Ontario Review Board
Re: Michael A. James
ORB File No: 7834
Hearing held on: Thursday, March 26, 2026
Place of hearing: Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care 401 Sunset Drive, St. Thomas
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before: Alternate Chairperson: Mr. P. Capelle Members: Dr. R. Kunjukrishnan (via Zoom) Dr. S. Wiseman Ms. C. Murray Mr. A. Mete
Parties Appearing: Accused: Michael A. James Counsel: Mr. S.F. Gehl
The Person in charge of Hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Zamprogna Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. K. Dalrymple
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated April 8, 2026)
Introduction
On January 12, 2021, Mr. Michael James was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on two charges of assault and threatening bodily harm, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (the "Criminal Code"). Mr. James is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the "Board") dated March 21, 2025, detaining him at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care, St. Joseph's Health Care London (“Southwest”), with privileges up to living in the communities of Elgin and/or Middlesex Counties in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
On March 26, 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. James was in attendance and was represented by his counsel, Mr. Gehl.
Without Prejudice Position of the Parties
Ms. Zamprogna, for the hospital, indicated that Mr. James remains a significant threat and that a Detention Disposition with changes to subparagraphs 2(e), 2(h) and 3(e) as noted at pages 115 and 116 of the Hospital Report were recommended for the coming year. That position was adopted both by Ms. Dalrymple, for the Attorney General, and Mr. Gehl, on behalf of Mr. James.
Background and Index Offences
The Hospital Report contains detailed information regarding Mr. James’ history, background and psychiatric history, the entirety of which need not be repeated here in detail.
In brief, Mr. James is currently 43 years old. His mother left the family home when he was about six months old. He grew up with his father and two older brothers until the age of 9, when he was placed into foster care. He reconnected with his mother when he was 12. She passed away in 2013. Mr. James left school after completing Grade 10. He worked at a window factory for several months and then held various manual labour jobs over the next five years. Since 2004, he has been receiving Ontario Disability Support Program benefits.
Mr. James began drinking alcohol and using cannabis in his mid-to-late teens. He has reported that he did not feel the need to use substances when he was taking Adderall, his prescribed ADHD medication. When Adderall was not available to him, he would turn to crystal methamphetamine as a substitute.
Before the commission of the index offences that brought him before this Board, Mr. James had a criminal record dating back to 2008. His convictions include assault, assaulting a peace officer, forcible entry, making harassing phone calls, criminal harassment, mischief, and failing to follow court orders. Some of these offences took place in a domestic setting, meaning they involved a partner or family member.
Mr. James has a significant mental health history, with his first recorded contact with the psychiatric system occurring in October 2011.
The circumstances of the index offences are also taken from last year’s Reasons for Disposition as follows:
“On August 5, 2020, Mr. James and his partner were involved in a domestic dispute. At that time Mr. James and his partner had been in a relationship for approximately five years. They were living together in Mr. James’ apartment even though Mr. James was subject to a two-year probation order prohibiting him from communicating with his partner or being within 100 meters of anywhere that he knew her to live or work. On August 5, 2020, Mr. James became enraged as he was hearing voices in his head. He ran towards his partner and pushed her into the front door. She hit her head on the door. She ran to the bedroom, barricaded the door with a dresser and she called 9-1-1. Mr. James then tried to enter the bedroom by pushing the door open and yelling, “I’m going to cave your face in.” A security guard for the community housing where Mr. James and his partner were living, heard the screaming and yelling. She attended at the apartment and knocked on the door and Mr. James exited the apartment and charged toward her. Fearing for her safety, the security guard drew her baton and ordered Mr. James to stop. He continued running toward her in an aggressive manner, yelling, “Do it, I dare you,” before returning to his unit. When the police arrived, Mr. James and his partner were both in the apartment. His partner had a bump on the back of her head but declined medical attention. Mr. James was arrested. The police described him as very escalated and exhibiting signs of significant mental health issues.”
Current Diagnoses
- Schizophrenia
- Substance Use Disorder, in remission
- Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)
- Antisocial Personality Disorder (by history)
- Intellectual Disability
Evidence at Hearing
Dr. Prakash adopted the contents of both the Hospital Report and the Update, entered as Exhibits 1 and 2 respectively.
Mr. James is well settled at his current St. Thomas group home residence. He stays away from substances and people that annoy him.
Mr. James experiences difficulty with planning, memory and day-to-day functioning. He requires a supervised setting during daytime hours. His goal is to live independently. As he has cognitive deficiencies, he needs to be assessed to determine if this objective is possible or alternatively, to identify other suitable housing options.
The inclusion of indirectly supervised passes within Mr. James’ 2026-2027 Disposition will assist with visiting a friend in the Kitchener area, hopefully with DSO funding that will enable travel there via taxi.
Mr. James no longer mentions the victim of the index offence and has no goal to get back together with her. He maintains periodic phone contact with his son.
Mr. James has been regularly attending the gym and has lost weight. Although he uses coping strategies well there remains a need to assess his compliance with prescribed medications, coping strategies and day-to-day community activities so as to assess his ability to live independently. This will be done in a stepwise manner at his current group home.
To his credit, Mr. James can now ask for a PRN of Haldol when necessary. Residual symptoms of his mental illness persist, although he is better able to manage his auditory hallucinations. Nevertheless, the need to return him quickly to hospital remains if his symptoms increase.
Dr. Prakash advised that if all goes well in the upcoming clinical year, that a conditional discharge will be considered for 2027-2028. At this juncture, Mr. James’ medications have not been optimized and medication adjustments, which have caused some level of discomfort, are expected to continue.
Mr. James’ symptoms remain susceptible to stress. Support and structure of the group home remains essential to provide support vis-à-vis memory and cognitive challenges. Therefore, approval of accommodation remains essential to manage risk.
Mr. James is not yet receiving trauma treatment. The treatment team first wants to determine if he is appropriate for independent living. Subsequent to that determination trauma counselling and CBT will be considered.
Responding to questions from Mr. Gehl, Dr. Prakash agreed that his patient has had a good year absent any behavioural issues.
Mr. James’ family physician is located in the Kitchener area which is one of the reasons for the proposed expansion of the geographic area of his privileges.
Responding to a panel question, Dr. Prakash confirmed that there is no limitation on the duration of time Mr. James can reside in his current group home residence.
Closing Observations
Ms. Zamprogna submitted that Mr. James has shown improvement over the past year. However, he continues to be impacted by stress, particularly due to cognitive challenges and changes in his environment. Mr. James’ current living environment responds well to these needs. The need to return him to hospital remains in the event he decompensates. Mr. Gehl noted that it is important to include the hospital’s projected plan in the Board’s reasons.
Analysis and Decision
(a) Significant Threat
Ongoing 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.
In determining whether Mr. James 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.
The Board unanimously finds that Mr. James 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. Prakash that Mr. James continues to pose a significant threat. The Board also relies on the Hospital Report and its Update and in particular, the Re-Offence Scenario at pages 112-113 of Exhibit 1, reproduced below for ease of reference:
Re-Offence Scenario
Without forensic supervision and support, Mr. James would likely attempt to live independently. However, he would struggle with the increased stressors associated with independent living, which could exacerbate his psychotic symptoms and lead to risk-enhancing coping strategies, including potential substance use. This scenario would likely result in disengagement from treatment and nonadherence to medication. The combination of worsening psychotic symptoms and substance use could further disinhibit underlying aggressive impulses, increasing the risk of physical violence, as demonstrated in his past behaviour.
Given the foregoing, the Board accepts that absent an ORB Disposition, Mr. James 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. James will cause serious physical or psychological harm to members of the public and such conduct will likely be criminal in nature.
(b) Disposition
Flowing from the Board’s finding that Mr. James 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. James’s needs pursuant to s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
The necessary and appropriate disposition for Mr. James provides him as much freedom as possible without subjecting the community to a real risk of dangerous behaviour.
In considering Mr. James’ needs, the Board was attentive to his desire to live independently. The year ahead will therefore include an assessment of his medication compliance, coping strategies and community engagement.
Although Mr. James uses coping strategies to manage stress there remains a need to assess his compliance with prescribed medications and day-to-day community activities to determine his ability to live independently. This can be done at his current group home where he is described as well settled and able to distance himself from the use of substances. Following this assessment, the appropriateness of independent housing within an 8 hour per day supervised setting will be considered. If independent housing with the required supports cannot be identified or is deemed unsuitable then other community options will need to be explored.
To his credit, Mr. James has enjoyed a good clinical year absent any behavioural issues. Trauma counselling and CBT will be initiated once a determination is made vis-à-vis Mr. James’ suitability for independent living as described in the previous paragraph. Medication optimization will continue as Mr. James and his treatment team work towards enabling his societal reintegration via a conditional discharge at next year’s hearing. This panel of the Board wishes him continued success towards that objective.
Conclusion
Therefore, the Board unanimously determines that the necessary and appropriate Disposition required to manage the threat Mr. James poses to the safety of the public while still meeting his needs, remains a Detention Disposition.
In making this Disposition, the Board carefully considered the positions and submissions of the parties and the evidence of Dr. Prakash 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. James’s mental condition, his reintegration into society and other needs.
DATED this 8th 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