Service Pass Ladder, following a relapse of substance use. Dr. Valoo noted that the Pass Ladder program is also guided by clinical judgment and that the decision for Ms. Woods to have such a significant loss of privileges was not hers. Dr. Valoo further stated that there was considerable discussion on July 3 and 4 between the clinical team and the Office of the Person in Charge (“OPIC”).

35. A member of the panel asked Dr. Valoo why she did not give a Restriction of Liberty Notice to Ms. Woods by July 10, 2025. Dr. Valoo advised that it was her error and that she simply forgot to give a Restriction of Liberty Notice to her patient. Dr. Valoo noted that on July 3 and 4 there were many discussions between the clinical team and OPIC.

36. Dr. Valoo noted that generally it takes about four weeks for a patient to move to the next higher level. Dr. Valoo advised that the clinical team made representations to OPIC that would allow Ms. Woods to move directly from level 5 to level 7. OPIC refused that request.

37. Ms. Woods’ daughter, Amber Woods, also testified. The Board understands that Amber Woods lives in the United States and that she had requested that the Ontario Review Board create a link so that she could participate via video conference. It was clear to the panel how close Ms. Woods is to Amber Woods. Amber Woods is the Substitute Decision Maker for Ms. Woods; they speak by telephone many times per week. Amber Woods noted that “the system has worked to a degree.” Amber Woods also noted that currently her mother is “the best I have seen” for a very long time.

38. No other evidence was heard at this hearing.

Submissions

39. Ms. Warner noted that Ms. Woods has a history of use of crack cocaine and in her submissions, Ms. Warner suggested that OPIC acted appropriately in dropping Ms. Woods from level 9 to level 3. Ms. Warner noted that once again Ms. Woods is ready to move into the community. Ms. Warner suggested that OPIC acted appropriately in only delivering a “Campbell letter” instead of a Restriction of Liberty Notice. Ms. Warner could not explain as to the fact that the Campbell letter was sent out approximately 10 weeks after the events of July 2.

40. Mr. Feindel noted that he had changed his position from the position he took last September and leading up to the decision by Mr. MacKenzie. Mr. Feindel noted that the restriction to level 3 passes seemed too automatic, overly broad, and reactive, simply based on the substance use. Mr. Feindel suggested that it was arguable that Ms. Woods’ “norm” was to be at level 8 but in any event, Mr. Feindel submits that a regular Restriction of Liberty letter should have gone out to the parties on or about July 10, 2025. In Mr. Feindel’s submission, this substantial loss of liberties should have been reviewed by the Ontario Review Board many, many months ago.

41. Ms. Szigeti stated that it was perfectly clear to the parties and should have been perfectly clear to OPIC that a drop from level 9 to level 3 was substantial. Ms. Szigeti submitted that Ms. Woods’ single use of crack cocaine on July 2 arose from the stress she was feeling being alone in that apartment. Ms. Szigeti stressed that the last previous use of crack cocaine was more than three years ago, Ms. Woods’ use of crack cocaine on July 2 should not have been an issue at OPIC and CAMH, and a Restriction of Liberty Notice should have gone out to the parties.

Analysis Re Annual Review

42. The Board notes the parties’ joint recommendation that Ms. Woods presently remains a significant threat to public safety, and if the Board so finds, the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a continuation of a Detention Order. In the Board’s opinion, that joint recommendation is well founded.

43. In addition, the Board accepts the evidence contained in the Hospital Report on this issue. It is clear that Ms. Woods suffers from a major mental illness. It is clear that public safety absolutely requires Ms. Woods to receive the amount of support that she receives from the appropriate outpatient teams at CAMH.

44. The Board is aware that for a number of years, Ms. Woods’ Disposition was a Conditional Discharge with a term requiring Ms. Woods to reside at 100 Lower Ossington Avenue in Toronto. We understand that in approximately 2016, Ms. Woods rented a unit at 100 Lower Ossington Avenue and that she acquired a cat once she was organized in her apartment. We are further aware that the cat plays a tremendous role in Ms. Woods’ life.

45. A major term of the Conditional Discharge required Ms. Woods to live at her apartment at 100 Lower Ossington Avenue.

46. In 2022, the Ontario Review Board changed a Conditional Discharge to a Detention Order. Thereafter, Ms. Woods was returned to hospital and remained an inpatient in hospital in various general forensic units. We are also aware that Ms. Woods’ cat remained a significant part of Ms. Woods’ life and Ms. Woods maintained the apartment and would visit her cat whenever her Disposition and privilege levels permitted her to attend at the apartment. We understand staff would take Ms. Woods to her apartment on supervised passes frequently.

47. This panel is satisfied that at the present time, a Detention Order is both necessary and appropriate. The forensic team has been searching for an appropriate community residence, and it is possible that Ms. Woods would be placed in a residence other than her apartment. There are a number of issues to be resolved. One of the issues is finding a facility that is close to CAMH that has a level of in-house supervision and that permits pets. Accordingly, we will proceed with the continuation of a Detention Order.

48. There were two issues raised regarding a Detention Order. One of the members noted that weapons were involved in the index offence and asked whether we should now include a weapons prohibition. All parties, including Mr. Feindel on behalf of the Crown, felt that given the length of time since the index offence, it was no longer necessary to include a weapons prohibition. The panel agreed with that position.

49. As indicated, Ms. Warner advised that should the Board find it appropriate to specify levels of security, it is the hospital’s position that the Detention Order be directed to a General Forensic Unit. This panel accepts that it is the Board’s obligation to specify levels of security when making Detention Order Dispositions. Accordingly, that will be the only change to the current Disposition.

Analysis Re Restriction of Liberty

50. As noted previously, in June 2025, Ms. Woods was at pass level 9. Pass level 9 allows for the patient, amongst other things, to spend overnight at a specific location. As set out above, Ms. Woods had an overnight pass on July 2, 2025. She went to her apartment. She became stressed. She visited a friend, and she used crack cocaine. Apparently, her friend or another person advised a member of the clinical team of that situation. It is important to note that Ms. Woods did not in any way decompensate or did not act out in any aggressive or assaultive manner and no member of the public was affected whatsoever by her use of that crack cocaine on this occasion. As noted previously, the hospital did not give a Restriction of Liberty Notice to the Board and on September 22 (approximately 10 weeks later) the hospital gave a “Campbell letter” to the Board.

51. The panel believes it important to set out the background of the restriction of liberty issue in the Criminal Code.

52. We understand that, Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code was introduced in 1992. Following the implementation of Part XX.1, an appeal was taken to the Supreme Court of Canada challenging some of the provisions in the new legislation.

53. We set out paragraph 42 of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Winko v British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625:

“By creating an assessment-treatment alternative for the mentally ill offender to supplant the traditional criminal law conviction-acquittal dichotomy, Parliament has signalled that the NCR accused is to be treated with the utmost dignity and afforded the utmost liberty compatible with his or her situation.”

54. We also note a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Her Majesty the Queen and M.L.C. and the reference in M.L.C. to other authorities.

“The framework and the different interests involved in the determination of a patient’s disposition were recently explained by Abella J. in R. v. Conway 2010 SCC 22, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 765 at paragraphs 88 to 93:

It is well established that the review board regime is intended to reconcile the “twin goals” of protecting the public from dangerous offenders and treating NCR patients fairly and appropriately. While public safety is the paramount concern, an NCR patient’s liberty interest has been held to be the Board’s “major preoccupation” within the fence posts staked by public safety (Pinet v. St. Thomas Psychiatric Hospital, 2004 SCC 21, 2004 S.C.C. 21. S.C.C. 2)”

55. We also note the following from the decision in the matter of Angela Campbell, Campbell (Re) [2019] ONCA 140 (para. 59):

“The hospital’s decision-making power is further constrained by the same legal considerations that bind the Board in arriving at an appropriate disposition. Like the Board, keeping in mind the paramount concern for public safety, the hospital must make decisions that provide an NCR accused with the utmost liberty compatible with his or her situation. The hospital must remain vigilant about interfering with liberty interests as little as possible, making decisions that are the least onerous and least restrictive to the NCR accused’s liberty: M.L.C., at paras. 28, 43-45; and Chaudry (Re), 2015 ONCA 317. This requirement acts as yet another important liberty safeguard for the NCR accused.”

56. In this panel’s opinion, the hospital’s decision to drop Ms. Woods’ privilege level from level 9 to level 3 totally ignored Ms. Woods’ liberty interests.

Remedy

57. In Chaudry at paragraph 99, the Court states: “The Board can make findings and non-binding recommendations which would provide guidance to hospitals on the proper discharge of their patients”.

58. Accordingly, we make the following findings:

i) CAMH erred in failing to give a proper ROL letter to the Ontario Review Board.

ii) CAMH erred in dropping Ms. Woods’ privilege level from level 9 to level 3. While we accept level 9 permitted overnight passes, on the facts it might well have been appropriate to remove pass level 9, but again, in this panel’s opinion, there was absolutely no basis on which to remove levels 4 to level 8. We simply note that by doing so, the hospital ignored its obligation to treat Ms. Woods with “the utmost dignity” and the “utmost liberty compatible with her situation.”

iii) CAMH erred in waiting for approximately 10 weeks before giving any type of notice to the ORB, Ms. Woods, and the parties.

Recommendations of the Board

59. This panel recommends that CAMH sets up a practice that ensures that Restriction of Liberty Notices, and Campbell letters are sent out in a timely fashion.

Comments

60. There is another issue that concerns this panel. We have now seen the CAMH forensic inpatient pass ladder. Unfortunately, we did not raise this issue with counsel and thus do not have the benefit of submissions from the three counsel. We note the following from that document:

“If you use substances and you have indirectly supervised passes, you will return to level 3”.

61. This practice by CAMH ignores Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code and it ignores decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada such as Winko’s direction that “the accused be treated with the utmost dignity and afforded the utmost liberty compatible with his or her situation.”

62. We also note paragraph 59 in the Campbell decision that states “The hospital’s decision making power is further constrained by the same legal considerations that bind the Board in arriving at an appropriate Disposition.”

63. Given that we have not had the benefit of submissions from counsel, we decline to make a finding or even a recommendation. We simply highlight this concern for the consideration of the respective parties.

64. In reaching our Disposition, the Board has taken into consideration public safety, Ms. Woods’ mental condition and her other needs, and Ms. Woods’ reintegration into society.

DATED this 30^th^ day of March 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

Mr. J. Goldenberg

Alternate Chairperson

__________________

Office of the Registrar

Ontario Review Board