Re: Romeo Flowers, 2026 CanLII 34195

Re: Romeo Flowers

ORB File No: 5766

Hearing held on: Tuesday, March 31, 2026

Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health

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

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Weinstein

Members: Dr. S. Lessard

Dr. M. Green

Hon. C. Nelson

Mr. J. Cyr

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Romeo Flowers

Counsel: Mr. F. Bernhardt

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

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. D. Brandes

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated April 16, 2026)

Introduction:

1. On December 1, 2010, Mr. Romeo Flowers was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, on charges of assault, and fail to comply with condition of undertaking or recognizance, both contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”).

2. Mr. Flowers is subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”) dated January 13, 2025, which ordered that he be discharged on conditions from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto (“CAMH” or the “hospital”).

3. On March 31, 2026, the Board convened a hearing at CAMH to conduct the annual review of the current Disposition.

4. Mr. Flowers was present at the hearing and was represented by his counsel, Mr. F. Bernhardt. Mr. Flowers’ mother was also in attendance.

5. A Hospital Report, dated March 11, 2026 (the "Hospital Report"), was entered as Exhibit 1.

6. The issues at this hearing were whether Mr. Flowers is a significant threat to public safety, as defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code, and, if so, what is the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances, bearing in mind the factors enunciated in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

7. For the reasons set out below and based on the expert evidence and opinions before us, the Board concluded that Mr. Flowers continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public.

8. The Board found that the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances is a continuation of the existing Conditional Discharge, with the deletion of the requirement to submit samples of urine and/or breath to the person in charge.

Current Psychiatric Diagnoses:

9. Schizophrenia;

Cannabis Use Disorder, in full remission;

Antisocial Personality Traits.

Position of the Parties:

10. Counsel for the hospital, for the Attorney General and for Mr. Flowers advised this was a joint recommendation. Counsel for the hospital recommended a continuation of the existing Conditional Discharge Disposition, with the deletion of the requirement to submit samples of his urine and/or breath to the person in charge. Counsel further advised that, once Mr. Flowers has successfully transitioned to a non-forensic treatment team, the hospital will call an early hearing and recommend an Absolute Discharge.

11. Counsel for Mr. Flowers advised that significant threat was not in dispute for the purposes of this hearing.

Index Offences:

12. The circumstances giving rise to the Index Offences are extracted from last year’s Board Reasons, as follows:

“On July 20, 2009, while walking along Lawrence Avenue in Toronto, Mr. Flowers saw a 12-year-old boy who was walking in the opposite direction with his mother and sister spit on the sidewalk. Mr. Flowers started yelling at the boy, grabbed him, slapped him on the face and then continued to yell at him. The police were called. They located Mr. Flowers a short distance away from the location of the offence and arrested Mr. Flowers for offences arising out of this incident and a number of other offences as well.

On October 26, 2009, Mr. Flowers was released on a recognizance in respect of these offences upon several conditions, including a condition that he was not to be outside his residence unless in the company of his mother or grandmother.

On May 3, 2010, Mr. Flowers was observed by police harassing some high school students and then entering a motel where he had rented a room. He was arrested for failing to comply with his recognizance after a brief struggle.”

Background Information, Criminal History and Psychiatric History:

13. Mr. Flowers’ background, criminal history, and psychiatric history are outlined in the Hospital Report, and they are accurately summarized in last year’s Reasons:

“Mr. Flowers was born in Toronto and is the oldest of three children. He was largely raised by his mother. The family moved frequently. Mr. Flowers did not do well in school, but he did complete grade 10 in a vocational stream. He got into trouble in school in early adolescence. He was first suspended from school at the age of 15 and was ultimately expelled.

Mr. Flowers began to work in 1998 and held part-time jobs. He has never held a job for more than two months. He has been supported for many years by benefits received from the Ontario Works (“OW”) and from the Ontario Disability Support Program (“ODSP”).

Mr. Flowers has never been married but has had two serious relationships. He has sometimes indicated that he has no children, and at other times that he has at least two children, who are now teenagers, and reside with their respective mothers. He has reported having occasional contact with his children by telephone.

Mr. Flowers has a youth criminal record that consists of 18 convictions, beginning when he was 13 years old. It includes drug offences and offences involving violence. His significant criminality continued unabated as an adult, and includes convictions for robbery, possession for the purpose of trafficking, possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition, possession of a 0.22 calibre sawed off rifle, assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm. His longest sentence of imprisonment was for 12 months. He acknowledged committing many other offences, including perhaps ten armed robberies.

Psychiatric History

Mr. Flowers is diagnosed with schizophrenia, cannabis use disorder, in full remission in a controlled setting, and antisocial personality traits. He is vulnerable to stress and has limited insight into his illness, symptoms, risk factors, and need for medications.

Mr. Flowers first showed signs of psychosis when he was in jail in 2006, but he refused medication. In February 2007, he was transferred from jail to hospital for four weeks. He exhibited psychosis and paranoid delusions. He was prescribed antipsychotic medication but was nonadherent once returned to jail. In October 2007, Mr. Flowers was transferred to Ontario Shores for a fitness assessment and was noted to have symptoms of psychosis – thought-blocking, paranoia, disorganized and hostile behaviour, requiring physical and chemical restraints and seclusion. The available records from this time suggest that Mr. Flowers’ behaviour improved when he was taking antipsychotic medication.

Mr. Flowers’ first decade under the jurisdiction of the ORB was difficult. He did not seem to understand the implications of the NCR finding despite education. He absconded on occasion and was involved in numerous violent incidents. He was also sexually inappropriate.

In 2015, Mr. Flowers assaulted a nurse on the unit by kicking her to the ground. He was charged criminally and sentenced to one year incarceration. He was moved to Waypoint to serve his sentence there as a dual offender and remained there after his sentence was served.

In 2019, Mr. Flowers was moved to CAMH where he agreed for the first time to a trial of Clozapine. Slowly, Mr. Flowers’ psychosis abated but his thinking remained disorganized, and he had residual mild paranoia and auditory hallucinations. Mr. Flowers was also noted to suffer cognitive deficits. He became cooperative with the team but needed encouragement to participate in programming and activities.

In June 2021, Mr. Flowers was discharged from the Hospital to live in Transition Rehabilitation Housing Program 2 (“TRHP 2”) housing. Although he had to be readmitted once quite early on due to a destabilised mental state likely resulting from the impact of tobacco smoking on his clozapine levels, he transitioned to community living well. He remained adherent to his medications and was not aggressive, even when frustrated.

In July 2023, Mr. Flowers moved into his current independent apartment supported by the Canadian Mental Health Association (“CMHA”). He cooks for himself and manages his apartment and his commitments. He participated in recreational activities organized by the Forensic Outpatient Services and often spent his weekends with his mother and grandmother. He saw his case worker once a week as well as a psychologist with whom he worked on anger management through CBT. He saw Dr. McMaster once every two weeks or once a month. He also went for his required blood work. He remained adherent to his medications and abstinent from substances.”

Course Since Last Disposition:

14. Mr. Flowers’ course since his last Disposition is set out in detail in the Hospital Report. The following extracted paragraphs are relevant to this hearing:

“Mr. Flowers had another very good year. He readily met with his treatment team. He did not wish to reduce the frequency below a bi-weekly basis. He was pleasant and cooperative.

Mr. Flowers was reticent to be transferred to non-forensic care. Given his overall stability, despite lack of fulsome insight, a case conference was held in October 2025 to discuss the possibility of transferring his care. Mr. Flowers subsequently declined to consent to be referred to a non-forensic team. In mid-January 2026, after multiple discussions, he consented to a referral, which has been submitted to Trillium Health and the clozapine clinic. Acceptance to the non-forensic care is pending.”

Evidence at the Hearing:

15. The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence from Dr. McMaster. Dr. McMaster co-authored the Hospital Report. He testified as follows:

a) He has been Mr. Flowers’ outpatient psychiatrist for the past year. Mr. Flowers has been referred to Trillium Hospital for non-forensic psychiatric care and has been accepted into their program, but no appointment date has yet been scheduled.

b) Mr. Flowers’ view about transitioning to a non-forensic team has fluctuated. He initially delayed consent to a referral, but he did provide his consent early in this calendar year. More recently, he indicated that he would follow-up directly with Trillium Hospital.

c) The ongoing treatment focus is to support Mr. Flowers’ transition from forensic to non-forensic psychiatric care while continuing his community support. The treatment team intends to continue to support him with psychoeducation about his transition to a non-forensic team and help with his appointments at Trillium.

d) The treatment team is recommending the removal of urine drug screens, which would result in less intensive monitoring while retaining the ability to monitor Mr. Flowers’ mental state.

e) Once Mr. Flowers has met with, and is accepted by, a non-forensic psychiatric team, the hospital will request an early hearing to recommend an Absolute Discharge. The treatment team is supportive of an Absolute Discharge once this transition is in place.

f) Mr. Flowers requires ongoing psychiatric oversight, particularly for medication management, as he is on clozapine, which requires blood work for monitoring side effects.

g) Mr. Flowers also needs professional, non-forensic support, including assistance with appointments, stress management, physical health needs, and daily activities. A non-forensic team can provide these supports.

h) Without the non-forensic supports in place, he would not recommend an Absolute Discharge because of the increased risk to public safety.

16. No other evidence was called.

Analysis and Conclusions:

17. Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence as well as the submissions from the parties, the Board agrees with the joint submission. Mr. Flowers remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.

18. In Winko, the Supreme Court outlined that, in coming to the conclusion on the issue of significant risk, a Review Board should closely examine a range of evidence, including: the circumstances of the original offence; the past and expected course of the accused’s treatment; the present state of the NCR accused’s medical condition; the NCR accused’s own plans for the future; the support existing for the NCR accused in the community; and most importantly, the recommendations provided by experts who examined the NCR accused. In coming to our conclusion in this matter, the Board relies on the uncontroverted expert evidence of Dr. McMaster, in addition to the documentary evidence before us.

19. Mr. Flowers’ mental state is unchanged. He has limited insight into his mental illness and need for treatment. He demonstrates a lack of understanding of the need for medication adherence in the long term and the stability that it provides to his mental state. However, it should be noted that, despite this lack of insight, he has adhered to his medication regimen throughout this reporting year.

20. Without professional support in place, Mr. Flowers would have problems coping with stress and would require monitoring by a treatment team.

21. Mr. Flowers needs the support of a treatment team, whether forensic or non-forensic, to monitor his medication adherence as well as to support him in the community. Given his deficits of insight, he would be less likely to seek out appropriate help and support from his treatment team and social network, and his mental state could deteriorate further, increasing his risk of violence. Once Mr. Flowers has made a successful transition to a non-forensic team, he would no longer meet the threshold for significant threat, and the hospital would request an early hearing to recommend an Absolute Discharge.

22. As Mr. Flowers is on the path to an Absolute Discharge, the Board agrees that it is no longer necessary for him to submit samples of his urine or breath.

23. In consideration of all the evidence, submissions of the parties and criteria set forth in s. 672.54, the paramount consideration being the safety of the public, in addition to the mental condition of Mr. Flowers, his reintegration into society and his other needs, the necessary and appropriate Disposition is to continue with a Conditional Discharge, with the amendment agreed to by all parties.

DATED this 16^th^ day of April, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.

Mr. J. Weinstein

Alternate Chairperson

__________________

Office of the Registrar

Ontario Review Board