Re T.-C. (S. R.), 2026 CanLII 34209

Re: T.-C. (S. R.)

ORB File No: 7796

Hearing held on: Thursday, March 26, 2026

Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health

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

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Ms. L. Banks Members: Dr. S. Lessard Dr. J. Cheston Ms. A. La Viola Mr. J. Cyr

Parties Appearing:

Accused: T.-C. (S. R.) Counsel: Ms. C. Claxton

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

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. N. Engineer

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 15, 2026)

Introduction:

1. On November 5, 2020, Mr. T.-C. (S. R.) was found not criminally responsible (“NCR”) on account of mental disorder on charges of assault, and sexual assault, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”). Since that time, he has been subject to Dispositions of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB” or the “Board”), most recently a Disposition dated February 19, 2025, pursuant to which he was ordered detained at the General Forensic Unit of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (“CAMH” or the “hospital”), in Toronto. The Disposition provided for privileges up to and including residing in the community of the Greater Toronto Area (“GTA”) in supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge (“PIC”) of the hospital.

2. On March 26, 2026, the ORB convened a panel for the purposes of the annual review of T.-C. (S. R.)’s Disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. T.-C. (S. R.) was present at the hearing and was represented by his counsel, Ms. Claxton. T.-C. (S. R.)’s mother joined the hearing by telephone link.

3. The issues to be considered at this hearing are whether T.-C. (S. R.) is a significant threat to the safety of the public as now defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and, if he is found to be a significant threat to the community, the determination of the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances bearing in mind the factors enunciated in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

4. For the reasons set out below, this Board concluded that T.-C. (S. R.) continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. This Board is satisfied that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is that T.-C. (S. R.) continues to be subject to the terms of his existing Detention Order.

Index Offences:

5. The circumstances of the index offence are set forth in the Hospital Report dated January 8, 2026 (the “Hospital Report”), as follows:

“On September 27, 2019, at 4 a.m., the accused attended a gym located in the City of Brampton. He did not have a membership. When he was asked to leave, he started causing a disturbance by yelling. When the complainant blocked him from entering the women’s change area, the accused pushed him 7-8 times. The accused then proceeded to pick up a female staff member and carry her inside the men’s change room. He placed her on a bench, sat beside her and stated, “I want you to suck my dick.” He then proceeded to kiss the victim on her cheek and grabbed her arm in an effort to prevent her from getting away from him. When the victim advised him she was going to call the police, he left the gym. He was arrested nearby.”

Personal History:

6. T.-C. (S. R.)’s personal history is set out in detail in the Hospital Report which was filed as an exhibit at the hearing and need not be repeated here. Briefly stated, T.-C. (S. R.) is a 33-year-old single male who was born in Toronto, ON. He is one of fraternal twins and has an older sister. He was raised by both parents and his grandmother. His parents separated when he was approximately 15 years old.

7. His mother reported that when T.-C. (S. R.) was approximately 17 years old, he witnessed his brother getting “beaten by police”. She stated that thereafter, he began to withdraw from the family and began acting out at home, including engaging in property destruction. He moved out of the family home and became quite transient. He would move between the streets, living in shelters, staying with friends, and coming back home for short periods of time.

8. T.-C. (S. R.) has been financially supported by the Ontario Disability Support Program since approximately age 19.

9. T.-C. (S. R.) has been an active user of cannabis, cocaine, and alcohol.

10. According to reports from his family, T.-C. (S. R.) has never married and has no children. However, at different times over his hospital admission, he has endorsed having been married with many children. He has been inconsistent as to when and to whom he got married, as well as the number of children.

11. T.-C. (S. R.)’s legal history includes a 2017 conviction for assault. Charges in 2017 for possession of a controlled substance and failure to attend court were withdrawn. Further, in November 2020, charges of assault and utter threat to cause death were stayed. These charges arose from an incident in October 2019, approximately one month after the commission of the index offences.

12. Following his NCR finding, he was detained at the secure unit of Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care (“Waypoint”) on November 5, 2020, until being transferred to CAMH on July 15, 2021. At CAMH, he was transferred to the Secure Forensic Unit A on July 22, 2021. At his ORB hearing in December 2021, he was ordered detained at the hospital with a supervised community living privilege. He was transferred to a General Forensic Unit at the hospital (FGUC-unit 1-4) on June 26, 2023, and has remained there up to the current time.

Current Diagnoses:

13. T.-C. (S. R.)’s current diagnoses are:

Schizophrenia; Cannabis Use Disorder, moderate; Amphetamine-type Substance Use Disorder; Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.

Position of the Parties:

14. At the outset of the hearing, all parties were canvassed as to their initial recommendations to the Board. Counsel for the hospital submitted that the recommendation of the treatment team was for no change to T.-C. (S. R.)’s current Detention Order Disposition.

15. Counsel for the Attorney General of Ontario supported the recommendation of the hospital.

16. Counsel for T.-C. (S. R.) submitted that her client was also supportive of the hospital’s recommendation. Counsel waived the issue of significant threat for the purposes of this hearing.

17. All parties maintained their joint recommendation in closing submissions.

Evidence at the Hearing:

18. The evidence on behalf of the hospital was presented by Dr. S. Woodside, who was T.-C. (S. R.)’s psychiatrist over the past reporting year. Dr. Woodside is also the co-author of the Hospital Report which was filed as an exhibit at the hearing.

19. Dr. Woodside testified that until February 2026, it had been a positive, mostly stable, year for T.-C. (S. R.). There were no significant decompensations in his mental state or instances of substance use. There were intermittent episodes of returning late from passes or not following the approved pass itinerary but there were no significant breaches of his ORB Disposition over the year in review.

20. On February 21, 2026, staff noted that T.-C. (S. R.) seemed agitated and was assessed by the duty doctor. He made statements to staff claiming that he thought people were trying to kill him and that certain staff members were trying to force medications on him. He was offered and accepted medication for agitation/restlessness and his passes were placed on hold. The following day, he presented with increased agitation and was talking about fighting with staff. He had taken his shirt off and was closely following staff around the unit. He also exposed his penis and made numerous grossly inappropriate sexualized comments and invitations to staff and co-patients. He was placed in seclusion. T.-C. (S. R.) was seen by a staff psychiatrist on February 23, 2026, and, at that time, he was more cooperative and settled. He contracted for safety and agreed to abstain from further inappropriate sexualized behaviours. He was trialed out of seclusion and his seclusion was terminated on February 24, 2026. Dr. Woodside commented that at that time, T.-C. (S. R.)’s urine drug screen (“UDS”) was negative for substances of abuse.

21. T.-C. (S. R.) had acknowledged that prior to his deterioration, in February 2026, he had not taken his Clozapine medication for one day. His Clozapine level was assessed proximate to that time and his levels indicated a marked decline and suggested to Dr. Woodside that T.-C. (S. R.) had more likely missed several doses of Clozapine.

22. On February 28, 2026, T.-C. (S. R.)’s Clozapine medication was switched to a suspension format, and he was subject to staff observation post-medication administration. His Clozapine levels are now within a therapeutic range and the doctor commented that he now appears to be back to his baseline presentation.

23. Dr. Woodside stated that when T.-C. (S. R.) presents with sexualized behaviours, it is typically in times of acute psychotic symptoms.

24. T.-C. (S. R.)’s passes were held after the incident in February 2026. He is now able to exercise level 5 passes, which allows for indirectly supervised privileges on hospital and grounds to attend programming. The doctor anticipated that T.-C. (S. R.) will likely be approved for level 6 privileges on March 30, 2026. Level 6 privileges allow for indirectly supervised passes on hospital and grounds for recreational and socialization purposes. T.-C. (S. R.) is anxious to receive level 6 passes as they will allow him to access a hospital area where he can smoke cigarettes. In response to a question posed by Ms. Claxton, the doctor responded that the team is hopeful that if he maintains his current positive trajectory, T.-C. (S. R.) will likely be able to achieve level 8 privileges within the next 3-4 months.

25. T.-C. (S. R.) remains assessed as incapable of providing consent for treatment with antipsychotic medication. Consent is currently provided by his mother who acts as his substitute decision maker (“SDM”). The mainstay of T.-C. (S. R.)’s treatment is Clozapine. He also receives Olanzapine, ADHD medication, and Clonazepam. Despite adherence to his prescribed medication, the Hospital Report indicates that T.-C. (S. R.) continues to intermittently endorse psychotic symptoms which involved seeing “3-D crosses in the air”. These episodes often coincide with periods of heightened anxiety. He also experienced intermittent paranoia regarding other people trying to hurt him and concerns about “demons and devils.” Dr. Woodside stated that at other times, T.-C. (S. R.) appears unwilling to share his inner experiences with his team.

26. When asked if his current medication will be reviewed in order to attempt to optimize T.-C. (S. R.)’s treatment, Dr. Woodside responded that his Clozapine dose was increased to 425mg nightly in February 3, 2025, with his SDM’s consent. The doctor stated that the team will assess the impact of T.-C. (S. R.)’s return to cigarette smoking on his Clozapine levels. It may be that T.-C. (S. R.) would benefit from a dose increase in this medication; however, Dr. Woodside commented that T.-C. (S. R.) has experienced a very serious side effect to Clozapine in the past so any dose increase will be carefully considered and will require SDM consent.

27. To his credit, over the past reporting year, all of T.-C. (S. R.)’s UDSs returned negative for the presence of substances of abuse.

28. T.-C. (S. R.) participated in a number of groups, including: Substance Relapse Prevention, MAPS, gym, music group, Illness Management & Recovery, Spiritual Care, Social Wise, CA-CBT, Narcotics Anonymous and he attended a number of community programs including Trinity Bellwoods Community Centre and Academy of Lions. At times, he would miss scheduled groups in favour of going out on passes to the gym. He participated in 1:1 counselling and completed Illness Management and Recovery programming. He was also intermittently active in other programs, including gym and arts. Dr. Woodside stated that T.-C. (S. R.) has completed numerous programs and should be commended for that.

29. T.-C. (S. R.) was referred to the hospital’s Sexual Behaviours Clinic (“SBC”) for assessment and treatment. Given his responses to the SBC assessment questions, he was recommended to attend the mental health group within the clinic and to undergo phallometric testing once such testing resumed in the lab. T.-C. (S. R.) did not think that attendance at that group was necessary, and he needs ongoing encouragement to remain open to attending the mental health group within the SBC. Dr. Woodside advised that this group is now scheduled to begin in May or June 2026 under the leadership of Dr. Igoumenou.

30. Further, when the results of the SBC assessment were discussed with him, T.-C. (S. R.) denied having committed any sexual assault and expressed concerns that his family was encouraging his lawyer to seek an NCR finding in order to institutionalize him.

31. T.-C. (S. R.) completed an occupational therapy functional assessment during the past year which indicated that he had moderate to high levels of functioning, except regarding finances, which was rated as low.

32. Applications to a number of housing vacancies were put forward but were not successful. There are typically multiple candidates for each vacancy. Most recently, he was selected for an assessment at TRHP2 but had not yet attended this intake assessment. Dr. Woodside testified that the process of initiating his transition to community housing will now be delayed for several months given his fairly recent decompensation. The doctor noted that housing providers prefer to see a period of several months of stability in an applicant’s mental status before favourably considering their suitability.

33. Over the past reporting year, T.-C. (S. R.) regularly used level 8 indirectly supervised passes into the community for up to 72 hours to visit at his mother’s home, typically weekly. These passes were suspended following his decompensation in February 2026.

34. Discussions with his family were held last week to consider medication adjustments to optimize his treatment; however, no changes are currently being implemented. His family wants to see how T.-C. (S. R.)’s Clozapine levels are impacted once he resumes smoking cigarettes. Of note, he has not smoked for the past month.

35. Dr. Woodside advised that prior to T.-C. (S. R.)’s discharge to community living, T.-C. (S. R.) will have to:

• maintain medication compliance without interruption;
• remain abstinent from all substance use, including cannabis (verified by the administration of frequent and random UDSs) and commit to abstinence upon his return to the community;
• abstain from any further inappropriate sexualized behaviours;
• participate in ongoing 1:1 counselling and the recommended SBC group; and
• Demonstrate frequent and appropriate use of indirectly supervised community passes, without incident.

36. In terms of his insight, Dr. Woodside stated that T.-C. (S. R.)’s insight into his mental condition, its symptomatology, the role of psychiatric treatment, the effects of substance use, and his risk of re-offence continue to be somewhat limited and his insight into the index offences is extremely underdeveloped. His compliance with the terms of his ORB Disposition is primarily externally motivated.

37. Dr. Woodside endorsed the following clinical risk factors which he agrees are pertinent to T.-C. (S. R.)’s risk profile:

• when suffering from symptoms of his major mental illness, he presents with delusions, hallucinations, agitation, mood disturbances and behavioural dyscontrol that can result in conduct that poses a real risk of physically and/or sexually assaultive harm and/or psychological harm;
• his vulnerability to relapsing to substance use, which can exacerbate his underlying psychotic disorder;
• his limited insight into his illness, the need for treatment with medication, the impact of substance use on his mental state, the index offences, and other factors that increase his risk for violence/reoffence; and
• treatment or supervision response.

38. The Hospital Report indicates that:

“If conditionally discharge, T.-C. (S. R.)’s risk will still remain moderate at the best. Especially when his past history of noncompliance, while under the care of a community team under a community treatment order is taken into consideration.

The above risk can be successfully mitigated by an order of detention under forensic services. So far, T.-C. (S. R.)’s risk has been able to be managed in the hospital setting. In the context of living in the community and supervised housing under a detention order, T.-C. (S. R.)’s risk can also be mitigated through a combination of close supervision and monitoring of medication compliance in housing in with regular contact with his outpatient team, along with bloodwork and random urine samples.

Overall, T.-C. (S. R.)’s risk is considered moderate at least in the context of living in the community in supervised accommodations with support from a forensic outpatient team.”

39. In the doctor’s assessment and that of the treatment team, T.-C. (S. R.) continues to meet the threshold of posing a significant threat to public safety.

40. The doctor opined that at the present juncture, the treatment team is of the opinion that a Detention Order continues to be necessary and appropriate as it provides two key risk management features. First, it allows the hospital to retain authority over T.-C. (S. R.)’s accommodation in the community. The treatment team believes that when ready for return to community living, T.-C. (S. R.) will again require intensive support, supervision and follow-up.

41. Additionally, the doctor commented that the hospital must have the ability to readmit T.-C. (S. R.) expeditiously if necessary and at an early juncture, should he evidence any signs of decompensation, whether as a result of medication noncompliance, relapse to substance use, or otherwise. In the treatment team’s opinion, a Conditional Discharge Disposition is insufficient to safely manage T.-C. (S. R.)’s risk. If T.-C. (S. R.) were on a Conditional Discharge, then it would be necessary to wait until he was certifiable before he could be readmitted and this would result in an unacceptable level of risk.

42. No further evidence was called by the parties.

Analysis and Disposition:

43. The panel finds that T.-C. (S. R.) continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. In coming to this conclusion, the panel relies on the evidence of Dr. Woodside and the documentary evidence before us. T.-C. (S. R.) suffers from treatment-refractory Schizophrenia, and he continues to experience active psychotic symptoms of his illness despite receiving antipsychotic treatment over the past 10 years. When acutely unwell, he has presented with more intense delusions, hallucinations, agitation, mood disturbances and behavioural dyscontrol that has resulted in aggressive/sexual violence. A recent example of this occurred in February 2026 when a missed dose of his Clozapine medication resulted in an acute decompensation in his mental state with a resultant exacerbation in the risk of harm he posed to those in his proximity.

44. Additionally, T.-C. (S. R.) suffers from substance use disorders and he should abstain from substance use in perpetuity. Further, we note that T.-C. (S. R.) continues to have underdeveloped insight across all domains, and specifically with regard to the need for treatment with antipsychotic medication, the impact of substance use on his mental state, the index offences and his risk of harm.

45. The evidence before the Board indicates that absent ongoing oversight by the ORB and the forensic treatment team at the hospital, T.-C. (S. R.) would be likely to discontinue his prescribed medication and, over time, re-engage in substance use. In this context, he would be highly likely to experience an exacerbation in his existing active symptoms of his mental illness, resulting in an increase in his risk of harm to members of the public. For all of the above reasons, the Board finds that he continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public.

46. At this juncture, the Board finds that it is critical that the hospital retains the ability to oversee T.-C. (S. R.)’s residential placement in the community to ensure that it provides him with the requisite degree of support, structure, supervision, and monitoring.

47. In addition, we conclude that the Mental Health Act is not sufficient to manage T.-C. (S. R.)’s risk to the community. In the event of a decompensation in his mental status while living in the community, the treatment team will require the ability to return him quickly to hospital for readmission rather than to wait until such time as he meets criteria for certification under the Mental Health Act. When unwell, T.-C. (S. R.) can present in a threatening, aggressive, and agitated manner and he has exhibited sexually violent behaviour. Further, the doctor’s evidence is that given T.-C. (S. R.)’s chronic and ongoing experience of symptoms of his psychotic illness, it is likely that any decompensation in his mental state would occur rapidly, underscoring the need for rapid intervention. For all of these reasons, the panel is unanimous in agreeing that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a continuation of the current Detention Order.

48. In making this Disposition, the Board has reviewed the provisions of s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code and has carefully considered the need to protect the public from dangerous persons, T.-C. (S. R.)’s mental condition, his reintegration into society and his other needs.

DATED this 15th day of April, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.

Ms. L. Banks Alternate Chairperson

Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board