Re Ryan Neil, 2026 CanLII 32134

Re: Ryan Neil

ORB File No: 7436

Hearing held on: Wednesday, March 11, 2026

Place of Hearing: Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care

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

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. P. Capelle

Members: Dr. P.L. Darby

Dr. S. Wiseman

Ms. C. Murray

Mr. A. Mete

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Ryan Neil

Counsel: Mr. J. Miglin (via Zoom)

Person in Charge of Hospital: Counsel: Mr. J. Thomson

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. S. Curry

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated March 18, 2026)

Introduction:

1. On October 15, 2018, Mr. Ryan Neil was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on charges of murder, utter a threat to cause death or bodily harm, and arson - reckless disregard for human life, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”). He is currently subject to a Disposition of the ORB dated December 24, 2024, detaining him at the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care – High Secure Provincial Forensic Programs, Penetanguishene (“Waypoint”), with the outer limit of privileges being hospital grounds privileges, beyond the secure perimeter, escorted by staff.

2. On March 11, 2026, a panel of the Board convened to review Mr. Neil’s disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Neil was present for his hearing and was represented by counsel, Mr. James Miglin, who appeared via Zoom video technology.

3. A Hospital Report dated January 29, 2026, was marked as Exhibit 1. In addition to the documentary evidence, Mr. Neil’s attending psychiatrist, Dr. A. Mishra, gave viva voce evidence at the hearing.

4. The issues to be decided at the hearing were whether Mr. Neil continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public as set out in section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code, and, if so, what is the necessary and appropriate disposition to manage that risk having regard to the criteria set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

Position of the Parties:

5. At the outset of the hearing, the parties were asked for their initial without prejudice positions. On behalf of the hospital, Mr. Thomson took the position that Mr. Neil remains a significant threat to the safety of the public, and that a Detention Order with the same terms and conditions as last year remained necessary and appropriate. Ms. Curry supported the position of the hospital on behalf of the Attorney General.

6. Mr. Miglin did not contest the issue of significant threat and did not oppose the recommendation of the hospital.

7. The parties maintained their joint position in closing submissions.

Findings:

8. For the reasons set out below, the Board found that Mr. Neil continues to pose a significant threat to public safety. The Board concluded that the necessary and appropriate Disposition, which is also the least onerous and least restrictive in the circumstances, is a continuation of the existing Detention Order without change.

Victim Impact Statements

9. Hearing documents included, inter alia, Victim Impact Statements of the following persons:

• Sara Donaghey

• Kim Westerlund

• Debbie Sparks

• Marissa Peterson

• Shirley Scalise

• Brodie Kochie

• Lori Goheen

• Emma Westerlund

At the commencement of the hearing, Ms. Curry advised the Board that Ms. Sara Donaghey would like to read all Victim Impact Statements into the record. Ms. Donaghey was present with her spouse, Ms. Peterson. Mr. Neil requested to be excused from the hearing room for the reading of the Victim Impact Statements. Dr. Mishra agreed that Mr. Neil should be excused due to the harmful psychological effect hearing the statements could have on him. Dr. Mishra added that Mr. Neil has expressed remorse for the harm he caused. Ms. Curry asserted that the victims have the right to read the Victim Impact Statements and Mr. Neil’s discomfort is not a reason to prevent him from hearing the statements. The Board agreed to the reading of the victim impact statements by Ms. Donaghey and excused Mr. Neil from the hearing room during the reading. The Board listened attentively to the grief and emotional hardship expressed in each Victim Impact Statement. The Board considered only those portions of the Victim Impact Statements that complied with the legislation and Klem, Re, 2016 ONCA 119.

Index Offences:

10. The circumstances of the index offences are described in detail in the Hospital Report and are summarized, briefly, as follows:

On October 31, 2024, the victim’s niece and sister arrived at Mr. Neil’s residence looking for the victim. The victim’s sister knocked on the door at which point the victim screamed for help. The niece called police. The victim’s sister yelled through the door asking why her sister wasn’t screaming anymore. Mr. Neil replied, “I killed the bitch” and then said, “I’m going to kill you.” The police found the victim on the floor in the bedroom with numerous injuries including deep lacerations to her face and neck and puncture wounds on her torso. The blade of a broken knife remained in her torso. The police observed a fire on top of the stove in the kitchen. The coroner pronounced the victim’s death at the scene. In addition to the various stab wounds, there were injuries to the victim’s head and face indicative of multiple blunt force impacts of considerable force.

Background and Course Since Last Disposition:

11. The Hospital Report details Mr. Neil’s personal background and history. Briefly, Mr. Neil is a 49-year-old single man. Mr. Neil’s mother reported that her son had violent tendencies and thoughts from a very young age. He was cruel to animals as a child. He threatened and was violent with his brother and sisters. He engaged in fire-setting. As a teenager he was removed from the family home after attacking his mother with a baseball bat. Mr. Neil made many threats and expressed plans as to how he would kill his mother.

12. Mr. Neil had inpatient admissions to various psychiatric facilities and received a range of diagnoses. There were three psychiatric admissions between the ages of 18 and 26 arising from self-harm or suicide attempts. Over the years prior to the index offences, he had been prescribed numerous anti-psychotic medications and had received several diagnoses including borderline personality disorder, drug induced schizophrenia, psychopathic disorder, sociopathic disorder, and bipolar disorder.

13. Mr. Neil began drinking alcohol regularly and using cannabis in his teens. He progressed to the use of a variety of illicit substances in the years leading up to the index offence. At age 18 he started using LSD and experienced visual hallucinations even when not using it. These hallucinations along with paranoia led him to stop using LSD for a period of time. He began to use LSD again, and selling it, in the year leading up to his arrest for the index offences. At the time of the index offences, Mr. Neil was intoxicated with amphetamines and LSD. He believed that the victim, an intimate partner, was conspiring against him and believed she was the Devil. He was experiencing substance-induced psychosis at the time of the index offences.

14. Mr. Neil incurred 40 criminal convictions since 1995 up to the time of the index offences, including, among other charges, assault (x5), assault with a weapon (x5), arson – disregard for human life.

15. Mr. Neil completed grade 12. He has not had employment as an adult. He has been supported by Ontario Disability Support Program since age 21.

16. Mr. Neil was admitted to Waypoint in 2018. He has been housed on Beausoleil B since June 2022. In December 2024, Dr. Mishra took over Mr. Neil’s psychiatric care from Dr. Muraven.

17. Mr. Neil’s current psychiatric diagnoses are:

• Substance-Induced Psychotic Disorder;

• Stimulant, Hallucinogen, Opioid, Alcohol and Cannabis Use Disorders in remission in a controlled environment;

• Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, by history; and

• Antisocial Personality Disorder

18. Mr. Neil has been assessed as being capable of consenting to treatment.

19. Medications for the treatment of a mental health condition are not currently recommended for Mr. Neil. Antipsychotic medications were discontinued by his psychiatrist in June 2021. He has been free of psychotic symptoms for over 4 years in the absence of treatment with antipsychotic medication. The suspiciousness that Mr. Neil displays is in keeping with his personality and not consistent with psychosis.

20. During the reporting year, Mr. Neil attended one-to-one counselling with the Addictions Counsellor and engaged well. He did not require seclusion or lose any security levels. Mr. Neil spoke about his index offences with Dr. Mishra a few times, expressed remorse and was described as visibly upset during these discussions. Mr. Neil stated that he wished to remain at Waypoint for at least a year and consider his options over the next year.

21. The Hospital Report noted several instances when Mr. Neil was argumentative with staff about protocols and procedures, as well as some instances where he presented with verbal anger and outbursts.

22. Mr. Neil did not have any contact with his family during the reporting year.

Oral Evidence at the Hearing:

23. Dr. A. Mishra supplemented the documentary evidence with his viva voce evidence. He testified at the hearing as follows:

a) Mr. Neil had a stable year. He engaged with vocational services and addiction counselling. He did not require seclusion this reporting year at any time.

b) Mr. Neil discussed the index offences and expressed genuine remorse.

c) Mr. Neil wishes to remain at Waypoint this coming year, which is the best option to provide him with necessary structure and support.

d) In response to questions of the Crown, Dr. Mishra testified that Mr. Neil remains a significant threat. If Mr. Neil were transferred to a medium secure hospital, it would be very stressful for him. Without the structure and support of Waypoint, a move to a medium secure hospital would have a destabilizing effect.

e) In response to questions of Mr. Neil’s lawyer, before recommending a move to a medium secure hospital, Dr. Mishra would like to see Mr. Neil maintain his progress and continue with rehabilitative activities, psychological therapy, and addiction counselling. He needs to continue therapy to address his attributional personality structure and develop skills to have acceptable interactions with people.

f) In response to questions of the panel, Mr. Neil still frequently displays suspiciousness of staff. However, there has been a notable positive shift in his tolerance levels.

g) Mr. Neil has good insight into his substance-induced schizophrenia. He understands that he experiences altered perception when using substances. He does not require antipsychotic medication. Mr. Neil currently believes that the use of medication would “be a slippery slope to taking drugs.”

h) Dr. Mishra testified that it is questionable whether psychoeducation regarding substances will be sufficient ensure Mr. Neil remains abstinent of substances. The real test regarding substance relapse will come when Mr. Neil is transferred to a medium secure hospital where access to substances is common.

i) Stress and using substances to deal with stress are the biggest risk factors and destabilizers for Mr. Neil. Mr. Neil needs to work on his attributional personality style to develop skills to deal more appropriately with stress.

j) Absent the structure of the Board, Mr. Neil would face challenges with housing instability, lack of structured activities to occupy his time, and a lack of supports that he receives at Waypoint. There would be a significant relapse to substances, criminal activity, and an increase in risk to the public. Given his criminal background, there is a strong possibility of serious harm to the public if there is not Board oversight.

24. No further evidence was called by the parties.

Analysis and Conclusions:

25. Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence, as well as the joint submission of the parties, the Board independently finds that Mr. Neil continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public.

26. The panel accepts and relies on the Composite Assessment of Risk at page 179 and 180 of the Hospital Report, extracted as follows:

“Mr. Neil continues to meet the threshold for a significant threat to the safety of the public. He has an extraordinary history of violence, both in terms of severity and frequency. He has demonstrated stability and gains over this review and maintained abstinence from substance use. He has participated in vocational and recreational activities. However, he still continues to demonstrate a limited ability to cope with stress as has been evidenced by his behavior on multiple occasions throughout the reporting year. Historically, he had used substances when stressed, and this remains a present and relevant risk. He has also expressed some degree of ambivalence about moving forward, and this could be detrimental to his success. In the context of his severe substance use and violence history, this is of great importance. Substance use can increase the risk of recidivism independent of mental illness. It is the opinion of the team that Mr. Neil should remain at Waypoint for the coming review year and that this is necessary and appropriate.”

27. In light of the Board’s finding of significant threat, it is charged with shaping a Disposition for the coming year. All parties were ad idem regarding the Disposition, specifically that there should be no change to the current Disposition. The evidence supported the position of the parties.

28. Mr. Neil has a long history of violent criminal activity and committed lethal index offence while experiencing a substance-induced psychosis. Although Mr. Neil has not had access to substances since his admission to Waypoint, and he has not experienced psychosis in four years, Mr. Neil remains ambivalent about moving forward in the forensic system. Moving him to a lower security setting will cause stress. Stressors have led him to use substances in the past, and the Board takes notice that substances would be more readily available in lower security settings. Before transfer to a medium secure hospital, Mr. Neil requires further psychoeducation to help him manage the stressors and increased freedoms he will experience. It is hoped that this will assist Mr. Neil in remaining abstinent of substances.

29. We commend Mr. Neil on a good year and his willingness to engage meaningfully in available psychoeducational programs.

30. In consideration of all the evidence, the joint submissions of the parties, and the criteria set forth in s. 672.54, the paramount consideration being the safety of the public, in addition to the mental condition of Mr. Neil, his reintegration into society and his other needs, the necessary and appropriate disposition is a Detention Disposition with no change to the current Detention Order.

DATED this 18th day of March 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

Ms. C. Murray

Legal Member

__________________

Office of the Registrar

Ontario Review Board