Ontario Review Board
Re: Dimitri D. Hesson
ORB File No: 8088
Hearing held on: Wednesday, February 11, 2026
Place of Hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. D. Sandor
Members : Dr. S. Lessard Dr. G. Boulais
Ms. M. Labrosse
Ms. B. Naegele
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Dimitri D. Hesson
Counsel: Mr. M. Davies
Person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. J. Gojer
Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. M. Dufort
REASONS FOR DECISION
(Dated March 30, 2026)
Introduction
On June 9, 2022, Dimitri D. Hesson was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on a charge of harassment by watching and besetting contrary to the provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada. Mr. Hesson is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated December 4, 2025, that detains him at the Secure Forensic Unit of the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre (hereinafter referred to as “the Hospital”). That detention disposition provides Mr. Hesson with certain privileges, up to and including that of living in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge of the Hospital. It also subjects him to certain conditions, including that of submitting samples for the purpose of analyzing whether he has ingested alcohol, drugs or any other intoxicants.
By letter dated December 15th, 2025, the Hospital sent a notice pursuant to section 672.56(2) of the Criminal Code to the Ontario Review Board advising that Mr. Hesson had been admitted on an urgent basis for a period in excess of 7 days, resulting in a restriction of his liberty.
On February 11th, 2026, a panel of the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing at the Hospital, to conduct a restriction of liberty hearing pursuant to s. 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Hesson attended his hearing accompanied by his lawyer, Mr. M. Davies.
As a preliminary matter, the contents of the most recent Reasons for Disposition were discussed with the parties. Noting the specific procedure put in place to ensure both procedural fairness for Mr. Hesson and to ensure that the Board had sufficient evidence to deal with contested matters including a continuing position advanced by the Hospital that Mr. Hesson be transferred to Brockville, the Board noted that those procedural matters had not been satisfied. Accordingly, this hearing proceeded solely on issues pertaining to the restriction of Mr. Hesson’s liberty. The parties confirmed that Mr. Hesson had, by the time of the hearing been discharged back into the community where he continued to reside in close proximity to the Hospital.
The record for the hearing included the
Notice of Hearing dated January 9, 2026
a letter from the Hospital to the Ontario Review Board, dated December 8, 2025, advising that Mr. Hesson had been admitted to the Forensic Assessment Unit
the Hospital’s Notice of Restriction of Liberty dated December 15, 2025 (mentioned above)
the response of the Ontario Review Board to the Hospital’s Notice of Restriction of Liberty
the most recent Disposition, dated December 4, 2025
the Reasons for that Disposition.
On the consent of all parties, a Hospital Report with an update as of January 20, 2026, was admitted into evidence as exhibit 1.
The parties were canvassed for their positions. Dr. J. Gojer, Mr. Hesson’s treating psychiatrist, spoke on behalf of the Hospital and indicated that it was the Hospital’s position that the restriction of Mr. Hesson’s liberty was justified and necessary when initiated on December 8, 2025, and represented the least onerous and least restrictive course of action available to the Hospital under the circumstances. The Hospital further took the position that the restriction continued to be necessary appropriate and the least restrictive course of action available through to January 20, 2026, when Mr. Hesson was discharged from the Hospital.
The representative of the Attorney General agreed with the Hospital on all issues.
Mr. Davies, on behalf of Mr. Hesson expressed no opposition to the positions maintained by the Hospital and the Attorney General. Noting that Mr. Hesson was now out of the Hospital, he confirmed, as had been confirmed at the last review, that Mr. Hesson’s main desire was to not be transferred to Brockville. Mr. Hesson essentially took the position that, as he was living again in the community close to the Hospital, the parties should “let bygones be bygones and have a fresh start.”
For the reasons that follow, the Board agrees that the restriction of Mr. Hesson’s liberty was justified and necessary and represented the least onerous and least restrictive option available to the Hospital to manage the elevating risk Mr. Hesson was displaying, and that it remained so from the date initiated on December 8, 2025, through to January 20,2026.
Evidence at the Hearing
As the only issue before the Board was the restriction of Mr. Hesson’s liberty by readmission to hospital, there is no need to repeat the details regarding the index offences as well as regarding Mr. Hesson’s personal, criminal, and psychiatric history as these are set out in full in the Reasons for Disposition dated January 15th, 2026. It is sufficient to note that Mr. Hesson suffers from a major mental illness that has historically given rise to persecutory delusions, and paranoia. He has a history of poor insight into his major mental illness, the risk it poses to the safety of the public, and of his ongoing need for treatment. This is his second time under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board. He discontinued treatment shortly after receiving an absolute discharge following his first period as an NCR accused, rapidly decompensated and committed another index offence that included luring and stalking behaviours driven by sexual disinhibition displayed in his deteriorated state. He has, over the last several months, been oppositional with the Hospital, guarded, and resistant to medication. His behaviour and demeanour were jeopardizing his housing. The Board expressed concerns that Mr. Hesson was experiencing a decompensation and ordered a change in his disposition from a conditional discharge to a detention.
The evidence for this hearing came from the Hospital Report mentioned and the viva voce evidence offered by Dr. Gojer. Much of the evidence was uncontested. Following the most recent review mentioned above, Mr. Hesson was brought back to the Hospital. Mr. Hesson had, to that point, been reducing his medication. His treatment was far from optimized. He continued to show noticeable behavioural changes that suggested Mr. Hesson was on an increasing course of decompensation. He was increasingly resistant to medication and began returning to expressions of doubt as to treatment efficacy, saying that he needed to be off antipsychotic medication. He insisted that his treatment did not help him but rather did him harm.
Accordingly, Mr. Hesson was returned to the Hospital where his medication was reviewed and titrated up to optimal levels. Initially, Mr. Hesson showed no acute psychotic symptoms but did engage in some bizarre behaviours toward other patients and staff that included sniffing them. This behaviour subsided as Mr. Hesson began receiving more appropriate doses of his long-acting antipsychotic injectable medication. Shortly later, Mr. Hesson was found capable of making treatment decisions by the Consent and Capacity Board. His behaviours settled, the sniffing ceased, and he was permitted to return to his apartment as he agreed to meet with Dr. Gojer weekly and attend the Hospital’s risk and resiliency group. His return to the community happened on January 20, 2026.
Mr. Hesson has maintained his appointments but has been resistant to engaging and answering questions. He continues to lack transparency and expresses, again, resistance to treatment. His insight into his need for medication to manage the risk his major mental illness poses to the safety of the community is poor. This is of concern. Mr. Hesson’s illness has persisted for years. In the past, he received an absolute discharge in a context of lack of transparency like that he has been engaging in for several months now with Dr. Gojer. Over the period of his absolute discharge, he raised the same complaints about medications that he raises now, quit them and within one week of doing so committed the index offences that brought him under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board again.
In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Gojer testified that Mr. Hesson has been avoidant for some time. Historically, he has a pattern of disengaging with treatment providers both in and outside of his involvement with the forensic system. The symptoms of his major mental illness inform and influence the bizarre ideas he maintains about medications and medical professionals. Dr. Gojer maintains concerns that, with the determination by the Consent and Capacity Board that Mr. Hesson is competent to make treatment decisions, there will be further resistance to, and decrease of medications needed to ensure the safety of the public. The Board shares this concern and gave strong direction to Mr. Hesson at the conclusion of the hearing. The Board strongly encouraged him relative to his need to be strictly assiduous in his treatment and medication, particularly in light of the risk factors that have led him to having a conditional discharge to a detention disposition, to a restriction of his liberty, and now leave him with a likely request for early review and Rule 13 transfer to Brockville pending on the horizon.
Submissions of the Parties
At the end of the hearing, the parties renewed their submissions as set out in the foregoing. The Hospital and the Attorney General maintained that there was no other choice than to bring Mr. Hesson into the Hospital to assess his mental state and adjust his medications back to optimal levels. Mr. Hesson was oppositional to treatment, had been refusing to take necessary medications at the optimal levels recommended, was showing increasing signs of decompensation and return of symptoms, and was manifesting symptoms of paranoia that fueled his distrust of necessary antipsychotic medications and Hospital oversight. As soon as he was brought to baseline and his symptoms improved, even marginally as manifest by his agreement to attend the Hospital weekly and engage in necessary programming, he was returned to his home in the community. In their position, the restriction of Mr. Hesson’s liberty was justified and necessary and represented the least onerous and least restrictive option available to the Hospital from the date initiated to the date of Mr. Hesson’s discharge on January 20, 2026.
Counsel for Mr. Hesson again expressed Mr. Hesson’s instruction that he should communicate the position that everyone should “let bygones be bygones.”
Analysis and Conclusion
As stated, the Board agrees that Mr. Hesson experienced a restriction of his liberty when brought out of the community and into the Hospital on December 8, 2025. We also agree that this restriction of liberty was justified, necessary and represented the only course of action available to the Hospital sufficient to manage the risk Mr. Hesson was manifesting.
Mr. Hesson had for a period of months been decreasing the antipsychotic medication that managed the risk his major mental illness poses to the safety of the public. As he did so, he began manifesting the same paranoia towards medication and treatment professionals that drove his ultimate cessation of medication when first benefitting from an absolute discharge, all of which led, within one week of medication cessation, to the commission of the index offences. Mr. Hesson’s behaviours were threatening his housing in the community and were occasioning noncompliance with a Board disposition. Accordingly, that disposition was reviewed and Mr. Hesson was placed under a detention disposition. At that hearing, the evidence was quite clear that, but for a lack of beds, the Hospital would have already brought him in. Had it not been for the close proximity of Mr. Hesson’s apartment to the Hospital and the added authority inherent in a detention disposition, the Board may well have ordered a transfer to Brockville at the time of the last hearing, notwithstanding the inadequacy of notice the Hospital had provided to Mr. Hesson who, at that time, was unrepresented.
With Mr. Hesson failing to immediately engage proactively with Dr. Gojer and continuing to display the same paranoia-driven resistance to both medication and medical professionals, the Hospital had no choice but to bring Mr. Hesson to the Hospital to assess and readjust his medications. Mr. Hesson has poor insight into his need for medication and the supports offered by the treatment team. He does not recognize the risk his major mental illness poses to the safety of the public. It is only by virtue of the external pressures imposed by the Hospital in restricting his liberty that Mr. Hesson’s treatment was optimized and his commitment to engage more robustly with Dr. Gojer and the programs recommended to him to him was obtained. Any other course would have set Mr. Hesson up for failure in the community as his resistance would have increased, together with the behaviours that were threatening his housing. Having tried all other options, and with Mr. Hesson having not shown immediate and active re-engagement following the making of the most recent disposition, the Hospital had no choice but to restrict Mr. Hesson’s liberty.
Mr. Hesson’s liberty continued to be restricted until January 20, 2026, when his pathological behaviours subsided at least partially. While Mr. Hesson has continued to express resistance and lack of insight with regard to his need for treatment, he has at least shown some token engagement. The Hospital has shown attentiveness to the importance of Mr. Hesson’s liberty interest, as well as to his mental health and other needs that are better served in the community if Mr. Hesson remains treatment compliant, transparent and engaged with the treatment team. For bygones to be bygone, Mr. Hesson’s lack of compliance with recommended treatment, lack of active and transparent engagement with the treatment team, and lack of insight into the risk noncompliance with treatment poses to the safety of the public, must be significantly reduced.
Accordingly, the Board agrees that Mr. Hesson experienced a restriction of his liberty from December 8, 2025, to January 20, 2026. It agrees that the restriction was justified, necessary and represented the least onerous and least restrictive option available to the Hospital throughout that period.
The Board strongly encourages Mr. Hesson to actively engage with the Hospital and the treatment team and engage assiduously with recommended treatment at recommended levels. It thanks all who have assisted in this matter for their participations.
DATED this 30th 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