Re: Stephen E. Jones
ORB File No: 2823
Hearing held on: Monday February 9, 2026
Place of hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) and 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. M. Labrosse
Members: Dr. S. Lessard
Dr. R. Cormier
Mr. D. Sandor
Ms. B. Naegele
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Stephen E. Jones
Counsel: Ms. A. Szigeti
Person in charge of Hospital: Representative: Dr. J. Gojer
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. E. Davies
REASONS FOR DECISION AND DISPOSITION
(Dated March 23, 2026)
Introduction:
On October 5, 1998, Stephen E. Jones was found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder on charges of arson and assault with a weapon, contrary to the provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada. He is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated February 27, 2025, amended following an appeal to the Ontario Court of appeal, that detains him at the Forensic Assessment Unit at the Secure Forensic Unit of the Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (hereinafter referred to as “Ontario Shores”). Pending his detention at Ontario Shores, the Disposition orders the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre (hereinafter referred to as “the Hospital” or “the Royal”) to create a program for Mr. Jones’ detention in custody and rehabilitation within that hospital’s Forensic Assessment Unit or Forensic Rehabilitation Unit with privileges up to and including that of living in the community in 24-hour supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge or in a residence provided by Development Services Ontario.
That Disposition subjects Mr. Jones to certain conditions including that of abstaining from the non-medical use of alcohol or drugs and that of submitting samples for the purpose of monitoring his compliance with the abstention condition. Mr. Jones is required to not be in the presence of children under the age of 16 except if accompanied by a responsible adult. Those same privileges and conditions are to continue when Mr. Jones is ultimately transferred to Ontario Shores.
On October 29, 2025, the Royal advised the Board in writing of a potential restriction of Mr. Jones’ liberty, pursuant to section 672.56(2) (b) of the Criminal Code. On October 30, 2025, the Royal sent a further communication to the Board requesting an early Annual Review indicating that Mr. Jones was assaulting Hospital staff.
On February 9, 2026, the Board convened a hearing at the Royal to both conduct a hearing into the restriction of Mr. Jones’ liberty, pursuant to section 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code, and to conduct an early review of the mentioned Disposition. Mr. Jones was in attendance accompanied by his lawyer, Ms. A. Szigeti who had received prior leave to appear virtually from the Board.
The record for the hearing included
the Revised Notice of Hearing dated December 08, 2025,
the Disposition mentioned, dated February 27, 2025 (as amended by subsequent appeal),
the Reasons for that Disposition, the Order of the Ontario Court of Appeal providing for Mr. Jones’ transfer to Ontario Shores dated November 14, 2025,
the Reasons of the Ontario Court of Appeal for that decision,
the Hospital’s letter advising of the restriction of Mr. Jones’ liberties, dated October 29, 2025, and
the Hospital’s letter requesting an early review of Mr. Jones’ disposition, dated October 30, 2025.
On the consent of all parties, a Hospital Report dated January 8, 2026, that incorporated an occupational therapy involvement summary was entered into evidence as exhibit 1.
At the outset of the hearing, the parties clarified that this matter was not proceeding as an early hearing. The Hospital’s early hearing request was made prior to the release of the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision. As a result, Dr. Gojer, representing the Hospital, withdrew the early hearing request and this matter continued as a restriction of liberty hearing and as a regularly scheduled annual review of Mr. Jones’ disposition, preserving thereby the pattern of scheduling of annual reviews for Mr. Jones’ dispositions notwithstanding the dating of the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal.
The parties were canvassed for initial positions. Dr. Gojer, Mr. Jones’ treating psychiatrist spoke for the Hospital. He expressed the position that the restriction of Mr. Jones’ liberty was justified and necessary when initiated, represented the least onerous and least restrictive option available to the Hospital, and continued to be so. He further took the position that Mr. Jones continued to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public as that term is defined in section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and as it has been explained by the Supreme Court of Canada in Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625. He expressed the position that a continuation of the existing disposition was necessary and appropriate, having regard to the objectives set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
The representative of the Attorney General joined the Hospital on all issues. Counsel for Mr. Jones took no position on the restriction of Mr. Jones’ liberty and left the issue of significant threat with the Board. She was careful to specify her support for a disposition that provided the necessary flexibility to facilitate a transfer to Ontario Shores as ordered by the Ontario Court of Appeal. All parties agreed with Ms. Szigeti on this submission.
For the reasons that follow, the Board has found that the restriction of Mr. Jones’ liberty was justified and necessary, represented the least onerous and least restrictive course available to the Hospital to manage Mr. Jones’ increasing risk under the circumstances, and has concluded that the restriction continues to be necessary. The Board also concludes that Mr. Jones continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and agrees that a detention disposition, with terms and conditions as jointly recommended by the parties, is necessary and appropriate having regard to the objectives set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
Evidence at the hearing
The evidence for the hearing came from the exhibit mentioned and the viva voce testimony offered by Dr. Gojer.
Turning first to the Hospital Report, it is cumulative in nature and contains several details concerning Mr. Jones’ history of struggle with major mental illness and his involvement with the criminal justice system. Mr. Jones is 70 years old and has been under the jurisdiction of the Board for 28 years. He lacks family supports, has limited employment history and has struggled with homelessness. He was first hospitalized as a result of his struggles at the age of 15. His historic admissions to hospitals have been lengthy. His criminal record is lengthy and dates back to 1972. It includes convictions for auto theft, multiple sexual assaults, assaults, one conviction for assaulting a peace officer, and aggravated assault, numerous property offences and multiple convictions for crimes offensive to the administration of justice. He has, since being under the jurisdiction of the Board struggled with verbal and physical aggressivity that has included actual assaults directed to staff and the uttering of threats. Behavioural incidents have incorporated racist elements and have occurred without apparent triggers. He has required significant supports to manage the symptoms of his psychosis. His current diagnoses are:
Schizoaffective Disorder
Non-exclusive Pedophilia
Mild Intellectual Disability, and
Antisocial Personality Disorder.
- The Hospital Report also includes a summary of the index offences as detailed in previous Reasons for Disposition:
"On April 29th, 1998, the accused was living in the Ambassador rooming house located at 209 Carlton Street. The house had provided food for dinner for the tenants, and the accused was dissatisfied with the quantity and quality of the food. He stated that someone should burn this place to the ground and subsequently went into his bedroom, shut the door and set his blanket and mattress on fire. The fire alarm went off, and the staff saw him running from his burning room. He was held for police and the fire department and the staff tended to the fire. The accused was interviewed... and stated that he had been told to set the fire by a voice inside his head. He was asked if he knew why he was under arrest and he stated, "Yes, I set the bed on fire.”
The charge of assault with a weapon was added as, after setting the fire, Mr. Jones threw objects at staff. At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as to their position on the issue.”
- The Hospital Report’s update for this hearing begins at page 64. It includes a lengthy chart detailing the extent of Mr. Jones’ aggressivity from November 21, 2024, through to October 30, 2025. Of particular importance going to issues associated with the restriction of Mr. Jones’ liberty, the chart notes that from the date of his transfer to the Forensic Rehabilitation Unit at the Royal on September 22, 2025, to his transfer back to the Forensic Assessment Unit on October 24, 2025, Mr. Jones was involved in:
5 violent assaults that required physical intervention by Hospital staff in the form of PRN’s and/or physical restraints. Two more occurred on October 28 and October 30.
2 incidents when Mr. Jones was involved in pushing or shoving requiring PRN or physical restraint
5 incidents of destruction of property
3 incidents of inappropriate physical contact requiring verbal redirection, and
7 incidents of intimidating or threatening conduct, some of which required PRN and/or physical restraint.
The Risk Assessment incorporated into the Hospital Report summarizes that:
Mr. Jones has a long history of aggression. At this time, given his lengthy incarceration, the staff are at greater risk. If placed in the community, his caretakers will be at risk of violence from him. The risk assessment was conducted at Ontario Shores remains appropriate nothing has substantially changed. He has prominent psychopathic traits, and this drives his aggression. His mental illness i.e. Schizoaffective Disorder is relatively well controlled. He is a high risk of low to moderate grade violence that is at this time directed towards staff, co patients and to self. These behaviors will be the result of his needs being denied or stymied. The trajectory of his aggression, if reviewed from 1997 is a decrease in frequency and severity of aggression likely due to aging…There are very low prospects of him being transferred out of the assessment unit and into a group home.
In his evidence, Dr. Gojer indicated that Mr. Jones was persisting in a steady stream of aggression to Hospital staff. He explained that Mr. Jones was frustrated at the delay associated with his transfer to Ontario Shores and that this seems to be the predominant global factor associated with his aggressivity. Dr. Gojer confirmed that Mr. Jones is already taking a high level of medication that Dr. Gojer is hesitant to increase. He testified that while in his view it was necessary to move Mr. Jones from the Forensic Rehabilitation Unit to the Forensic Assessment Unit for the protection of Hospital staff, it was his intention to transition Mr. Jones back to the FRU so as to permit him to take escorted walks, even if Mr. Jones’ aggressivity required 2 staff to facilitate that privilege. Dr. Gojer expressed appreciation for the disposition proposed by Ms. Szigeti, explaining that the wording proposed by her could open up beds at Ontario Shores as opposed to detaining him at that facility’s secure forensic unit. Dr. Gojer testified that the broader disposition being proposed was consistent with Mr. Jones’ mental health and other needs, all of which favor his transfer to Ontario Shores.
Dr. Gojer confirmed that Mr. Jones could be managed on a non-secure unit. Most of Mr. Jones’ frustration and anger is associated with not being transferred to Ontario Shores. Mr. Jones benefitted from that facility’s rules and regulations associated with diet. He also had a good relationship with staff off of the unit at Ontario Shores. Dr. Gojer testified that Mr. Jones’ mental health and other needs, including his liberty interest, are all adversely affected by his ongoing detention at the Royal. He confirmed that Ontario Shores is struggling to find a bed for Mr. Jones. He expressed support for the flexible disposition proposed by Ms. Szigeti, indicating that while staff at Ontario Shores could be subjected to some level of risk as a result of the reduced stricture in the proposed disposition, that risk would be attenuated as Mr. Jones’ frustration would be alleviated. He would be able to eat food more appropriate to his dietary needs. He would be in the environment he has preferred. Dr. Gojer indicated that, as a result, the risk to staff at Ontario Shores would actually decrease from that experienced by staff at the royal.
Submissions
At the end of the hearing, the parties renewed their submissions as set out at the beginning of the matter. The Hospital and the Attorney General argued that the evidence had established that Mr. Jones had experienced a restriction of his liberty, but that the restriction was justified and necessary and represented the least onerous option available to the Hospital at the time. They argued that the restriction continued to be necessary. They also argued that the evidence had established that Mr. Jones continued to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that a detention disposition that incorporated the type of breadth and flexibility in facilitation of Mr. Jones’ transfer to Ontario Shores was necessary and appropriate having regard to the objectives set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
Ms. Szigeti, in her submissions, advised the panel of some of the context associated with the restrictive wording incorporated into the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision and the resultant amended Disposition. She explained that the Court did not deal with the nuances or factual analysis associated with the working of the detention that was roundly canvassed as a key issue over the course of this annual review. This was helpful to the panel, noting that the panel is empowered in any event to craft a disposition that satisfies the s. 672.54 objectives based on the evidence before it, regardless of the dating of a decision from the Ontario Court of Appeal on a disposition that is, in any event, before the Board for review. The most compelling elements of Ms. Szigeti’s submissions highlighted that assurance of public safety requires the attachment of some urgency to Mr. Jones’ transfer to Ontario Shores, and that assurance is most obtained by the crafting of an order that permits Ontario Shores to access whatever beds are appropriate and available for Mr. Jones having regard to his mental state and level of risk as it appears to be at the moment of the transfer.
Analysis and Conclusion
As mentioned above, the Board agrees that Mr. Jones experienced a restriction of his liberty when moved from the Forensic Rehabilitation Unit at the Royal to the Forensic Assessment Unit on October 24, 2025. This move reduced Mr. Jones privileges and liberty norm and was in response to repeated high levels of aggressivity that could no longer be managed on the FRU. The restriction was necessary and appropriate. Mr. Jones was aggressive and assaultive to Hospital staff who have a right to the same assurance of safety as all other members of the public. The Hospital did not restrict Mr. Jones’ liberty haphazardly. The Hospital Report details staff efforts to manage, redirect and control the risk posed to them by Mr. Jones. Failure to restrict Mr. Jones’ liberty when undertaken would have exposed staff and other patients to further violence contrary to the Hospital’s mandate under the primary objective. Having exhausted all other options, the course undertaken by the Hospital represented the least intrusive and least restrictive option available to it at the time.
The restriction continues to be necessary and minimally intrusive in the context of the risk posed by Mr. Jones who continues to act out aggressively. The motive for this acting out is of little relevance when it comes to a determination of whether the restriction of Mr. Jones’ liberty continues to be necessary, appropriate and the least restrictive and least intrusive option available to the Hospital, particularly where the motivation stems from factors outside of the Hospital’s ability to address. Meanwhile, the evidence from Dr. Gojer confirmed intentions and efforts to assist Mr. Jones with the frustration he experiences associated with the delay of his transfer to Ontario Shores. The Hospital intends to transition Mr. Jones’ back to the Forensic Rehabilitation Unit as Mr. Jones increases in his ability to cope with frustrations over systemic delays and an environment at the Royal that is not as appropriate to his needs as that to be provided at Ontario Shores.
The Board is also satisfied the Mr. Jones remains a significant threat to the safety of the public. He suffers from a major mental illness that has figured prominently in the commission of the index offences. He has a lengthy criminal record that includes acts of violence. His struggles with his major mental illness began at a young age and continue today. Most importantly, his struggles are manifest by repeated assaultive and aggressive acts that establish a bridge between his historic struggles and current circumstances. In our view, these facts satisfy the high onus placed upon the Board by the Supreme Court of Canada in Winko. The threat posed by Mr. Jones is real and not speculative. It is connected to ongoing acts of aggressivity and is disconnected from myths and stereotypes associated with the mentally ill. There is no doubt that, absent a Board disposition, Mr. Jones would find himself unable to manage the primary and secondary symptoms of his psychosis, would engage in acts of violence and expose the public to significant physical and psychological harm as a result of serious criminal behaviour.
The Board is also satisfied that a detention disposition is necessary and appropriate to manage Mr. Jones’ risk. In arriving at this conclusion, the Board has considered less intrusive options, but none have any air of reality. Mr. Jones requires the support of a detention disposition to manage the risk that his psychosis poses to the safety of the public. He is not prepared for integration into the community at this time. Meanwhile, the need for his transfer to Ontario Shores is essential having regard to both public safety and the assurance that Mr. Jones’ own mental health and other needs are met. Ontario Shores is more able to attend to Mr. Jones’ dietary needs than is the Royal. Mr. Jones has a pre-existing therapeutic alliance with staff at Ontario Shores that has not been compromised by delay as has the therapeutic alliance with staff at the Royal. The Ontario Court of Appeal in Re Ramos, 2025 ONCA 820, has emphasized the importance of considering the reasonable views and preferences of patients when crafting terms of disposition. Mr. Jones’ views that Ontario Shores will be better positioned to satisfy the 672.54 objectives and his preference that he be transferred to whatever bed there is appropriate under the circumstances, without the binding strictures of an unnecessarily detailed disposition, is reasonable.
Accordingly, the Board concludes that the restriction of Mr. Jones’ liberty was necessary and appropriate; represented the least onerous and least intrusive option available to the Hospital at the time and continues to be necessary and appropriate. It also concludes that Mr. Jones continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that a detention disposition, with language that provides some flexibility that will enable Ontario Shores to facilitate a transfer that is urgently needed is necessary and appropriate having regard to the primary objective of assuring the safety of the public, and the other objectives set out in s. 672.54, namely those of assuring that Mr. Jones’ mental health and other needs are met, including the need to, ultimately, work towards reintegration into the community.
An order will issue accordingly.
DATED this 23rd day of March 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. D. Sandor
Legal Member
__________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board