Ontario Review Board
Re: Peter Bennett
ORB File No: 8018
Hearing held on: Tuesday, February 10, 2026
Place of Hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. D. Sandor
Members: Dr. S. Lessard
Dr. R. Cormier
Ms. M. Labrosse
Ms. B. Naegele
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Peter Bennett
Counsel: Mr. M. Davies
Person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. A. Alabi
Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. M. Dufort
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated March 17, 2026)
Introduction
On January 2, 2022, Peter Bennett, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on a charge of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. Mr. Bennett is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated January 7th, 2025, detaining him at the Secure Forensic Unit of the Ottawa Mental Health Centre, with privileges up to and including that of living in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge of the Hospital. That detention disposition also subjects Mr. Bennett to certain conditions, including that of abstaining from the non-medical use of alcohol or drugs or any other intoxicant and that of submitting samples for the purpose of monitoring his compliance with the abstention condition.
On February 10th, 2026, a panel of the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre (hereinafter referred to as “the Hospital”) to conduct an annual review of that disposition. Mr. Bennett attended his hearing and was represented by his lawyer, Mr. Michael Davies. Dr. A. Alabi, Mr. Bennett’s treating psychiatrist, who represented the Hospital at the hearing, also attended the hearing. The Attorney-General was represented by Ms. M. Dufort.
The record for the hearing consisted of several documents, including the Revised Notice of Hearing, the most recent Disposition mentioned, and the Reasons for that Disposition. On the consent of all parties, a Hospital Report dated January 12th, 2026, was admitted into evidence as an exhibit.
The parties were canvassed for their positions at the outset of the hearing. Dr Alabi, speaking for the Hospital, took the position that Mr. Bennett 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 further 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. Dr. Alabi further took the position that a continuation of the reigning detention disposition was necessary and appropriate having regard to the factors set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
The representative of the Attorney-General agreed with the Hospital on all issues.
Counsel for Mr. Bennett conceded the threshold issue of significant threat but disagreed with the Hospital and Attorney-General on the issue of disposition, suggesting that a conditional discharge would both satisfy the section 672.54 objectives, the primary of which is the assurance of public safety, and represent the least intrusive option available to manage Mr. Bennett’s risk.
For the following reasons, the Board agrees that Mr. Bennett continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board agrees with Mr. Davies that, while conditions that ensure careful monitoring and provide assurance that Mr. Bennett will attend at the Hospital for assessment as requested by the person in charge are necessary to manage his risk to the public, this can be done at this stage under the auspices of a conditional discharge. The Board arrives at this conclusion having regard to Mr. Bennett’s lack of active symptoms, his relative stability, his general course of abstention from the use of cannabis over this reporting period, and his level of treatment compliance, particularly over the course of this past review period.
Evidence at the Hearing
The evidence at the hearing consisted of the Hospital Report mentioned above and the live testimony offered by Dr. Alabi.
Turning first to the Hospital Report, it is cumulative in nature and includes a summary of the index offence as also described in the most recent Reasons for Disposition.
On Thursday, July 2nd, 2020, 1939 hrs, Police were sent to the area of Jockvale Road/Exeter Drive in Ottawa, for a driving complaint about a Hyundai Accent, Ontario license plate: CKNK579 going through stop signs, speeding, passing vehicles, and doing laps at the round-about in a residential zone. During this time, there was vehicle traffic on the road and pedestrians on the sidewalks.
The witness, Mr. Michael Perseo, was following the vehicle and witnessed the vehicle go through multiple stops at high rates of speed, passing multiple vehicles on residential streets, driving on the wrong side of the road, and spinning the vehicle 180 degrees on a residential street after reversing at a high rate of speed. Mr. Perseo witnessed the accused getting out of the vehicle and engaging in conversation with other people before continuing his erratic driving behaviour.
Another witness, Mr. Kevin Charron, born 1962/11/02, saw the vehicle drive down Weybridge Drive, a residential street and marked 40 km/h zone, at a high rate of speed. Mr. Charron witnessed the accused get out of the vehicle to engage in conversation with people before getting back in the vehicle to reverse the vehicle at a high rate of speed and did a 180-degree spin, running over the curb, then continued to go forward at a high rate of speed, swerving around another vehicle.
Another witness, Mr. Kyle Morris, saw the vehicle and described the driving behavior as "dangerous", driving in the wrong lane of traffic and going through a stop sign on Larkin Drive.
The accused was located the next morning after putting his vehicle into the ditch on Merivale Road. The accused remembered that he was driving around Barrhaven the previous day but didn't remember how he got into the ditch. The accused was brought to the hospital to be assessed medically and was issued an Appearance Notice for Dangerous Operation of a Motor Vehicle Section 320.13(1) CCC to attend court at 161 Elgin Street on August 10th, 2020, at 0830 hours in court room 5.]"
Additional information was gathered from police documentation. Mr. Stefan Kubiseski. Ottawa Police Services (OPS) officer wrote in his statement on July 3rd that he interviewed Mr. Bennett at 6:22 a.m. at the scene of his vehicle in the ditch. Mr. Bennett said he had not slept for two days and was just driving around. He stated he did not remember how he drove his vehicle into the ditch and that someone must have pushed him into the ditch. He said he had taken prescribed lithium the night before. Mr. Kubiseski noted that he was showing signs of exhaustion but that he spoke clearly, with no signs of alcohol or drug impairment. He kept falling asleep during the interview. He later said that he remembered driving around Barrhaven to find his kids, since they lived around here.
Mason Gordon, OPS officer, documented on July 25, 2020, that he had ran police queries on Mr. Bennett's vehicle which indicated an incident of him operating his vehicle in a similarly dangerous manner, and in the same neighbourhood, in the past. It was noted that he continued to drive recklessly through intersections and would not pull over when police approached with emergency lights activated. Police had to perform a tandem stop around the vehicle to compel him to pull his car over, after when they apprehended him under the mental health act. Mr. Gordon noted that when he approached to arrest and charged Mr. Bennett on the morning of July 3rd, he was observed pacing near the fence line at the scene of his vehicle, and he ran away from police after they made clear demands to stop. He attempted to fight the officers when they caught up with him.”
The Hospital Report sets out significant personal historic details associated with Mr. Bennett’s family history, education and employment history and his history of struggles with his major mental illness – “Bipolar I Disorder, recent episode manic with psychotic features”. Mr. Bennett has a limited, albeit related criminal record. In 2014 he was convicted of dangerously operating a motor vehicle and received a suspended sentence followed by a 12-month period of probation and an 18-month driving prohibition. Mr. Bennett has advised that when this charge occurred, he was off his medication and experiencing an acute manic episode. Last year’s Reasons for Disposition note, accurately, that Mr. Bennett has in fact had three previous dangerous driving convictions. He has indicated in the past that these incidents functioned as a wake-up call for him to take his prescribed medications. He nonetheless has historically struggled with medication compliance.
This was a continued source of concern at the last hearing where the Board accepted evidence that Mr. Bennett had independently modified dosages of his medications and continued to test positive for cannabis. Both the Reasons for Disposition coming from that last hearing and the Hospital Report filed as an exhibit in this hearing noted that Mr. Bennett had nonetheless been psychiatrically stable and driving for what is now a period of four years without issue. Last year’s Reasons for Disposition note the following:
Mr. Bennett showed increased engagement with the treatment team over the course of the last review period.
He continued to test positive for cannabis on a regular basis.
He showed reluctance in attending scheduled appointments and began expressing suspicious thoughts surrounding his psychiatrist and prescribed medications.
Mr. Bennett was at times argumentative, loud and agitated towards staff. His hygiene lapsed to a point of stark contrast from his usual presentation.
He was hospitalized from July 30 to August 2, 2024, as a result of observed mental illness that he attributed to lack of sleep and stressors associated with family and employment.
He experienced further involuntary admission from August 14 to 23, 2024 as he presented with paranoia incorporating an ex-partner in whose home he started a fire. He discharged himself against medical advice on August 23, 2024.
He was, at the time of the last hearing, transitioning to a long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication and was residing at the Kimberlane residence, which offered 24-hour supervision and was proximate to the Hospital. He aspired to ceasing the use of cannabis but doubted his ability to do so.
Mr. Bennett was seen displaying further manic symptoms, pacing, talking about “evil spirits” that he could see in people and lighting a fire on a coffee table.
As a result, last year’s panel of the Ontario Review Board ordered that he be placed on a detention disposition. They did so with “cautious optimism” that Mr. Bennett’s commitment to taking a long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication and his desire to abstain from the use of cannabis would cause his insight and stability to increase leading up to this hearing.
The Hospital Report’s update for the purposes of this hearing begins at page 45. It explains that, over the course of this reporting period, Mr. Bennett attended the Hospital as required and participated in neurocognitive psychological assessments as recommended. While he presented as cautious and guarded, he did discuss difficulties sleeping and his use of cannabis to help him relax and reduce situational anxieties he was feeling.
That being said, there was only one occasion when Mr. Bennett’s urine drug screens showed cannabis use beyond their analytical cut-off point. This was in October 2025, and was met by denials of cannabis use from Mr. Bennett. Even so, the Hospital Report indicates that, at that time and in the months following, Mr. Bennett presented as guarded with paranoia but there has been no frank relapse of symptoms associated with his underlying bipolar disorder. His attendance and engagement with group programming is described as “excellent.” While his neuropsychological assessment showed low results in the fields of working memory, processing speed, and low scores in attention and executive functioning, he showed no indication of problems related to impulsivity or difficulty with sustained attention. He does not have a problem maintaining vigilance at varying levels of stimulus frequency. In summarizing the results of this assessment, the Hospital Report says:
The results indicate a global intellectual ability that is presently within Borderline range. His abilities are particularly poor in working memory and auditory attention. In addition, his functioning is lower in regard to speed of information processing and abstraction/ conceptualization. On memory tests, Mr. Bennett demonstrates adequate verbal learning capacity and, intact recall of contextual verbal information when it is presented to him twice. The fact that he does not remember a significant amount of information the first time it is presented seems to be associated with poor auditory attention and slow processing. As such, when one speaks to him, one needs to confirm that he has understood the information shared, ask him to say it again in his own words and one must repeat when necessary. Immediate recall of complex visuospatial information is Borderline level, but delayed recall is Low Average level, indicating that his memory of this information does not decay over time. Also, recognition memory for this visuospatial information is intact. As for executive functions, organization and planning are intact for a visuoconstructive task as well as for a problem-solving task. Nonverbal and verbal conceptual ability is lower than expected. He shows a decrease in mental flexibility on some but not all of the tests. His semantic word fluency is impaired. This is worrisome as it could be an early marker of cognitive decline and should be monitored. It could be reassessed to see if it was insufficient on this one occasion or if he is really impaired on the function. In addition, he shows sensitivity to retroactive interference during the learning process. He also demonstrates inattentiveness on a visual attention test, indicating difficulty with attention, though sustained attention is not problematic.
The Hospital Report recommends that Mr. Bennett be reassessed in a few years or sooner if decline in functioning is observed.
Violence Risk Assessment
The Hospital Report includes a Violence Risk Assessment employing the HCR-20(V3), an empirically validated tool whose use and sufficiency were not questioned over the course of this hearing. It concluded that Mr. Bennett does not present with any current risk factors. He does not appear to have recent problems with insight, violent ideation or intent, symptoms of major mental disorder, instability or problems with treatment or supervision response. His future risk of violence, such as dangerous driving or fire setting, is assessed as being “mild to moderate.”
In his evidence to the panel, Dr. Alabi indicated that it has “been a pleasure” working with Mr. Bennett over the course of the last reporting period. He confirmed that Mr. Bennett does not have any active symptoms of major mental illness. While Dr. Alabi testified that Mr. Bennett does show borderline functioning cognitively, he did not draw a connection between Mr. Bennett’s cognitive deficits and risk of the kind noted at the time of the commission of the index offence or as mentioned by in the previous Reasons for Disposition. Dr. Alabi testified that Mr. Bennett had been treatment compliant with his long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication and had not displayed any form of mania. He is stable, engaging well, but has been guarded, particularly around his use of cannabis. Dr. Alabi noted this as a concern, not because there was any indication of deterioration as a result of the low-level cannabis use detailed in the Hospital Report and in Dr. Alabi’s evidence, but because cannabis use plus noncompliance with treatment had given rise to the mania that informed the index offence and last year’s detention disposition.
Dr. Alabi explained that Mr. Bennett has been tested regularly for cannabis and, though he had indicated a preference to use some cannabis to help him relax at night, he only tested positive for the substance once over the course of this reporting period. Dr. Alabi explained that Mr. Bennett remains engaged in groups and has insight into his need for treatment for concurrent disorders. His medications are optimized. Both his injectable and oral medications are assiduously received by Mr. Bennett.
Dr. Alabi clarified that Mr. Bennett’s current diagnosis is:
Bipolar disorder
Cannabis use disorder
Borderline intellectual disability.
Mr. Bennett is not showing any acute symptoms of mental illness.
Dr. Alabi addressed Mr. Bennett’s desire to operate a motor vehicle. In his view, this was an issue to be left with the Ministry of Transportation. He explained that, but for the one positive cannabis test, the Hospital would have supported Mr. Bennett’s application to the MTO to reinstate his driver’s license. As a result of the positive urine screening, the Ministry will not grant Mr. Bennett his license at this time. Further periods of abstinence will be required if Mr. Bennett is to get his driving privileges back, independent of any provision imposed by this panel.
Dr. Alabi testified that there Mr. Bennett risks decompensation should he cease to comply with treatment and engage in the use of cannabis or alcohol. The rate of decompensation is difficult to predict, particularly if taking place in a context of either treatment noncompliance or use of cannabis. Past periods of rapid decompensation occurred when Mr. Bennett was sub-optimally treated and also using cannabis.
Dr Alabi was asked whether Mr. Bennett’s level of insight and therapeutic alliance would cause him to report to the Hospital voluntarily and engage in an assessment as needed should any indicators of decompensation be noted. Dr. Alabi said that this was a difficult question to answer. Mr. Bennett continues to be guarded, he has a history of discharging himself contrary to medical advice, and past periods of mania incorporated paranoid delusions that involved his medication and last attending psychiatrist. Meanwhile, Mr. Bennett is much more stable now and has been reporting to the Hospital in a pleasant and cooperative fashion throughout this reporting period, similar to what was noted in his engagement in 2022 prior to the last panel moving him from a conditional discharge to a detention disposition. Dr. Alabi did not disagree that this could be an appropriate situation for the making of a “Young/Ramos” disposition that would require Mr. Bennett to attend the Hospital for assessment as directed.
No further evidence was called though counsel for Mr. Bennett confirmed his client’s support of a Young/Ramos order and his consent to a treatment provision in the context of a conditional discharge.
Submissions
At the end of the hearing, the parties renewed their submissions as set out at the commencement. All agreed that Mr. Bennett continued to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public.
As to disposition, the Hospital maintained the position that a continuation of the reigning detention disposition was necessary and appropriate to assure the safety of the public. The Hospital did support the incorporation of travel passes to Toronto on itinerary approved by the person in charge of the Hospital so as to permit Mr. Bennett to visit his family, given his progress and presentation.
Ms. Dufort joined the Hospital in that submission on behalf of the Attorney General. Making reference to last year’s Reasons for Disposition, she noted Mr. Bennett’s previous history of mania and the fact that this has only been brought under control by complete treatment compliance. She noted occasions when Mr. Bennett discharged himself from hospitals contrary to medical advice. She indicated no opposition to the travel provision endorsed by Dr. Alabi at the end of the hearing but argued that the primary objective of assuring the safety of the public required a Young/Ramos condition that Mr. Bennett report to and remain at the Hospital for the purposes of assessment as requested by the Hospital should a conditional discharge be ordered.
Counsel for Mr. Bennett argued in favor of the granting of a conditional discharge. In his position, concerns raised by the Hospital and the Attorney General could be addressed by virtue of a treatment clause and a Young/Ramos provision. He highlighted that Mr. Bennett has had a good year, that he is trying to abstain from cannabis and that he only tested positive for that substance once over the course of this reporting period. He emphasized that Mr. Bennett’s diagnosis is now settled, his medication is optimized and that Mr. Bennett benefits from his insight into his need for treatment by a long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication together with his oral medication. Mr. Bennett had done therapeutic groups, continues to engage with the treatment team and other groups and reports regularly. Mr. Davies provided the Board with an address in Ottawa should the Board determine that an address condition was necessary in the context of a conditional discharge.
Analysis and Conclusion
As stated above, the Board agrees with the parties that Mr. Bennett continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. It does not come to this conclusion lightly, in spite of the helpful joint submission on that issue. The threshold finding of significant threat is a weighty one. It requires evidence that goes beyond the fact that an individual struggles with a major mental illness. It requires the Board to establish a link between that mental illness, together with other factors, and a real likelihood that, absent a disposition, an individual will engage in serious criminal conduct that poses a significant risk of physical or psychological harm to the public.
The threshold finding in this case is driven by Mr. Bennett’s major mental illness and history of treatment noncompliance coupled with use of cannabis. All of these factors feature prominently in the commission of a serious index offence and a series of serious occurrences that were addressed by the Board in last year’s Reasons for Disposition. At that time, Mr. Bennett was moved from a conditional discharge to a detention disposition. While he has seemingly made the progress “cautiously hoped for” by the last panel, he continues to struggle with desire to use substances, has relapsed in cannabis use, and has only reached a point of treatment optimization over the course of this review period. He continues to be unemployed and struggles with cognitive deficits that inform some of the decompensating responses to family and employment stressors he experienced when appearing before the last panel of the Ontario Review Board. He has indicated that he mostly desires to use cannabis in the evenings to deal with anxiety. His insight into the impact of cannabis on his major mental illness is questionable.
Mr. Bennett’s re-offence scenario is realistic. Absent a Board disposition, he will experience stressors associated with employment and family in a context where he has not yet established solid community supports. Anxiety and substance use would increase as would sleeplessness. The efficacy of his current treatment, if continued, would be jeopardized and Mr. Bennett would rapidly spiral into the type of mania that drove the index offence and the serious incidents that were the subject of concern in last year’s Reasons for Disposition.
The Board has also concluded that a conditional discharge is necessary and appropriate to manage the risk Mr. Bennett continues to pose to the safety of the public. In deliberating between a detention disposition and a conditional discharge, the Board must ask itself “why” significant threat cannot be managed by a lesser disposition than that of a detention order. If the Board cannot answer that question, then it must grant a conditional discharge with terms and conditions that address all of the objectives set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
In the recent Ontario Court of Appeal case, Re Ramos, 2025 ONCA 820, the Honourable Court made several statements that give guidance to the Board when considering detention dispositions versus conditional discharges in contexts similar to those presented by Mr. Bennett. Firstly, if a lesser disposition can sufficiently provide for the safety of the public, that disposition must be ordered. Secondly, while a patient’s history is important, neither it nor the fact that an index offence is serious or a major mental illness concerning cause a Board to grant anything but considered weight to more recent progress in a patient’s ability to exercise insight into their major mental illness, need for treatment, need to abstain from substances and the risk all of these can pose to the safety of the public. A Board’s consideration of threshold issues, dispositions and conditions must be undertaken in a principled fashion. Where, as here, there is a concern that an individual may not report to the Hospital on signs of decompensation as requested by the person in charge, the Board must consider whether compulsory mechanisms (such as an order that the individual attend at the Hospital for assessment, also known as a Young clause) could adequately ensure compliance.
All of this is motivated by the recognition that Board decisions require careful, individualized assessment that avoids presumptions of permanent or inherent dangerousness. As stated in Ramos at paragraph 15, this approach “affirms the equality and dignity of people found NCR and seeks to provide them with the highest degree of liberty that remains compatible with public safety.”
In the case before the Board, it is difficult for the Board to identify the “why not” in the conditional discharge being proposed by counsel for Mr. Bennett. Mr. Bennett has had a very good year. In every respect save for one incident where he tested positive for cannabis, Mr. Bennett has shown the progress “cautiously hoped for” by the previous panel. And even in the context of that “blip” as it was described by Dr. Alabi, Mr. Bennett showed no signs of mania or decompensation. He has remained treatment compliant and appreciates his medications. He has maintained housing and there is no evidence to suggest that he would leave that place of residence. All of the evidence, historic and arising over the course of the last two periods of review, link Mr. Bennett’s mania and risk to his major mental illness, aggravated by stressors poorly dealt with in the context of cognitive deficits, where Mr. Bennett is both sub-optimally treated and using cannabis. While he does pose a risk to the safety of the public as defined in section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code, that risk can be managed by a conditional discharge that incorporates a treatment condition, minimum bi-weekly reporting, a condition that he abstain from the use of cannabis and submit to sampling to monitor his compliance with that condition, and a Young clause that requires Mr. Bennett to report to and remain at the Hospital for the purposes of assessment.
In the Board’s view, these conditions, together with a condition that Mr. Bennett notify the Hospital in advance of planned absence from his residence for a period of more than 24 hours, and a corresponding condition that he not be away from his residence for a period in excess of 7 days, is sufficient to assure the safety of the public while also respecting the principle of minimal intrusion on Mr. Bennett’s liberty interest as globally addressed in Ramos.
Accordingly, the Board has determined that Mr. Bennett continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that a conditional discharge is necessary to manage his risk having regard to the Board’s primary objective of assuring the safety of the public. The Board finds that a conditional discharge is also appropriate having regard to the objective of assuring that Mr. Bennett’s mental health and other needs are met, including the ultimate objective of reintegration into the community.
The Board thanks all who assisted with this hearing and encourages Mr. Bennett to continue his progress in the coming year.
An order will issue accordingly.
DATED this 17th day of March 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. D. Sandor
Alternate Chairperson
__________________
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board