T. (C.) (Re), 2026 CanLII 34204

Re: T. (C.)

ORB File No: 4053

Hearing held on: Tuesday, March 17, 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. Goldenberg Members: Ms. A. Israel Dr. R. Wood Hill Dr. S. Wiseman Mr. A. Mete

Parties Appearing: Accused: T. (C.) Counsel: Mr. A. Pollard

The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. G. Meaney

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

*Pursuant to s. 672.501(1) of the Criminal Code, the Ontario Review Board prohibits the publication, broadcasting, or other transmission of any information that could identify a victim in this matter or a witness who is under 18 years of age.

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated April 16, 2026)

Introduction

1. On October 15, 2004, Mr. T. (C.) was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, on a charge of indecent exposure, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”).

2. T. (C.) is subject to the terms of a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”) dated February 27, 2025, by which he was ordered to be discharged subject to a number of conditions.

3. On March 17, 2026, the Board convened a hearing at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (“CAMH”) and conducted the annual review of T. (C.)’s Disposition.

4. T. (C.) was present at the hearing and was represented by his counsel, Mr. Pollard.

5. A Hospital Report, dated February 27, 2026 (the "Hospital Report"), was entered as Exhibit 1.

6. For the annual review, the issues at this hearing were:

a) whether T. (C.) is a significant threat to public safety, as defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code; and

b) 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.

Position of the Parties

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

8. Counsel for the Hospital, counsel for the Attorney General and counsel for T. (C.) advised that this was a joint submission, with respect to the annual Disposition. All parties agreed that T. (C.) no longer represents a significant threat to public safety, and that accordingly, he is entitled to receive an Absolute Discharge.

Evidence at the Hearing

9. The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence from Dr. Amina Ali. The Hospital Report provides a great deal of information regarding T. (C.), his personal history, his mental health history, details of the index offence and T. (C.)’s course in hospital and in the community subsequent to the date of the index offence. As it was entered as an exhibit, it is not necessary to reproduce the information in these Reasons. The Board does note, however, the stated diagnoses of:

• Schizophrenia;
• Substance Use, in remission;
• Intellectual Disability, Mild Severity;
• Antisocial Personality Disorder.

10. Dr. Ali co-authored the Hospital Report and testified as follows:

a) For the past two years, T. (C.) has been living in high support housing run by VITA. He resides in a house with three other residents. It is not permanent housing. An application has been made for permanent housing and there is not currently any information as to when there may be an answer. T. (C.) has transitioned housing multiple times, all of which went well.

b) In the doctor’s view, the last reporting year went well. There were no concerns about changes in T. (C.)’s mental health. He has been taking his injections of Paliperidone 150 mg IM. without issue and has been compliant with his appointments. He has not had any issues with his housing or the housing staff.

c) T. (C.) reports once every three weeks for his injections. Housing staff bring him to the appointments. Going forward his family doctor has agreed to prescribe the injection. Dr. Ali has confidence with respect to the transfer of care for T. (C.) because he has been compliant with his medications for many years. His appointments will be managed by the housing team.

d) T. (C.) has 24-hour support because he has significant vision impairment resulting from a stroke affecting the optic nerve. His support from a Personal Support Worker will continue moving forward.

11. In response to questions from Mr. Brandes, Dr. Ali testified as follows:

a) T. (C.) has more support in his housing which has led to a reduction in any significant threat to public safety. His increased supports have also improved his negative symptoms of Schizophrenia.

12. In response to questions from Mr. Pollard, Dr. Ali testified that T. (C.) willingly attends his appointments and understands the concept of an Absolute Discharge.

13. In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Ali testified as follows:

a) T. (C.) received his first Conditional Discharge after a hearing of the Board in November 2022.

b) T. (C.) has medical and financial supports that will continue regardless of the finding of the Board. The fact that he cannot see and is happy with his supports mitigate the risk of him leaving his housing. He has not acted out since May 2, 2019, and has had no psychiatric hospitalization.

14. No other evidence was called.

Final Submissions

15. The Hospital commended T. (C.) on having another good year and emphasized that he no longer meets the threshold of a significant risk of harm from criminal conduct. He has been under the Board since 2004 and living in the community since 2019. During that time, he has had no substance use, no violence, no re-admission and has been psychiatrically stable. He is awaiting permanent housing with VITA and is well equipped to handle his needs. There is no concern about the transition without oversight of the Board to the care of his family doctor.

16. The Crown adopted the Hospital submissions and commended T. (C.) and his team on their efforts over the years.

17. Mr. Pollard emphasized the positive changes on the part of T. (C.) in attending his appointments and his understanding his care plan.

Findings of the Board

18. The panel relies upon paragraph 61 in the Winko Decision and believes it is the most appropriate authority to assist the panel:

“It follows that the inquiries conducted by the court or Review Board are necessarily broad. They will closely examine a range of evidence, including but not limited to the circumstances of the original offence, the past and expected course of the NCR accused’s treatment if any, the present state of the NCR accused’s medical condition, the NCR accused’s own plans for the future, the support services existing for the NCR accused in the community and, perhaps most importantly, the recommendations provided by experts who have examined the NCR accused.”

19. The Board is impressed with the steps that have been taken by T. (C.) to have the appropriate support and assistance in the community. The Board accepts without reservation the evidence of Dr. Ali. The Board accepts the evidence that the recommendation for an Absolute Discharge has the support of the Hospital.

20. The Board is satisfied on the evidence that T. (C.) no longer represents a significant threat to public safety and accordingly, T. (C.) is entitled to receive an Absolute Discharge.

21. In reaching our Disposition, the Board has taken into consideration public safety, T. (C.)’s mental condition and his other needs, and T. (C.)’s reintegration into society.

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

Ms. A. Israel Legal Member

__________________ Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board