Re: Rebecca L. Dieter (a.k.a. Rebecca M. Daly), 2026 CanLII 34241

Ontario Review Board

Re: Rebecca L. Dieter (a.k.a. Rebecca M. Daly)

ORB File No: 7869

Hearing held on: Tuesday, March 24, 2026

Place of hearing: Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care 401 Sunset Drive, St. Thomas

Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Ms. T. Mann

Members: Dr. P.E. Cook Dr. P.N. Wright Ms. K. Tomaszewski Mr. S. Duffy

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Rebecca L. Dieter (a.k.a. Rebecca M. Daly) Counsel: Mr. S.F. Gehl

The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Zamprogna

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. K. Dalrymple

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated April 14, 2026)

Introduction

1. On April 1, 2021, Rebecca Dieter, whose preferred name (which shall be used in the remainder of these Reasons) is “Rebecca Daly”, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on a charge of second-degree murder, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (the “Criminal Code”).

2. Ms. Daly is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”) dated March 21, 2025, discharging her subject to various conditions, including reporting not less than twice per month and submitting random samples of urine and/or breath to the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care, St. Joseph’s Health Care London (hereinafter referred to as the “Hospital”).

3. On March 24, 2026, a panel of the Ontario Review Board convened to review Ms. Daly’s current disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Ms. Daly was present for her hearing and was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings. A hospital report dated January 13, 2026, was entered as Exhibit 1 (the “Hospital Report”); an Update to the Hospital Report dated March 11, 2026 (the “Update”) was entered as Exhibit 2; and a Community Treatment Plan dated February 26, 2026 (to be enforced by a Community Treatment Order dated March 4, 2026) was entered as Exhibit 3.

4. Ms. Daly’s mother attended the hearing in support of Ms. Daly.

5. The issues to be determined are whether Ms. Daly continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public, and if so, the necessary and appropriate disposition to manage that risk having regard to the criteria set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

6. For the reasons set out below and based on the evidence and opinions before us, the Board concludes that Ms. Daly does not represent a significant threat to the safety of the public, and orders that Ms. Daly be absolutely discharged.

Current Psychiatric Diagnoses

7. Ms. Daly’s current diagnoses are schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, and cannabis use disorder in sustained remission.

Index Offence

8. The circumstances of the index offence have been set out in detail in the Hospital Report. The following is a concise and accurate summary excerpted from last year’s Board Reasons for Disposition:

On August 9, 2020, during a major psychotic incident, Ms. Daly stabbed her infant son multiple times causing his death. Ms. Daly has a history of struggles with mental health (since at least February 2012) with multiple hospitalizations. At the time of her arrest, she was highly psychotic, experiencing command auditory hallucinations commanding her to sacrifice her child.

Background Information

9. The Hospital Report contains detailed information regarding Ms. Daly’s history, background and psychiatric history, the entirety of which need not be repeated here in detail. The following background information is excerpted from last year’s Board Reasons for Disposition:

In her late teen years, Ms. Dieter’s psychiatric difficulties became more overt. She recalled 3 psychiatric hospitalizations for psychosis, episodes which generally occurred in the context of substance use and/or medication nonadherence.

Ms. Dieter was admitted to Grand River Hospital on February 22, 2012 (at age 18). She went to hospital on the advice of her pastor, and was placed on a Form 1 in the emergency department (ED).

Ms. Dieter was again admitted to Grand River Hospital on September 21, 2014 (at age 20). She was brought to the ED by police, accompanied by her grandmother. She was discharged on October 30, 2014, with the diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder with psychosis.

Ms. Dieter was admitted to the North York General Hospital Psychiatry service between January 11 and 15, 2018 as a voluntary patient (she was 23). She was brought to the ED by a boyfriend and a roommate. She was psychotic, with grandiose, persecutory, and religious ideas … she had been consuming excessive quantities of cannabis. … She declined to stay in hospital any longer despite advice. … Her discharge diagnosis was rule out marijuana-induced psychotic disorder, rule out Bipolar Disorder, and rule out Schizophrenia.

Cannabis use induced or exacerbated her mental health difficulties during previous hospital contacts. Notably, however, there was no evidence of cannabis use proximal to the material time. Her urine drug screen in hospital on August 9, 2020, was negative for substances of abuse.

Ms. Dieter occasionally followed up with outpatient psychiatric services after hospital admissions. She generally fell away from treatment as she felt better. For the 2 or so years prior to her pregnancy, Ms. Dieter did not have any outpatient psychiatric care (she had been getting her antipsychotic prescription from her father’s family physician).

She ultimately stopped taking medications (she believed on the advice of a pharmacist) shortly after learning she was pregnant.

Ms. Dieter did not have a criminal record.

Position of the Parties

10. At the commencement of the hearing, counsel for the Hospital submitted that Ms. Daly does not represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that she should be absolutely discharged.

11. Counsel for the Attorney-General and counsel for Ms. Daly both adopted the Hospital’s position.

Course Since Last Disposition

12. The following excerpts from the Hospital Report and Update summarize Ms. Daly’s course since the last Disposition. Ms. Daly had another very positive year:

“Since June 2023, Ms. Daly has resided with her mother, Denise Dieter, in Kitchener, Ontario. Throughout the reporting year she remained in the care of Dr. Ajay Prakash, Forensic Psychiatrist, and the Forensic Outreach Treatment team.”

“At the onset of the reporting period (April 2025), Ms. Daly began engaging with the Flexible Assertive Community Treatment (FACT) Team and a community psychiatrist, Dr. Al Batraan. She transitioned from the FACT Team to the ACT Team on December 01, 2025, as ACT has greater ability to provide a higher level of long-term mental health support. Dr. Al Batraan continued to provide her psychiatric care as he oversees care for both FACT and ACT patients.”

“Ms. Daly remained employed at the Thrift Store throughout the reporting year.”

During this reporting period, there were no clear reports of Ms. Daly demonstrating positive or negative signs or symptoms of her mental illness. At times, she experienced anxiety and some odd beliefs that impacted her daily functioning, often presenting with recurring thoughts. …Ms. Daly demonstrated insight into these experiences and was able to draw on her supports (family and treatment team), PRN medication and CBT skills as part of her coping strategies.”

“She experienced forms of behavioural instability, such as impulsivity, financial spending, and poor decision making at times. However, she appeared to work through these nuances appropriately.”

“Ms. Daly was described as sociable and cooperative, expanding her social network (intimate, coworkers, friends),and attending to all her appointments with her Forensic Treatment team and community-based support (FACT and ACT).”

Ms. Daly experienced a number of intrapersonal stressors (personal finances, the loss of her son) as well as stressors within interpersonal relationships (coworkers). …Over the reporting period, she became more independent in managing her stress, engaging less with personal and professional support as the year went on.”

[There were some behaviours that] “were considered a form of cognitive instability; however, they did not lead to any risk management concerns or hinder progress in her recovery. For the most part, she was able to manage such situations on her own or with medication (PRN).”

“Ms. Daly has good insight into her mental illness, potential early warning signs for relapse, as well as historic psychotic symptoms (“constantly thinking about the Holy Spirit” and feeling as though her inner dialogue was communication with God). She remains fearful of a relapse to the point of causing her some anxiety, which was considered a protective factor. She was transparent with her Forensic team regarding her thoughts, demonstrating positive steps to seeking early intervention. She remains highly cooperative in treatment suggestions and prioritizes the maintenance of her mental health.”

“Ms. Daly demonstrated good insight into her need for treatment. She acknowledged that her medication plays an important role in her long-term mental health stability. She consistently reached out to her treatment team and community professional supports (general physician and ACT) with any difficulties. She independently scheduled appointments for her long-acting injectable medication with her general physician. She made reasonable requests for medication changes, but somewhat relied on using PRNs (Olanzapine) in times of stress.”

“Ms. Daly has full insight into the index offence and her responsibility for maintaining her mental wellness. She recognizes that if she was to cease her long-acting injectable medication and/or return to cannabis use, she could become violent again in the future.”

“Dr. Huth, general physician, continued to provide Ms. Daly with her long-acting injection this reporting period. …Dr. Huth is regarded as having a positive professional care relationship with Ms. Daly and has been involved with her care since her pregnancy. He is aware of her forensic involvement and future treatment plans as set out by her Treatment team.

Ms. Daly self-manages her medications. In May 2025, she missed one bedtime medication dose.”

“On July 17, 2025, her medication, Olanzapine, was increased from 10 mg to 15 mg after Ms. Daly expressed increased stressed causing “disorganization” and feeling “not on top of positive actions that [she] used to do” (e.g., hygiene and tidiness). On September 10, 2025, this medication was increased to 20 mg at the request of Ms. Daly, demonstrating good insight. Of note, the total amount of Olanzapine was not increased over the year; rather, the dose fluctuated based on reasons outlined above. Since then, both Ms. Daly and her ACT team have reported noticeable improvements.

Throughout the reporting period, Ms. Daly was provided with ongoing supportive counselling through her Forensic Occupational Therapist via the use of CBT skills. The aim is that this type of support is carried forward with her ACT team.”

“The Forensic Outreach Treatment team completed the voluntary CTO with Ms. Daly. The CTO was issued on March 4, 2026, and expires on September 3, 2026.

On February 27, 2026, the ACT Team informed the Forensic Outreach Treatment team that Ms. Daly had been offered a subsidized, bachelor apartment through Thresholds Homes and Supports. As Thresholds operates within a FACTT/ACTT service model and Ms. Daly is already supported by an ACT Team, continuity of these supports would be maintained. Ms. Daly is currently awaiting a tour of the apartment which is expected to occur over the next few weeks. If she approves the apartment, it will be offered to her as her unit. If she declines the apartment, she would be offered one more apartment (with no expected date of offer) before being returned to the bottom of the wait list. The location has been described as appropriate and is about a 20-minute bus ride to her place of work.”

Evidence at the Hearing

13. The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence from Dr. Ajay Prakash, Ms. Daly’s attending psychiatrist.

14. Dr. Prakash testified that Ms. Daly’s major criminogenic risk factor is her major mental disorder, schizoaffective disorder bipolar type. This risk factor has been addressed by treatment with a combination of a long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication (“LAI”) (abilify maintenna), and oral medication (olanzapine).

15. During the reporting period, Ms. Daly requested some adjustments (one decrease and later an increase) to the dose of olanzapine. These changes were approved after thoughtful discussions with the outreach team.

16. Ms. Daly has good insight across all domains and understands that she needs to continue to take this medication for the rest of her life. She has been living in the community with her mother since June 2023 and has remained stable during that time. She has insight into her need to avoid substance use.

17. Ms. Daly has had no hospital admissions or visits to the ED during that time.

18. She has had no violent ideation or significant behavioural instability. There have been no issues with supervision or treatment.

19. Ms. Daly has extensive and significant non-forensic community psychiatric support. She is a patient of the ACT Team and Dr. Al-Battran, a psychiatrist who works with the ACT Team. The ACT Team also includes nurses and social workers assigned to Ms. Daly. She receives in-person visits from them and has developed a good relationship with the staff of the ACT Team during the reporting period. The ACT Team is familiar with her area and the nature of potential housing changes.

20. Ms. Daly also has the support of a family doctor, who currently administers the LAI, is aware of her forensic history, and is fully supportive of Ms. Daly.

21. Ms. Daly is committed to her continued recovery and has entered into a voluntary Community Treatment Order (“CTO”) to provide an additional safety net in the event that she decompensates for any reason. However, in Dr. Prakash’s opinion, Ms. Daly does not represent a significant threat to the safety of the public even without the CTO.

22. Ms. Daly has not used cannabis in the Hospital or in the community. She has been abstinent from alcohol since July 2025, although in Dr. Prakash’s opinion, alcohol is not a significant risk factor.

23. The possible move to independent housing away from her mother’s home will be a possible stressor but in Dr. Prakash’s opinion Ms. Daly has been able to handle personal stressors well, as set out in the Hospital Report. While she did require some support from the outreach team, she will have the support of the ACTT, which will provide support which is as robust as the support the forensic outreach team would be able to provide.

24. The new housing will be only 20 minutes from Ms. Daly’s mother, who will continue to support her. The ACTT will continue to visit Ms. Daly in her new accommodations.

25. Ms. Daly is involved with a stable more “mainstream” faith community. She is able to distinguish between faith-based thoughts and religious thoughts generated by her illness. She has distanced herself from the people who negatively influenced her prior to the index offence, including the father of her child.

26. She has entered a relationship with a person who does not use substances and is a prosocial influence.

27. There is no need for the Hospital to approve Ms. Daly’s housing. The Thresholds housing offered to Ms. Daly is subsidized and permanent, and the ACTT works with the Thresholds organization.

28. Ms. Daly is welcome to return to her mother’s home if she does not wish to continue living independently.

29. The risk assessment, as set out on pages 129-133 of the Hospital Report, indicates a low risk of violence in the context of an absolute discharge.

30. Ms. Daly is a prosocial person who has surrounded herself with prosocial supports and will be supported by the most robust non-forensic psychiatric support system available in her community.

31. No additional evidence was called.

Analysis and Conclusion

32. The central issue is whether Ms. Daly is a significant threat to the safety of the public.

33. The relevant legal principles to be applied to the evidence with respect to the issue of significant threat are summarized in the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Marmolejo (Re), 2021 ONCA 130 at paras 34-37:

…the role of the Board is first to determine whether an NCR accused represents a significant threat to public safety. If the answer to that question is "no" or uncertain then the NCR accused must be discharged absolutely: Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625, [1999] S.C.J. No 31, at pp. 659-61, 669 S.C.R. If the NCR accused does present a significant threat, the Board must either conditionally discharge or detain the individual: Winko, pp. 662, 669 S.C.R.

It is important to bear in mind that the Board's responsibility to grant an absolute discharge is non-discretionary in the event that it harbours any doubt about whether the NCR accused represents a significant threat: Carrick (Re), [2018] O.J. No. 4878, 2018 ONCA 752, at para. 16. As the majority of the Supreme Court emphasized in Winko, at pp. 652-53 S.C.R.: "Once an NCR accused is no longer a significant threat to public safety, the criminal justice system has no further application."

Individuals with mental disorders are not inherently dangerous: Winko, at p. 653 S.C.R. There is no presumption of dangerousness and no burden on the NCR accused to prove a lack of dangerousness: Winko, at pp. 660-61, 662 S.C.R. Rather, the legal and evidentiary burden of establishing significant threat rests on the Board or the court: Winko, at p. 663 S.C.R.

The threshold for significant risk is "onerous": Carrick (Re) (2015), 128 O.R. (3d) 209, [2015] O.J. No. 6524, 2015 ONCA 866, at para. 17. A significant threat to the safety of the public means a foreseeable and substantial risk of physical or psychological harm to members of the public: R. v. Ferguson, [2010] O.J. No. 5138, 2010 ONCA 810, at para. 8. The conduct must be of a serious criminal nature: Ferguson, at para. 8. A very small risk of grave harm will not suffice, nor will a high risk of trivial harm: Ferguson, at para. 8. The threat must be more than speculative in nature; it must be supported by evidence: Winko, at p. 665 S.C.R.; Pellett (Re) (2017), 139 O.R. (3d) 651, [2017] O.J. No. 5025, 2017 ONCA 753, at para. 21.

34. The evidence provided by the parties indicates that Ms. Daly’s risk factors have been addressed and no longer present a significant threat to the safety of the public. She is optimally treated for her major mental disorder; has maintained stability and wellness in the community for several years with no hospital admissions or visits; has excellent insight across all domains; is an active volunteer; has gained and maintained employment; has develop adaptive coping skills; remains forthright with her supports (both personal and professional); has robust personal supports; has robust professional supports that can safely manage any residual risks; has stable housing; and has maintained abstinence from cannabis and alcohol. The HCR-20 indicates a low risk in the context of an absolute discharge.

35. Ms. Daly is subject to a voluntary CTO, demonstrating her commitment to remain stable and her willingness to permit the ACTT to have coercive authority to bring her to the hospital for examination should she fail to follow her Community Treatment Plan.

36. The Board considered the comprehensive community treatment plan in place for Ms. Daly seen in exhibit 3. The panel accepts the evidence of Dr. Prakash that the level of support and supervision under the CTO and with the ACTT would be as much as she currently receives from her forensic outpatient team.

37. There is no dispute among the parties that the Board is entitled to take into account the existence of a CTO in its consideration of whether an accused continues to pose a significant threat: see R. v. Stanley, 2010 ONCA 324 and Dasilva (Re), [2017] O.R.B.D. No. 1647. A reading of these decisions leads to the conclusion that the availability of an absolute discharge in the context of a CTO is essentially an evidence-driven analysis.

38. While there was some evidence that moving to an independent apartment could result in personal stressors, Dr. Prakash was of the opinion that this potential destabilization is more in the nature of speculation than likelihood of risk to the public. The doctor pointed out that Ms. Daly has faced many personal stressors successfully without destabilization, making appropriate use of her support systems and coping skills. The Board agrees with Dr. Prakash. There is every reason, based on evidence, to believe that Ms. Daly will face this challenge by using her coping skills and relying on her family and her professional supports, as she has consistently done in the past.

39. The Board also relies on Dr. Prakash’s evidence that Dr. Al-Battran, Ms. Daly’s primary worker on the ACTT, Dr. Prakash, and the entire Hospital treatment team were unanimous in their opinion that Ms. Daly does not represent a significant threat to the safety of the public.

40. The threshold for significant risk is onerous. A significant threat to the safety of the public means a foreseeable and substantial risk of physical or psychological harm to members of the public. Upon consideration of all of the evidence, the Board is unable to conclude that Ms. Daly continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public. Accordingly, the Board orders that she be absolutely discharged.

41. The Board congratulates Ms. Daly on her dedication to her continued well-being and wishes her every success in the future.

DATED this 14^th day of April 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.

Ms. K. Tomaszewski

Legal Member

______________________________

Office of the Registrar

Ontario Review Board