Ontario Review Board
Re: Olyjah Brady
ORB File No: 7438
Hearing held on: Monday, March 9, 2026
Place of hearing: Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences 700 Gordon Street, Whitby
Pursuant to: Sections 672.81(1) and 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code;
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. P. Capelle Members: Dr. P. Prendergast Dr. S. Wiseman Hon. A. Sosna Mr. T. Wall
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Olyjah Brady Counsel: Mr. C. Hynes
The Person in charge of Hospital: Counsel: Dr. J. Pytyck
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. N. MacDonald (via Zoom)
REASONS FOR DECISION AND DISPOSITION
(Dated April 13, 2026)
Introduction
On October 22, 2018, Mr. Olyjah Brady was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of assault with a weapon, assault and mischief - not exceeding five thousand dollars, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (the "Criminal Code"). Mr. Brady is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the "Board") dated February 3, 2025, detaining him within the Forensic Program at Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (“hospital”), with privileges up to living in the community in 24 hour a day supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge.
On March 9, 2026, a panel of the Ontario Review Board (the "ORB" or the "Board") convened a hearing pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada. Mr. Brady was in attendance and was represented by his counsel, Mr. C. Hynes.
Without Prejudice Position of the Parties
Dr. Pytyck, on behalf of the hospital, advised that Mr. Brady continues to represent a significant threat and that a Detention Disposition with no changes was recommended. That position was supported by Ms. MacDonald, on behalf of the Attorney General, as well as by Mr. Hynes for Mr. Brady.
With regard to the Restriction of Liberties that began on February 16, 2026, Dr. Pytyck advised that the ongoing restriction was necessary and appropriate from its commencement and remains so. That position was supported by the Attorney General’s representative. Mr. Hynes stated that he did not take issue with the rationale for the start of the restriction but would have questions regarding its continuation.
Background and Index Offences
Mr. Brady is now 30 years of age. His background is outlined in the Hospital Report and therefore need not be repeated here. As he is incapable to consent to treatment his mother is his substitute decision maker.
Briefly, as a child, Mr. Brady was assessed at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) due to behavioural problems. Testing showed he had difficulty with reading and delayed visual processing. He was diagnosed with a reading disability and a learning disability affecting written expression.
Mr. Brady has reported a personal history of alcohol and cannabis use. He was living with his family prior to the index offences. His behaviour at home had become increasingly aggressive and threatening. He threatened suicide on several occasions, with one documented attempt. Hospital records show he was admitted to hospital multiple times between 2014 and 2018, including many admissions he agreed to voluntarily. In 2018, he was admitted involuntarily after acting violently toward his mother and refusing to take his prescribed medication.
After being found NCR Mr. Brady was first held at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care. In 2019, he began treatment with clozapine, an antipsychotic medication. Following this change, his cooperation with staff and his ability to follow direction improved noticeably. On July 31, 2020, he was transferred to the Ontario Shores Forensic Assessment Unit (FAU).
In November 2024, Mr. Brady was assaulted by another patient during a walk on the hospital’s grounds. Rather than removing himself from the situation, he later entered the other patient's room and assaulted him in return. Security and staff were required to intervene. As a result of this incident, Mr. Brady was transferred to the Forensic Rehabilitation Unit (FRU) on November 15, 2024.
The circumstances of the index offences, taken from last year’s Reasons for Disposition are as follows:
“August 1,2018 the accused attended the Emergency Department at Centenary Hospital for medical treatment. Victim #1 offered to take the accused’s vital signs to which the accused agreed. Victim #1 placed a sensor on the accused’s finger. The accused picked up the vitals computer monitor and threw it at Victim #1 (Charge #1) striking her right leg. The accused then threw several items off the top of a desk (Charge #3). As Victim #2 attempted to assist Victim #1 the accused pushed her (Charge #2). Police were called.
Upon arrival officers placed the accused under arrest and transported him to 43 Division. He was held for a bail hearing.”
Current Diagnoses
Schizophrenia
Other (or unknown) substance use disorder
Severe Antisocial Personality Disorder
Evidence at Hearing
Dr. Pytyck gave evidence on behalf of the Hospital. She was Mr. Brady’s treating psychiatrist from November 2025 until February 16, 2026, the start date of his Restriction of Liberties. It began at the time of his transfer from the FRU to the FTU. The transfer decision was made when cocaine was identified in Mr. Brady’s February 11th urine drug screen. Dr. Pytyck added that she had also treated Mr. Brady a number of years ago.
Even when optimally treated, Mr. Brady continues to experience residual symptoms of his Schizophrenia. When abstinent from substances, his symptoms are relatively manageable. However, when using substances, he decompensates rapidly, becomes aggressive and loses insight vis-à-vis the use of substances. This pattern was seen a few years ago when he had to be transferred from a general forensic unit to a secure forensic unit.
Dr. Pytyck opined that the ongoing restriction of liberties needs to continue to enable further monitoring of Mr. Brady in advance of him being returned to a general forensic unit. It is premature to move him at this time. If he remains abstinent from substances, participates in treatment (concurrent disorder groups), gains insight to his mental illness and takes responsibility for substance use, he should be able to return to a general forensic unit in six to eight months.
Mr. Brady is now engaged with an individual therapist as well as with group behavioural therapy. Dr. Pytyck opined that Mr. Brady appears to have treatment resistant schizophrenia.
Responding to questions from Mr. Hynes, Dr. Pytyck advised that Mr. Brady has largely returned to his baseline level of functioning. She added that there have been some recent incidents involving substance use followed by aggressive behaviour. Mr. Brady tested positive for substances on February 25, 2026, thereby raising concerns that he may have brought substances with him from the FRU. She agreed that in hindsight Mr. Brady was not ready to be transferred from the FRU as he used alcohol, benzodiazepines, and hydromorphone immediately thereafter. Reference was made to page 55 of the Hospital Report wherein positive urine screens in June of 2025 were reported for amphetamines.
According to Dr. Pytyck, following a period of abstinence, Mr. Brady gradually returns to his baseline level of functioning after a few weeks. She opined that with steady prolonged abstinence he will continue to improve. She agreed that with a period of prolonged abstinence Mr. Brady would gain greater control and insight. Mr. Brady has not experienced a recent period during which he was abstinent from substances for more than a few weeks.
Electro Convulsive Therapy was tried several months ago but caused Mr. Brady to become less inhibited and more aggressive. Therefore, clozapine will continue to be used as the principal pharmacological treatment agent.
Dr. Pytyck agreed with the suggestion from a panel member that her patient’s underlying desire to use substances is driven by psychosis which undermines his ability to remain substance free. Responding to questions from Mr. Hynes, Dr. Pytyck agreed that if Mr. Brady’s Schizophrenia were better controlled it would be easier to deal with his substance use issue.
Responding to another panelist’s question, Dr. Pytyck advised that a transfer to Waypoint may have to be considered at some point if Mr. Brady’s level of aggression becomes unmanageable as a result of continued incidents of substance use notwithstanding increased staff oversight. Dr. Pytyck added, that prior to 2024, when secure unit patients were allowed indirect access to hospital grounds, Mr. Brady was not provided with this privilege and therefore remained abstinent from substances for several months.
Mr. Brady gave evidence. He stated he used drugs in hospital because he was told he would not get high and would not experience delusions or paranoia. He added that he does not want to use cigarettes and does not intend to use drugs or marijuana.
Closing Observations
Dr. Pytyck submitted that on two occasions after being transferred to a general forensic unit, Mr. Brady decompensated and became aggressive. At this time, if returned to a general forensic unit he would quickly resume the use of substances as his thinking remains disorganized in this regard.
Ms. MacDonald submitted that Mr. Brady needs to augment his insight regarding substance use prior to returning to a general forensic unit.
Mr. Hynes submitted that his client’s ultimate goal is to move back to the community.
Analysis and Decision
(a) Restriction of Liberty
This Restriction began on February 16th when Mr. Brady was moved from the FRU to the FTU.
In the absence of substance use, Mr. Brady has gradually returned to his baseline and his mental state is expected to show continued improvement by way of increased insight regarding his illness, the need for abstinence from substances and treatment adherence.
Dr. Pytyck opined that the ongoing restriction of liberty needs to continue to enable further monitoring of Mr. Brady. It is premature to move him at this time. If he remains abstinent from substances, participates in treatment, gains further insight to his mental illness and takes responsibility for previous substance use, then he may be able to return to a general unit during the 2026-2027 clinical year.
The Board was attentive to Dr. Pytyck’s evidence that since Mr. Brady’s July 31st 2020 admission to Ontario Shores, regardless of unit security designation, he has not experienced a period of substance abstinence that exceeded a few weeks. Given the foregoing, the panel accepts that further monitoring and oversight is required prior to returning this patient to the FRU or to a general unit. While the Board understands that it remains necessary at this point to maintain Mr. Brady on the FTU, it is confident that that the hospital will only continue this unit designation until such time as, in the discretion of the person in charge, he can be safely transferred.
(b) Significant Threat
Ongoing significant threat to the safety of the public cannot be speculative. It must entail a real risk of serious physical or psychological harm arising from conduct that is both serious and criminal in nature.
In determining whether Mr. Brady continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public the Board carefully analyzed the evidence as it relates to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Winko, 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625.
The Board unanimously finds that Mr. Brady continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public. In arriving at this determination, the Board considered the joint position of the parties and accepted the uncontroverted evidence of Dr. Pytyck that Mr. Brady continues to pose a significant threat. The Board also relies on the Hospital Report, more specifically the particulars, set out in the first paragraph of the Summary section at page 63, reproduced below for ease of reference:
In the unanimous opinion of the treatment team, Mr. Brady remains a significant threat to the safety of the public. This risk flows from his treatment-resistant major mental disorder as well as his substance use disorder, which remains an active risk factor for Mr. Brady. Absent an ORB disposition, Mr. Brady would undoubtedly migrate away from medication and psychiatric monitoring, increase his substance use, and rapidly decompensate given his treatment-resistant illness. He would then present a high risk for impulsive interpersonal aggression against individuals around him, with a real risk of causing physical or psychological harm to others.
The Board therefore accepts that absent an ORB Disposition, Mr. Brady would likely become non-compliant with prescribed medications which would lead to decompensation, the use of substances and the re-emergence of behaviours similar to those seen at the time of the index offences. We are satisfied that absent an ORB Disposition, it is likely that Mr. Brady will cause serious physical or psychological harm to members of the public and such conduct will likely be criminal in nature.
(c) Disposition
Flowing from the Board’s finding that Mr. Brady continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public it must shape a Disposition for the year ahead. Its paramount consideration in doing so must be the safety of the public while also considering Mr. Brady’s needs pursuant to s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
The necessary and appropriate disposition for Mr. Brady provides him as much freedom as possible without subjecting the community to a real risk of dangerous behaviour. The highest privilege level of his February 3rd 2025 Disposition provides for community living in 24/7 supervised accommodation, approved by the person in charge. The Hospital’s recommendation was unchanged during the course of this hearing and was joined by the Attorney General’s Representative and uncontested by Mr. Brady’s counsel. Given the foregoing and in light of Mr. Brady’s ongoing Restriction of Liberty, which, according to Dr. Pytyck, is likely to continue for the majority of the upcoming clinical year, the panel has no hesitation in accepting that Mr. Brady’s Disposition should be renewed, absent any changes.
Conclusion
Therefore, the Board unanimously determines that the necessary and appropriate Disposition required to manage the threat Mr. Brady poses to the safety of the public while still meeting his needs, remains the current Detention Disposition. Further, that the Restriction of Liberty that began on February 16th 2026 continues to be warranted.
In making this Disposition, the Board carefully considered the positions and submissions of the parties and the evidence of Dr. Pytyck and is satisfied that these determinations are both necessary and appropriate. The Board reviewed the provisions of s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code and carefully considered the need to protect the public from dangerous persons, Mr. Brady’s mental condition, his reintegration into society and other needs.
DATED this 13th day of April 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. P. Capelle Alternate Chairperson Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board