Re: Duke Godfrey
ORB File No: 6113
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: Duke Godfrey
Counsel: Mr. D. J. Brodsky
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. G. Meaney
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. N. Engineer
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated April 15, 2026)
Introduction:
On April 19, 2012, Duke Godfrey was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) of assault with a weapon, assault, and fail to comply with a probation order, all contrary to the Criminal Code. Since his finding of NCR, Mr. Godfrey has been subject to Dispositions of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB” or the “Board”), most recently a Disposition dated March 27, 2025, pursuant to which he is detained at the Forensic Service of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (“CAMH” or the “hospital”) with privileges up to and including living in the community of the Greater Toronto Area (“GTA”) in accommodation approved by the person in charge (“PIC”) of the hospital.
On March 26, 2026, a panel of the ORB convened a hearing to conduct an annual review of Mr. Godfrey’s Disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Godfrey attended the hearing and was represented by his counsel, Mr. Brodsky.
The issues to be considered at this hearing are whether Mr. Godfrey is a significant threat to public safety 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.
For the reasons set out below, this Board concluded that Mr. Godfrey continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. This Board is satisfied that Mr. Godfrey’s continued detention at CAMH on the same terms and conditions as are set forth in his existing Disposition remains the necessary and appropriate, as well as the least restrictive and least onerous, Disposition.
Positions of the Parties:
At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as to their recommendations to the Board.
The hospital’s representative advised that the hospital was recommending that Mr. Godfrey continue to be subject to the terms of his existing Disposition.
Counsel for the Crown was in support of the hospital’s recommendation.
Mr. Brodsky advised that he wished to hear the evidence before making a Disposition recommendation, but counsel advised that he conceded the issue of significant threat.
At the conclusion of the hospital’s evidence, Mr. Brodsky advised that his client was supporting the hospital’s recommendation for a Detention Order. Both counsel for the hospital and the Crown maintained their respective initial positions in closing submissions.
Index Offences:
- The details of the index offences are set forth in detail in the Hospital Report to the ORB dated March 5, 2026 (the “Hospital Report”). They are summarized in last year’s ORB Reasons for Disposition, as follows:
“On August 9, 2011, Mr. Godfrey confronted a man on the street and asked him “Do you love me?” The man replied that he “loved everybody.” Mr. Godfrey demanded that the man kiss him and when the man refused, he pulled out a 12” knife and threatened the man with it. The man fled.
Mr. Godfrey then approached a second man and when he did not get the response he wanted, pushed the man against a wall, showed him the knife, and demanded that the man tell Mr. Godfrey he loved him. The man complied and then left.
Mr. Godfrey then entered a convenience store. He demanded cigarettes while waving his
knife. After he was given a cigarette, he left the store.
Mr. Godfrey had stopped taking his medications in the weeks before the index offences. He was also using cannabis daily.”
- At the time of index offences, Mr. Godfrey reported that he had been using substances (cannabis and crack cocaine), was hearing voices, and was carrying a knife to protect himself.
Personal Background:
Mr. Godfrey’s personal background, mental health history, criminal history, and his course in the hospital subsequent to his arrest and NCR finding are set out in considerable detail in the Hospital Report and need not be repeated here. Briefly summarized, Mr. Godfrey is 41 years old. He came to Canada from Jamaica when he was six years old and was raised by his aunt, who continues to be his primary support.
Mr. Godfrey graduated from high school and worked at various apprenticeship programs and jobs. He started but did not finish college programs in cooking and carpentry. He had one serious relationship that did not survive the onset of his mental illness. He has never been married and has no children. He is financially supported by ODSP.
Mr. Godfrey began to use cannabis at age 14. He began to use crack cocaine in August 2011. He also reported having used alcohol.
Criminal History:
- Mr. Godfrey’s criminal record was submitted at the hearing (Exhibit 2). It shows that Mr. Godfrey was convicted of assault with intent to resist arrest in 2006, and assault with a weapon in 2008. He received suspended sentences and probation as a result of these convictions. The Hospital Report stated that the assault with a weapon conviction related to Mr. Godfrey stabbing the superintendent of his building in the arm.
Psychiatric History:
Mr. Godfrey first experienced symptoms of psychosis in 2000. He heard voices and commands from God. His aunt reported first noticing changes in Mr. Godfrey in 2002 when he became withdrawn and began to neglect his hygiene.
His first hospital admission was in 2005 after he drank 20 ounces of rum. He was described as being in a “psychotic state” and was treated with antipsychotic medication.
In 2006, Mr. Godfrey was admitted for an assessment of his fitness to stand trial following his arrest on the charge of assault with intent to resist arrest. He was guarded and suspicious and endorsed unusual beliefs, auditory hallucinations, and paranoid thinking. He was treated with antipsychotic medication and returned to court as fit to stand trial. Mr. Godfrey was followed in the community after this and there were concerns about his cannabis use and the emergence of psychotic symptoms.
Mr. Godfrey discontinued his medications approximately two weeks prior to the index offences and had been using two joints of cannabis daily. He had been referred for treatment for his substance dependence, but he was ambivalent about getting help. His condition progressively worsened. In the six months leading up to the index offences, Mr. Godfrey was also using crack cocaine.
Mr. Godfrey’s variable course under the Board’s jurisdiction was described succinctly in last year’s ORB Reasons for Disposition as follows (at paragraph 14):
“Under the jurisdiction of the Board, Mr. Godfrey has had periods of mental stability (roughly 2012-2016 and 2018–2019) when he has been adherent to medications and abstinent from substances. He has lived independently, while working or going to school, subject to a conditional discharge. Mr. Godfrey has also had periods of decompensation, (roughly 2016–2018 and 2019–2022) requiring lengthy hospitalizations, during which his insight into his need for medication, and the benefits of abstinence withered. He became volatile and engaged in dangerous behaviors, necessitating, detention orders.”
Mr. Godfrey was discharged to 24-hour supported and supervised housing in the community in December 2022. His medication at this residence was supervised and his meals were provided. He did very well in the community for some time, working as a courier regularly, maintaining abstinence from substances, and pursuing a full-time plumbing course at George Brown College.
He had one readmission to CAMH on July 26, 2024, and was discharged back to the community on September 18, 2024. He had a Restriction of Liberty (“ROL”) ORB hearing on October 4, 2024, where the reason for readmission was reviewed. At the time of his annual hearing in March 2025, he was an inpatient at CAMH. He was subsequently discharged back to his community accommodation in May 2025.
Current Diagnoses:
- Mr. Godfrey is currently diagnosed with:
Schizophrenia; and
Substance Use Disorder.
Evidence at Hearing:
Dr. A. Simpson testified at the hearing to supplement the evidence contained in the Hospital Report. Dr. Simpson is Mr. Godfrey’s current attending psychiatrist and has been involved in his care over the past several years. He advised that he endorsed the contents of the Hospital Report.
In terms of material updates to the Hospital Report, Dr. Simpson advised that since mid-February 2026, Mr. Godfrey has been testing positive for cannabis use. Mr. Godfrey has acknowledged cannabis use approximately 2-3 times weekly.
Dr. Simpson expressed the treatment team’s concern that ongoing cannabis consumption will be likely, over time, to result in a re-emergence of psychotic symptoms, including heightened agitation, irritation, frustration, and eventually, auditory hallucinations and persecutory delusions. In Dr. Simpson’s assessment, Mr. Godfrey underestimates his risk of suffering an acute decompensation in his mental state in the context of his ongoing substance use. Dr. Simpson testified that historically Mr. Godfrey has not been able to recognize early warning signs of a decompensation in his mental status.
When asked whether the treatment team has observed any changes in Mr. Godfrey’s presentation given his ongoing substance use, the doctor responded that to date, no noticeable change has been observed; however, Dr. Simpson expressed his view that for Mr. Godfrey, any cannabis use is highly likely to become problematic based upon his history.
Dr. Simpson stated that the treatment team has not advised Mr. Godfrey’s housing provider that he has resumed regular cannabis use. The doctor advised that in a recent discussion on March 25, 2025, between the treatment team and the housing provider, it was disclosed to the team that the housing operator had some concerns that Mr. Godfrey has “not been himself”. Dr. Simpson stated that the change noted by the housing operator will be further investigated over the next several days.
Dr. Simpson stated that Mr. Godfrey is aware that his housing may be jeopardized should he suffer a re-emergence of symptoms. The doctor commented that in his opinion, cannabis is used by Mr. Godfrey as a maladaptive coping strategy.
Of note, the Hospital Report indicates that shortly following his last annual ORB hearing, on March 20, 2025, Mr. Godfrey was readmitted to CAMH due to his experience of increased stress at his community residence and a urine drug screen (“UDS”) which was positive for cannabis use. Further, at that time, Mr. Godfrey had refused to take his medications for 1-2 days. He was brought into hospital by the police under a Form 49, but Mr. Godfrey appreciated that he required readmission and agreed to return to hospital.
Within days of his readmission, Mr. Godfrey acknowledged that he might be experiencing some residual psychotic symptoms, and he was agreeable to optimizing his olanzapine medication from 15 to 25 mg/day. The inpatient team offered him a trial of clozapine, but he declined this due to worries about agranulocytosis. He stabilized in hospital with the increase in his medication.
During the admission, Mr. Godfrey acknowledged his cannabis use in the community and recommitted to abstinence. He was aware that his community housing staff were concerned about his substance use and that any further positive UDS results would be likely to result his readmission and a possible loss of his community housing.
Following discharge back to the community in May 2025, Mr. Godfrey was positively engaged with housing staff and the clinical team, and he remained abstinent. He was also working 3-4 days per week as a courier in a peer-led workplace.
Mr. Godfrey is assessed as capable to consent to treatment for his illness and he receives a daily dose of the oral antipsychotic medication, Olanzapine, at bedtime. His medications are administered by housing staff, and he has remained adherent and does not report troubling side effects.
Mr. Godfrey’s mental state is stable and there has been no evidence of persecutory ideation, delusional experiences, or auditory hallucinations over the past reporting period. He has not been observed responding to internal stimuli.
In terms of his insight, the Hospital Report indicates that: “… he shows sustained understanding of his illness, the risks that emerge when he is unwell, the need to stay on treatment and not relapse in drug use. He has been a little reflective about the level of stress and types of work he can cope with, suggesting some realignment of his long-term goals. However, he shows vulnerability to the destabilizing effects of emotional issues and a recurring pattern of self-soothing with THC.”
Since his discharge back to the community in May 2025, all of Mr. Godfrey’s UDS had been negative for the presence of alcohol and substances of abuse until mid-February 2026, when he began to test positive for the presence of cannabinoids.
Mr. Godfrey’s main support in the community is his aunt who lives in Whitby. He has regular contact with her. He also socializes with colleague on his workdays, and he has a close friend who lives in Scarborough. His father lives in Jamaica, and his mother lives in New York, and he keeps in contact infrequently with his parents by phone. He has two half-siblings with whom he has little contact. He also has acquaintances around Oakwood Arch who he sometimes spends time with. Dr. Simpson commented that Mr. Godfrey has expressed feeling socially isolated and the team is attempting to support him in this regard.
The Re-Offence Scenario identified in the Hospital Report notes that “Mr. Godfrey has a history of violent behaviours from early adulthood within the context of active symptoms of psychosis and marijuana and crack cocaine abuse. He has a pattern of threatening and violent incidents associated with a psychotic mental state.
Potential for violence would occur in the context of substance abuse, social isolation, and stress, which would lead to non-compliance with medication and escalation of persecutory feelings into delusional and hallucinatory experience. Such experiences elevate his risk of being assaultive, potentially with any available weapon as was the case at the time of the index offences. Likely victims would be people in his immediate environment rather than any specific person or group.
In recent relapses he has become intimidating and irritable but not manifesting actual violence. The potential for harm has bene limited by early intervention in the periods of relapse.”
The Hospital Report also identifies protective factors for Mr. Godfrey as including his employment, medication adherence, and his attitude toward authority. Goals in the upcoming year will focus on enhancing his coping skills, identifying life goals, improvement with regard to his insight into the likely effects of cannabis use on his mental state, and improving his motivation for treatment.
Dr. Simpson endorsed the opinion of the treatment team that Mr. Godfrey continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. The doctor indicated that Mr. Godfrey’s risk flows from: (i) his major mental illness diagnosis; and (ii) his substance use. The doctor testified that Mr. Godfrey’s mental state remains vulnerable to stressors which can result in him presenting with heightened auditory hallucinations.
The doctor advised that at the present time, the hospital must retain the authority over Mr. Godfrey’s residence to ensure that it provides him with the necessary degree of support, structure, supervision, and monitoring to safely manage his risk.
Given his relapse to cannabis use over the past reporting year, the treatment team considers it critical that it retain the authority of a Detention Order to allow the hospital to rapidly re-admit Mr. Godfrey, should he suffer a decompensation in his mental state or continue to engage in illicit drug use in order to safely manage his risk to the public. The doctor testified that it is critical that the treatment team be able to intervene at an early juncture, even before such time when Mr. Godfrey might satisfy the Mental Health Act (“MHA”) criteria for an involuntary admission. Dr. Simpson advised that a Detention Order is necessary to allow the hospital to intervene and implement a re-admission to prevent Mr. Godfrey from engaging in an escalating pattern of substance use. Further, in the doctor’s opinion, despite Mr. Godfrey having a positive therapeutic relationship with the treatment team, there is always some uncertainty as to whether Mr. Godfrey would voluntarily cooperate in readmission in the context of being in an unwell mental state. Taken in totality, Dr. Simpson testified that at this juncture, a Conditional Discharge Disposition is premature and insufficient to safely manage Mr. Godfrey’s risk.
No further evidence was called by the parties.
Analysis and Conclusions:
The Board finds that Mr. Godfrey continues to represent a significant threat to public safety. We make this finding based on the testimony of Dr. Simpson and the other evidence made available to the Board at this hearing. Mr. Godfrey committed a series of unprovoked assault offences in response to his experience of paranoid delusions and auditory hallucinations. Despite treatment with antipsychotic medication, Mr. Godfrey’s condition is vulnerable to fluctuations, particularly in the context of cannabis use. The evidence also demonstrates that Mr. Godfrey’s illness is brittle, and he is particularly vulnerable to stressors. He has had periods of wellness where he has pursued employment and education and was granted Conditional Discharges. He has had other periods of time when his mental state decompensated requiring admissions to hospital and Detention Orders.
When unwell, Mr. Godfrey has a history of falling away from medication compliance and relapsing to substance use, resulting in aggressive and violent conduct. Over the years, this pattern has played out on a few occasions despite Mr. Godfrey having extensive staff supports in place. Historically, in the absence of the oversight of the forensic system, Mr. Godfrey has not maintained compliance with his prescribed medication. It is clear that Mr. Godfrey’s behaviours have the real potential to cause both significant physical and psychological harm to others.
The Board finds that the necessary and appropriate Disposition continues to be a Detention Order at CAMH which includes the privilege of community living. Dr. Simpson’s opinion is that supportive housing and medication adherence remain the cornerstones of his risk management when living in the community.
We agree that it is the structure and stability of his community housing that plays a critical role in ensuring Mr. Godfrey does not fall away from medication, and his mental state is regularly monitored to ensure that his residual symptoms of Schizophrenia are kept under control. The hospital must be in a position to approve his housing to ensure that it provides him with the requisite degree of support, supervision and structure to safely manage his risk profile. At this point in time, a Conditional Discharge is premature. Mr. Godfrey’s existing Detention Order remains necessary and appropriate to safely manage his risk to public safety. A Detention Order is required until a longer period of stability has been established in order to protect the public and ensure Mr. Godfrey’s stability in the community.
The Board also finds that the hospital also requires the ability to address any mental status deterioration and be able to expeditiously return Mr. Godfrey to the hospital for re-admission should he become unwell in the community. His risk would not be able to be adequately managed relying on the MHA alone.
For all of these reasons, the Board finds that the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances is that Mr. Godfrey continue on the same terms as are set out in his current Disposition.
In reaching our decision, this Board has taken into account the need to protect the public from dangerous persons, Mr. Godfrey’s mental condition, his reintegration into society and his other needs.
DATED this 15^th^ day of April, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. L. Banks
Alternate Chairperson
__________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board