Re Tjerk Oosterhof, 2026 CanLII 34226

Re: Tjerk Oosterhof

ORB File No: 6726

Hearing held on: Friday, March 27, 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: Tjerk Oosterhof (via Zoom videoconference)

Counsel: Ms. M. Addie (via Zoom videoconference)

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

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. Engineer

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated April 15, 2026)

Introduction:

1. On March 30, 2015, Mr. Tjerk Oosterhof was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on charges of theft exceeding five thousand dollars, mischief - not exceeding five thousand dollars, utter a threat to cause death or bodily harm, use imitation firearm while committing an indictable offence, and assault with a weapon, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”).

2. Mr. Oosterhof is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB” or the “Board”) dated January 23, 2025, detaining him at the Forensic Service of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto (“CAMH or the “hospital”). That Disposition provided him with a variety of discretionary privileges up to and including to live in the community in 24 hour a day supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge (“PIC”) of the hospital.

3. On March 27, 2026, the Board convened at CAMH to conduct an annual review of Mr. Oosterhof’s Disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Oosterhof attended the hearing by Zoom videoconference from his residence at Baycrest Centre. He was represented by his counsel, Ms. Addie, who also attended the hearing by Zoom videoconference.

4. The issues to be considered at this hearing are whether Mr. Oosterhof 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.

5. For the reasons set out below, the Board finds that Mr. Oosterhof no longer poses a significant threat to the safety of the public and that accordingly, he must be absolutely discharged.

Index Offences:

6. The circumstances giving rise to the index offences are set forth in the Hospital Report to the ORB dated March 1, 2026 (the “Hospital Report”), and are summarized in last year’s ORB Reasons, as follows:

“Mr. Oosterhof was arrested under the Mental Health Act on May 10, 2013, for throwing beer bottles from his balcony. He had a caregiver until about five weeks prior, after which his behaviour worsened. He was arrested again on May 11, 2013, for possessing a concealed knife and attempting to incite a co-accused to stab a victim. The victim reported multiple incidents of harassment, including Mr. Oosterhof drinking antifreeze from the victim’s car trunk and damaging his vehicle's tires. On May 11, Mr. Oosterhof encouraged a co-accused to kill the victim, who threatened the victim with a handgun and scissors. Both were arrested by police shortly after.”

Positions of the Parties:

7. At the commencement of the hearing, all parties were canvassed as to their initial recommendations. The hospital’s representative asserted that Mr. Oosterhof no longer meets the threshold for significant threat to the safety of the public, and that accordingly he must be granted an Absolute Discharge.

8. Both counsel for the Attorney General and counsel for Mr. Oosterhof advised that they supported the hospital’s recommendation for an Absolute Discharge.

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

Personal Background:

10. Mr. Oosterhof’s background and history are set out in detail in the Hospital Report. These Reasons have also relied on the Board’s Reasons for Disposition dated February 18, 2025. Briefly summarized, Mr. Oosterhof is an 82-year-old single man who was born in Holland.

11. He reported that he had earned a Bachelor of Science degree while living there. He expressed that he enjoyed his educational experience and did not encounter any behavioural problems, describing himself as an average student. After relocating to Canada, he entered the construction industry, as his educational qualifications were not recognized. He worked in construction for two decades before beginning to receive social assistance, coinciding with the onset of his depression. By March 2004, he reported being on long-term disability due to alcohol dependence.

12. Mr. Oosterhof has a significant history of alcohol abuse, which began in 1997 following his mother's death. He experienced a short period of sobriety in 2003 while undergoing addiction treatment. However, during a 2004 assessment at CAMH, it was revealed that he had spent $40,000 from an inheritance on alcohol in the prior year, in addition to selling his sailboat to finance his addiction. Additionally, he reported that his excessive drinking led to the loss of all his friends.

13. In terms of his relationship history, it is unclear, as he has alternately stated that he has never been married and has no children, as well as claiming to have been married and to have fathered two sets of twins, whom he reported to have last seen in 1977.

14. He has maintained occasional contact with his sister, who lives in Holland, and during 2021, his nephew sent him photographs of family members. Beyond these limited interactions, he has not had regular communication with any other relatives.

Legal History:

15. Canadian Police Information Centre database revealed that Mr. Oosterhof has a significant criminal history, with various offences recorded since 1973. He accumulated around 20 convictions from 1973 to 2005. These offences ranged from driving under the influence, weapon possession, assault and sexual assault, among others. His most recent conviction before the index offences was for mischief under $5000 in 2005. Notably, there were no recorded criminal activities between 2005 and his arrest in 2013.

Psychiatric History:

16. Mr. Oosterhof first sought psychiatric treatment in 2004 at CAMH during a fitness assessment, when he was diagnosed with alcohol abuse and dependence disorder, and the presence of antisocial personality traits.

17. After committing the index offences, he was admitted to CAMH and was deemed unfit to stand trial for the following two years. Records indicate that he spent significant periods in seclusion due to threatening and aggressive behaviour and was uncooperative regarding his personal and mental health history, denying any mental illness and refusing to comply with antipsychotic medication.

18. Following the NCR verdict in March 2015, Mr. Oosterhof was detained on the Forensic Assessment and Triage Unit (“FATU”) at the hospital until he was transferred to LSUB on December 9, 2015.

19. Mr. Oosterhof was discharged to Fairview Nursing home on February 18, 2018. On June 4, 2018, he was re-admitted to CAMH and placed on FATU. On December 6, 2018, he was transferred back to LSUB, and he remained there until his discharge to the Baycrest Centre in Toronto on February 1, 2023. He resided there until he was re-admitted to hospital on August 18, 2023. He stayed in hospital until his discharge back to the Baycrest Centre on October 16, 2023. He currently resides in the high intensity behavioural unit at the Baycrest Centre.

Current Diagnosis:

20. Mr. Oosterhof is diagnosed with:

Schizophrenia;

Major Neurocognitive Disorder due to Multiple Etiologies;

Alcohol use disorder, in remission in a controlled environment; and

Antisocial personality traits.

Evidence at the Hearing:

21. The evidence at this hearing consisted of the Hospital Report to the ORB as well as the viva voce evidence of Dr. M. Pearce who is Mr. Oosterhof’s out-patient psychiatrist. Dr. Pearce endorsed the accuracy of the Hospital Report.

22. Dr. Pearce advised that Mr. Oosterhof continues to be assessed as incapable to consent to psychiatric treatment and he is not capable of managing his finances independently. His substitute decision maker for both treatment and financial decisions is the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee. He is financially assisted by the Ontario Disability Support Program. He is treated with Clozapine and Abilify, which is often concealed in his food.

23. Despite treatment with his prescribed medication, Mr. Oosterhof remains delusional. His thought form is disorganized and grandiose delusions remain evident, if probed for. Mr. Oosterhof denied any thoughts of self-harm, suicidal ideation, or violent ideation. Staff at Baycrest Centre have observed that he responds to internal stimuli at times. His level of cognition is impaired consistent with his diagnosis of severe neurocognitive disorder.

24. Mr. Oosterhof has no insight into his mental illness or need for treatment.

25. On January 10, 2025, Mr. Oosterhof was discharged from the North York General Hospital (“NYGH”), following an admission precipitated by an acute kidney injury and bacteremia. He was admitted to a locked unit at NYGH’s Reactivation Care Centre while awaiting a long-term care placement. On February 10, 2025, Mr. Oosterhof was readmitted to Baycrest’s Behavioural Support Unit.

26. There have been no notable incidents of concern over the past reporting year. Medications are administered by staff and are sometimes concealed in his food. Mr. Oosterhof is seen monthly in-person by a member of his CAMH out-patient team. Mr. Oosterhoff requires assistance with all his ADLs and his IADLs.

27. In terms of his mental state, Mr. Oosterhof remains quite delusional and often states his belief that he is a physician, that he invented the card game Crazy Eights, and that he has written a book in Latin. Despite ongoing psychotic symptoms, Dr. Pearce advised that Mr. Oosterhoff is more behaviourally settled now. The doctor noted that since the introduction of Clozapine several years ago, there has been a marked reduction in incidence of verbal and physical aggression.

28. Dr. Pearce advised that Mr. Oosterhof is on a waitlist to move to a nearly identical secure unit in Baycrest Centre, with just one less Personal Support Worker (“PSW”) and behavioural supports available on an as needed basis. He can remain on his current unit, until he is moved. The Baycrest team is fully prepared and are capable of supporting his transition when it occurs. Dr. Pearce advised that at Baycrest, Mr. Oosterhof has a multidisciplinary treatment team that includes a geriatric psychiatrist, a medical doctor, nursing, and PSW support as well as a social worker.

29. Mr. Oosterhof is relatively isolative, but he does spend time with a peer. He attends concerts at his residence and participates in arts and crafts. He plays card games with visitors or staff. He listens to music in his room.

30. Dr. Pearce advised that Mr. Oosterhoff is on a locked unit at Baycrest and that at the present time, he does not pose a risk of serious, physical, or psychological harm to members of the public. Of note, the Risk Assessment included in the Hospital Report indicates that “Overall, based on the SAPROF and the HCR-20 V3 scoring, Mr. Oosterhof’s risk is judged to be in the low range for violent re-offence, even with an absolute discharge.”

31. No further evidence was called.

Analysis and Conclusion:

32. Having heard and considered all of the evidence and the submissions of the parties, the Board agrees that Mr. Oosterhof no longer poses a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined by the Supreme Court of Canada in Winko. Mr. Oosterhof suffers from a major mental illness, Schizophrenia. He also has diagnoses of Major Neurocognitive Disorder, Alcohol Use Disorder, in sustained remission in a controlled environment and antisocial personality traits.

33. In coming to this conclusion, we have relied upon the documentary evidence and the expert testimony of Dr. Pearce, particularly regarding Ms. Oosterhof’s course over the past several reporting years. As well, the panel carefully considered the decision of the Supreme Court in Winko v. British Columbia. In that case, the Court identified a significant risk as a "real risk of physical or psychological harm to members of the public that is serious in the sense of going beyond the merely trivial or annoying. The conduct giving rise to the harm must be criminal in nature". There must be a positive finding by the Board of a significant risk to the safety of the public to engage the provisions of the Criminal Code and to support restrictions on an NCR accused’s liberty. Something else, for example, uncertainty, cannot suffice. If the Board cannot resolve the question of whether or not the NCR accused constitutes a significant threat to public safety, it must grant the accused an Absolute Discharge.

34. In Winko, the Supreme Court also outlined that in coming to a 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 and 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.

35. The Hospital Report indicates that, “While various historical clinical risk factors are present, with placement in long-term care and medication he has fared exceptionally well. He has not been violent or aggressive in years, and is cooperative with staff at Baycrest. The disposition no longer serves any real purpose, given the severity of his major neurocognitive disorder, and he will remain in long-term care for the foreseeable future. He will continue to be monitored very closely, and his multidisciplinary long-term care team has ready access to a psychiatrist, if needed, to adjust his medication. If he deteriorates, he would be returned to the CAMH and re-admitted to a geriatric unit. With clozapine, however, that appears unlikely.” This panel finds much merit in that assessment.

36. Given Mr. Oosterhof’s placement within high intensity behavioural unit at the Baycrest Centre, it is not necessary to connect Mr. Oosterhof with a civil treatment team as all of his needs are addressed at Baycrest Centre. Dr. Pearce expressed his confidence that Mr. Oosterhof’s risk will be sufficiently mitigated by the intensive professional supports he receives at Baycrest Centre and his placement within that structured environment. Given these protective factors, the Board concurs with the recommendation of the treatment team and agrees that Mr. Oosterhof’s risk can be sufficiently managed in the community absent an order of the ORB.

37. In view of the foregoing, this Board finds that Mr. Oosterhof no longer meets the threshold of significant risk to the safety of the public and we order that he be absolutely discharged.

38. 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, the mental condition of Mr. Oosterhof, his reintegration into society and his other needs.

DATED this 15th 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