Ontario Review Board
Re: Harvey D. George
ORB File No: 7947
Hearing held on: Tuesday, March 03, 2026
Place of hearing: Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care 401 Sunset Drive, St. Thomas, Ontario
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. T. Mann
Members: Mr. E. Siebenmorgen Dr. S. Lessard Dr. A. Kerry Ms. K. Brisson
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Harvey D. George Counsel: Ms. T. Brandon
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Zamprogna
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. J. Huber
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated April 13, 2026)
On September 22nd, 2021, Mr. George was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on the following charges: threatening death or bodily harm (x 4), causing a disturbance, possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, fail to comply with probation order (x 2), all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“the Criminal Code”). He is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“the Board” or “ORB”), dated March 24, 2025, detaining him at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health (“Southwest” or the “Hospital”), with privileges that include living in the community in supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge, and to attend and participate in a drug and alcohol rehabilitation program anywhere in Ontario, approved by the person in charge of the Hospital.
On March 03, 2026, the Board convened a hearing to conduct Mr. George’s annual review, pursuant to section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. George was present along with his counsel, Ms. T. Brandon.
Position of the Parties
- At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as to their respective, without prejudice recommendations to the Board. The Hospital and Attorney General were joined in their submission that Mr. George presented a significant threat, and that the necessary and appropriate disposition was a detention disposition with an increase in the area for indirectly supervised community access to include Middlesex County. Ms. Brandon, on behalf of Mr. George indicated that Mr. George had a number of questions and, despite efforts, she had not yet received instructions concerning the issues. Accordingly, the matter proceeded as a contested hearing.
Index Offences
- The following synopsis of the Index Offences is taken From the Board’s previous Reasons for Disposition as follows:
Fail To Comply with a Probation Order
On the afternoon of May 11th, 2021, while bound by a probation order, Mr. George attempted to force his way into two separate residences at Kettle Creek First Nation. In both cases the occupants were able to present [sic] his entry by holding the door. Police were called and Mr. George was located and observed to be in a manic state with no shirt on, sweating and stating that he was going to die and that he was already dead, was asking police if he was going to be alright. He then started calling police murderers and was trying to evade the interaction by walking away. Mr. George was apprehended under the Mental Health Act and taken to Sarnia Bluewater Health Centre for an assessment but released from hospital shortly thereafter into police custody.
Charges of threatening death x 4, causing a disturbance, carrying a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace and fail to comply with the probation order x 2
On May 16, 2021, Mr. George was seen walking near an apartment complex on the Kettle Point First Nation when he began yelling at four children aged 10 to 13. He pulled a large knife out of a bag he was carrying and started walking towards the children who ran away. A witness stated that Mr. George was carrying a large kitchen knife with an approximately 8 inch blade which he was waving around in a threatening manner while he screamed “I don't care if your kids” [sic], I'll kill all of you and your dog two [sic].”
Background
- The Hospital Report dated January 13, 2026, and Gladue Report dated March 07, 2025 provide a great deal of information concerning Mr. George’s personal and mental health history, details of the Index Offences, impact of colonialism upon himself and his family, as well as his course following his admission to hospital. Given that they were made exhibits (numbers 1 and 2 respectively) in this hearing, it is not necessary to reproduce in detail the information contained in them in these Reasons. Briefly, for context and to assist in understanding the basis for the panel’s findings, the following brief background summary is excerpted from last year’s Reasons for Disposition:
The Hospital Report also sets out Mr. George’s background information as a member of a First Nations, Inuit or Metis community. It indicates a troubled childhood consisting of loss of family members, abuse, extended periods of time in the care of Children's Aid Societies, moving from foster homes to group homes, limited employment history and difficulty with alcohol consumption. He has a lengthy criminal record that spans the course of twenty-five years and includes convictions for sexual assault, aggravated assault, assault peace officer, assault with a weapon, assault, assault causing bodily harm, break and enter, threatening, mischief, robbery with violence and numerous breaches of court orders. He has had multiple admissions to mental health hospitals starting in 2014 related to his addictions and major mental illnesses.
Mr. George’s current diagnoses are: Schizoaffective Disorder; Substance Use Disorder, in sustained remission in a controlled environment; Intellectual Disability; Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder; Antisocial Personality Traits (rule out Personality Disorder).
As noted on page 101 of the Hospital Report, Mr. George’s personal supports include his mother, brother and sister. He has a son with whom he does not have contact currently but would like to reconnect with him. At this juncture, Mr. George does not have any community-based mental health supports.
Evidence at the Hearing
The Board had available to it information contained in the record, the Hospital Report, and the Gladue Report. In addition to the documentary evidence, the Board also had the benefit of the oral evidence of Dr. D. Curry (PGY-5), a Senior Resident of Mr. George’s forensic psychiatrist, Dr. Quinn who was also present and available to provide additional evidence should any party or the panel so require. Dr. Curry confirmed he had been involved in Mr. George’s care, had reviewed the Hospital Report and as of the date of the hearing continued to endorse its findings and recommendations.
Dr. Curry advised that since the last annual review Mr. George has shown some improvements in areas of historical concern such as aggressive behavior and lashing out. His stress tolerance has improved. He has also engaged with a psychologist, Dr. Oliver, over the course of the reporting period. However, from a mental health standpoint, concerns have continued with respect to Mr. George’s anxiety symptoms, irritability and paranoid and delusional thought content, especially when stressed, in keeping with his longstanding illness.
There were also observations of impulsive behaviours on the part of Mr. George such as procuring nicotine patches and chewing on them. However, outside of nicotine patches, Dr. Curry was not aware of any other examples of substance use by Mr. George during the reporting period. Mr. George’s last positive urine drug screen was in January 2025. Mr. George also continued to attend a number of support programs for substance use, including Celebrate Recovery, Alcoholics Anonymous, and one-to-one counseling at Southwestern Ontario Aboriginal Health Access Centre (SOHAC).
As for passes and privileges, Mr. George exercised indirectly supervised passes in the community locally. These have gone without notable difficulty. To the best of Dr. Curry’s knowledge, Mr. George has not used any overnight passes. Mr. George enjoys going out for meals with his mother, who is a strong support.
Plans for future treatment include two programs, one of which includes peer support counseling geared toward general wellness from an Indigenous perspective (“Good Minds”) and the other promoting pro-social, violence-free interactions and relationships (“I am a Kind Man”). Both involve peer-led, trauma informed programming.
Efforts to optimize Mr. George’s medication will continue, as will encouraging his engagement in psychoeducation, with a view to helping him build further insight into his mental illness, his need for and the benefit of medication as well as the risks substance use pose to his mental and behavioural stability.
In terms of Mr. George’s current diagnoses, Dr. Curry indicated that Antisocial Personality Disorder has not been ruled out, as there is ongoing evidence of some antisocial traits and behaviours. Current treatment is outlined on pages 100 and 101 of the Hospital Report. Mr. George is treatment capable and, with support and supervision, he has been adherent to his medication regimen. He did have some side effects (twitching, extrapyramidal) which necessitated discontinuing one of his lower-dose antipsychotic medications; Dr. Curry indicated Mr. George tolerated the change well
An injectable medication for the treatment of diabetes has been added to Mr. George’s medication regimen, which can also assist to quell Mr. George’s desire for substances. Although Mr. George’s medication is not yet optimized, he is currently stable on the medications he is prescribed.
Dr. Curry said he did not think Mr. George would be able to maintain adherence to his medication in the absence of the appropriate degree of support and supervision, because of the twin obstacles of lack of insight into his need for them, and the cognitive challenges he experiences in terms of memory, planning and organization. Mr. George thinks that he does not need medication and he vacillates from time to time as to whether he has mental illness. This is one reason why the Hospital needs to be able to approve Mr. George’s accommodation, so as to ensure Mr. George receives the support he needs to remain adherent to his medication.
Dr. Curry reviewed the impact of Mr. George’s historical use of substances and confirmed that there is a connection between his past substance use, deteriorated mental state and negative behaviours. He noted that Mr. George’s past use of substances was, in a word, “detrimental” to Mr. George. In June/July of 2025, Mr. George attended Ngwaagan Gamig Recovery Centre (Rainbow Lodge) residential substance abuse treatment centre and did very well; he described it as a very positive experience. He has not been as keen on attending any other residential treatment programs but remains open to exploring this further. Dr. Curry noted Mr. George had an opportunity to use substances with a peer and was able to remove himself from the situation and maintained his abstinence which Dr. Curry felt was attributable to the impact of the program.
In terms of insight, Dr. Curry described Mr. George’s recognition of his risk of future violence and his current need for medication as limited overall. Mr. George’s cognitive function limits his ability to develop insight into these spheres; he does better when his insight is buttressed by behavioural supports. Fortunately, Mr. George is both amenable and engaged in recommended programs. The work he has been doing is focused on emotional dysregulation, boundary setting, and social interactions. It is very important that any psychotherapy take a trauma-informed approach and that such therapy be culturally appropriate.
Dr. Curry indicated that the treatment team has been working on assisting Mr. George to become more independent and also reinforcing his positive attributes. This has resulted in some modest improvement in his emotional awareness, apace with some of the medication changes that have been made.
Dr. Curry referenced the Risk Assessments regarding Mr. George provided on pages 82-86 of the Hospital Report and confirmed Mr. George remains a moderate risk of violent re-offending if he remains on a detention Disposition while living in a secure setting such as the Hospital or a community environment with a high level of support and supervision. In the context of a conditional discharge, Mr. George’s risk would rise to a high level.
Dr. Curry advised that Mr. George’s re-offence scenario is tethered to a lack of oversight and inability to monitor his engagement and stress levels. Mr. George’s maladaptive coping mechanisms would likely arise through substance use leading to active symptoms of psychosis and cognitive, affective and behavioural instability. Dr. Curry said Mr. George’s mental stability deteriorates very quickly, in a matter of “hours to days”.
Dr. Curry felt that Mr. George being discharged to the community over the upcoming review period is a distinct possibility.
In answer to questions from the Crown, Dr. Curry noted Mr. George’s risk of deterioration can occur quickly due to a combination of his cognitive features, underlying symptoms and tendency to be easily influenced by antisocial peers. A detention order allows for forensic oversight to avoid a “snowballing” of Mr. George’s symptoms and behaviours. This proactive intervention is not available under the Mental Health Act.
In answer to questions from Mr. George’s counsel, Dr. Curry agreed that some of the medications that Mr. George is taking cause drowsiness and may be impacting his ability to engage as completely as would be hoped. Counsel also explored with the doctor some of the aspects of Mr. George’s journey as a First Nations person and the additional perspectives that inform an assessment of his behaviours, including but not limited to the important role tobacco plays in the spiritual practices of First Nation peoples historically and currently. Dr. Curry acknowledged that Mr. George’s desire to smoke may be contributing to the difficulties experienced by the clinical team in locating suitable community housing for Mr. George as group homes are typically non-smoking. This being said, both group homes would likely allow him to have regular access to the outdoors (backyard, for example) to smoke.
Dr. Quinn gave evidence and advised that in terms of next steps, the treatment team is actively searching for an appropriate residence for Mr. George. There are four components the treatment team believes are essential for Mr. George to succeed in the community – and that would be protective of the safety of the public:
a) a level of supervision around medications to maintain adherence; substance use, affiliation with antisocial peers;
b) relapse prevention support and support to discourage affiliation with antisocial peers;
c) support with his activities of daily living, including attending his numerous Indigenous programs in the city, and
d) that he has an independent apartment as much as possible due to his trauma history, as Mr. George struggles with other men in his personal space.
There are very few group homes that have individual rooms. At this time, there are two main options – a residence in Strathroy and one in London. Mr. George will require a high level of support from a functional standpoint. He is on the wait list for both.
In their questions, Board members explored whether the current terms of the existing Disposition needed to be altered given it already contained a term granting Mr. George the privilege of living in the community in Southwestern Ontario, in accommodation approved by the person in charge of the Hospital.1
At the conclusion of the evidence, the parties were invited to make submissions. The Hospital and Crown remained joined, and each maintained their initial positions. Ms. Brandon joined with the Hospital and the Crown and made submissions on behalf of Mr. George confirming that his goal was to move out of the Hospital while recognizing that this may continue to take some time.
Analysis and Conclusions
For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that Mr. George poses a significant threat to the safety of the public as that test is defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code, and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is that he be detained on the terms and conditions proposed by the Hospital.
The analysis that this Board is required to undertake in coming to its determination is set out in 672.54 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46. As was stated in Sheikh (Re), 2019 ONCA 692, at para 34, an NCR accused is entitled to his [her] liberty absent a reasonable finding that he [she] constitutes a significant threat to the safety of the public: Wall (Re), 2017 ONCA 713, 417 D.L.R. 4th 124. A significant threat is defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code as "a risk of serious physical or psychological harm to members of the public...resulting from conduct that is criminal in nature but not necessarily violent." There must be a risk that the NCR accused will commit a serious criminal offence, and a miniscule risk of grave harm is not sufficient: R. v. Winko, 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625, at paras 57 and 69. The significant threat must be more than speculative and supported by evidence: Winko, at para 57. That is, there must be both a likelihood of a risk materializing and the likelihood that serious harm will occur: Re Carrick, 2015 ONCA 866, 128 O.R. (d) 209, at para 16.
The inquiry of s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code is a broad one, and must take into account the constellation of factors elucidated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Winko including the circumstances of the original offence, the past and expected course of treatment if any, including but not limited to the present state of the NCR accused's medical condition, plans for the future, the support services existing in the community and, perhaps most importantly, the recommendations of experts who have examined the NCR accused (at para 61).
Mr. George has had a relatively positive year but having heard and considered all of the evidence and submissions of the parties, the Board has no difficulty coming to an independent conclusion that Mr. George’s current constellation of symptoms and behaviours supports a finding that he poses a significant threat.
The Board accepts, in their entirety, the clinical and structured risk assessments and re-offence scenario set out at pp 82-86 of the Hospital Report, as well as the uncontroverted expert evidence of Drs. Curry and Quinn, who have examined Mr. George.
Mr. George’s risk is best understood as multifactorial. His diagnoses of Schizoaffective Disorder, ADHD and Substance Use Disorder, among others, which make him highly vulnerable to acting out in serious, criminal and violent ways, particularly during periods of mental decompensation, substance use or insufficient treatment and follow-up. His criminal record speaks eloquently to this, as do the facts underpinning the Index Offences.
To his great credit, Mr. George had has been cooperative with his treatment team and, with support, adherent to his medication regimen. He likes to keep busy and has participated in many rehabilitative programs. However, Dr. Curry confirmed in his evidence that Mr. George continues to haved limited insight into his mental illness, enduring need for medication and abstinence from psychoactive substances, as well as the role each of these issues played in driving the behaviour that ultimately led to the Index Offences. Further, both the Hospital Report and other information confirm that while Mr. George has family supports, he is lacking community mental health supports and this as well as the availability of structured housing remain outstanding issues for him.
In turning to fashioning a Disposition, the Board finds that in the absence of a high degree of structure, and monitoring, medication supervision and a positive therapeutic alliance, Mr. George would be at risk to discontinue taking medication, partake in use of substances, become increasingly mentally disordered and return to the state of mind that engendered the Index Offences. Based on the evidence, a Conditional Discharge at this time does not have an air of reality. Mr. George continues to be in need of treatment and care to manage his complex mental health needs, of the sort that can only be provided within a highly structured and secure forensic setting, pursuant to a detention Disposition.
The Board accepts the passes and privileges proposed by the Hospital, including the addition of Middlsex County to that of Elgin County as places Mr. Geroge may, in the discretion of the person in charge, enter indirenctly supervised. Doing so will facilitate Mr. George’s transition from the structured and secure setting of the forensic treatment unit to the community, help him develop tolerance for spending time in less structured settings and improve his capacity to cope with stress.
The panel notes, as well, that several of the supports available to Mr. George are located within the city of London and being able to access Middlesex County indirectly supervised will enhance his ability to independently attend programs there. This, in turn, will allow the clinical team to continue to assess his ability to remain abstinent from substances and away from negative peer influence. A term of Mr. George’s Disposition explicity setting out the privilege of indirectly supervised access to Middlesex county will provide clarity to third-party service providers such as group home staff when Mr. George is able to be transitioned to the community.
To this the panel adds that in discharging its inquisitorial mandate, the Board is required to pay particular attention to the unique circumstances of Indigenous persons detained in psychiatric facilities. Jurisprudence recognizes that as a consequence of Canada’s colonial history and assimilationist policies, many Indigenous persons have become disconnected from their ancestral communities, culture and associated positive social structures, and suffered many other harms.
Mr. George is an Indigenous person. His path to healing and rehabilitation requires continued support from healers and others who themselves understand, through lived experience and otherwise, the significance of intergenerational exposure to trauma and the ways in which colonial policies have impacted Mr. George and his family. The Board is pleased to see that the clinical team has taken this to heart in formulating a treatment plan that reflects and supports Mr. George’s Indigeneity.
The panel thanks Mr. George’s counsel for forwarding a copy of the Gladue Report to the Board. This information enhanced the Board’s ability to properly carry out its duty to seek, gather and review all relevant evidence affecting consideration of the factors set out in s. 672.54. It would be helpful if the Gladue Report could form part of the Hospital Report so that the information within it is available to all participants well in advance of Mr. George’s next annual review, and any others going forward. This will greatly assist the Board in its efforts to determine the necessary and appropriate, least onerous and least restrictive disposition.
The Board wishes Mr. George well in his healing journey over the coming year.
In coming to this determination, the Board has considered the criteria set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, the paramount consideration being the safety of the public, the mental condition of Mr. George, his reintegration into society and his other needs.
DATED this 13th day of April 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. T. Mann
Alternate Chair
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board