Re: Kadesha M. Wynter, 2026 CanLII 34259

Ontario Review Board

Re: Kadesha M. Wynter

ORB File No: 8167

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. C. Kraznik Dr. S. Lessard Ms. M. Labrosse Ms. B. Naegele

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Kadesha M. Wynter Counsel: Mr. M. Godoy

Person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. A. Sandhu

Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. M. Dufort

REASONS FOR DECISION & DISPOSITION

(Dated April 7, 2026)

Introduction

1. On October 12th, 2022, Kadesha M. Wynter was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of assault, assault police officer and assault causing bodily harm, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. Ms. Wynter is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated August 28, 2025, detaining her at the Secure Forensic Unit of the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre (hereinafter referred to as “the Hospital”) with privileges up to and including that of living in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge of the Hospital. That Disposition also imposes certain conditions on Ms. Wynter, including that of abstaining absolutely from the non-medical use of alcohol, drugs or other intoxicants and that of submitting samples for the purpose of monitoring her compliance with the abstention condition.

2. Prior to October 31, 2025, Ms. Wynter had been living in the community under the mentioned Disposition. Then, on October 31, 2025, she was transferred to the Hospital’s Forensic Assessment Unit following the issuing of a Form 49. By letter dated November 14th, 2026, the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre notified the Ontario Review Board of the return to Hospital and the resultant restriction of Ms. Wynter’s liberty.

3. On January 21, 2026, the Hospital provided a Rule 13 notice to North Bay Regional Health Centre/Hummingbird Lodge of the Hospital’s intention to request a transfer of Ms. Wynter’s care to that facility. The Attorney General, counsel for Ms. Wynter, Mr. M. Godoy, and the Ontario Review Board were copied on that notice.

4. On February 11th, 2026, a panel of the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing at the Hospital to conduct a restriction of liberties hearing pursuant to s. 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code. Ms. Wynter attended her hearing as was her lawyer. Dr A. Sandhu represented the Hospital, and the Attorney General was represented by Ms. M. Dufort.

5. The record for the hearing consisted of several documents including Ms. Wynter’s:

• Notice of Hearing dated January 26th, 2026.
• Charge Sheet.
• Restriction of Liberty Notice from the Hospital dated November 14th, 2025.
• Response from the Ontario Review Board dated November 17th, 2025.
• Rule 13 Notice from the Royal dated January 21st, 2026.
• Most recent Disposition dated August 28th, 2025, and the Reasons for that Disposition dated September 19th, 2025.
• Reasons for Adjournment dated January 8th, 2026, and
• Response to the Rule 13 Notice from North Bay dated February 10th, 2026.

6. On the consent of all parties, a Hospital Report dated January 26th, 2026, was entered as exhibit 1.

7. Following confirmation that the parties were not engaging in a review of Ms. Wynter’s disposition, but rather simply proceeding on issues pertaining to the restriction of liberty and the proposed transfer to North Bay, the parties provided their initial positions. All agreed that Ms. Wynter had experienced a restriction of her liberty and that the restriction was justified and necessary and represented the least restrictive and least onerous option available to the Hospital both when undertaken and through to the date of the hearing. All further agreed that her transfer to North Bay was necessary and appropriate having regard to the objectives set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

8. For the following reasons, the Board agrees with that joint submission in its entirety.

Evidence at the Hearing

9. The evidence for the hearing came from the Hospital Report mentioned above and the viva voce evidence offered by Dr. Sandhu, Ms. Wynter’s treating psychiatrist. As the issues concerning this panel were confined to those associated with the restriction of Ms. Wynter’s liberty and the Rule 13 transfer request, it is not necessary to provide much detail concerning Ms. Wynter’s history prior to and since coming under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board. For context though, Ms. Wynter committed the index offences while in a state of psychosis. She has been diagnosed with schizophrenia, alcohol use disorder, cannabis use disorder and stimulant use disorder (cocaine sub-type). She has experienced fluctuating engagement with treatment programming and has a history of severe substance use. Meanwhile, she has developing insight and recognizes her need for treatment. She has initiated contact with residential treatment programs and has participated in outpatient concurrent disorders programming.

10. According to the Hospital Report, Ms. Wynter began having difficulties in the community where she was living under the detention disposition in the months of July and August 2025. She began missing both urine drug screenings and concurrent disorders programming. In August she admitted that she was actively using substances including cocaine and cannabis. She fell into arrears of rent and had been issued an eviction notice and concerns were being raised by her landlord of suspected criminal activities taking place in her residence. She began acting in an oppositional manner to supportive members of the treatment team and expressed an intention to continue the use of substances, including cocaine. Her contact with her children decreased and became inconsistent.

11. By September 15, 2025, Ms. Wynter was spending from seven to eight hundred dollars per week to fund her cocaine habit. In October 2025, she began using hydromorphone pills to manage pains from a foot injury, but grew dependent on them, purchasing them from off the street. Her lodging was inappropriate for her needs, and she continued to miss sessions with the concurrent disorders group. While she expressed a desire to seek support for her substance use, she became ambivalent about pursuing any opportunities for that support.

12. Ms. Wynter continued to struggle with substance use. This led to elevation on her part similar to some extent with the aggressivity noted at the time of the commission of the index offences. Ms. Wynter had an argument with her neighbour that resulted in her being hit with a bat. In response, Ms. Wynter pushed the neighbour’s air conditioning unit into their window and broke it. Ms. Wynter proceeded to call emergency services 32 times in a 24-hour period, at one point falsely alleging that a fire had occurred to get them to respond faster. When asked to report to the outpatient department for assessment, she minimized the symptoms of her decompensation and indicated that she was attending as a result of her foot pain. A Form 49 was requested, and Ms. Wynter was apprehended by the police and ultimately brought to the Hospital.

13. When being assessed at the Hospital, Ms. Wynter disclosed significant illicit substance use and both tactile and auditory hallucinations. She endorsed paranoia and felt that her antipsychotics had not been working for months. She indicated that she had been experiencing some hallucinations or delusions even in the absence of substance use. To her credit, she disclosed abuse at the hands of her boyfriend and sought support for the trauma she had experienced. She remained argumentative and agitated through November 2025 but engaged in reflection on her patterns of emotional dysregulation and poor distress tolerance. She sought out members of her treatment team to explore treatment options, including those offered at the Hummingbird Lodge at the North Bay Regional Health Centre. While she continued to make threatening comments to her social worker, she was able in subsequent days to recognize her irritability and aggressivity and to apologize.

14. Ms. Wynter was accepted to the Hummingbird Lodge’s treatment program on January 21, 2026

15. In his viva voce testimony to the Hospital, Dr. Sandhu explained that Ms. Wynter remains on the Hospital’s Forensic Assessment Unit. He said that she has developed insight into the circumstances that led to the restriction of her liberty and has engaged well with treatment programming. She has meaningful personal goals including becoming a consistent parent for her two daughters in Ottawa. She has engaged in multiple virtual meetings with Hummingbird staff and continues to work towards more consistent emotional regulation and skills that will help her avoid the substances that compromise her progress in that sphere.

16. Dr. Sandhu described the programming available for Ms. Wynter at Hummingbird Lodge. That programming will consist of 3 phases over the period of approximately one year. Her contact with her children will be arranged as she progresses in that program and advances in her privileges.

Submissions of the Parties

17. At the end of the hearing, the parties renewed their submissions as set out at the hearing’s commencement. All agreed that the restriction of Ms. Wynter’s liberty was justified and necessary and represented the least restrictive and least onerous course available to the Hospital at the time. All agreed that this continued to be the case. All also agreed that the Rule 13 transfer request to North Bay satisfied the objectives set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code, was consistent with Ms. Wynter’s reasonable views and preferences and represented the course of action most likely to best meet Ms. Wynter’s clinical needs.

Analysis and Conclusion

18. The Board agrees. It is clear that Ms. Wynter experienced a restriction of her liberty when she was moved from the community to the Hospital’s Forensic Assessment Unit. This interfered with her freedom of mobility, association, and intrinsic personal liberties. It is also clear that this was justified and necessary. Ms. Wynter struggles with a major mental illness that informed the commission of serious, violent index offences. Her use of substances proved an aggravation at that time. While in the community she had returned to severe levels of substance use. Her insight into her major mental illness and the deleterious impact of those substances was in a state of deterioration. She experienced aggressivity, irritability, difficulty with emotional dysregulation. By the time she was brought to the Hospital she was experiencing psychotic symptoms of delusion and tactile and auditory hallucinations. The Hospital had lost the ability to manage her risk in the community and had no other option than to return her to the Forensic Assessment Unit.

19. The restriction continues to be necessary. Ms. Wynter, though improving, admits to significant struggles with substances that she is currently unable to manage absent the controlled environment offered by the Hospital or some other institution such as that found at the North Bay Regional Health Centre. She has experienced some return of insight identified herself that this is necessary if her risk is to be managed. She has begun transitional meetings via Zoom to facilitate her transfer to North Bay and, at the close of the hearing the panel was advised that time was of the essence as a bed had become available for Ms. Wynter at Hummingbird Lodge. Absent the restriction that continued to the date of the hearing, all of the objectives set out in section 672.54 would have been undermined, including those associated with assuring that her own mental health and other needs are met.

20. The program at Hummingbird Lodge accords with Ms. Wynter’s reasonable views and preferences. It offers specialized intensive treatment, rehabilitation and behavioural management services that take into account the differences in the forensic, medical, psychosocial, and psychiatric profiles of women. It provides trauma-informed care that seems well-suited to Ms. Wynter in light of her history. The level of security and oversight at the North Bay Regional Health Centre approximates that available at the Hospital. North Bay is familiar with Ms. Wynter and consents to the transfer. All indications are that the transfer would continue to assure the safety of the public and would assure that Ms. Wynter’s mental health and other needs are met, including that of having her reasonable views and preferences considered and that of her need to be reintegrated into the community.

21. As a result, the Board concludes that the restriction of Ms. Wynter’s liberty was justified and necessary and represented the least onerous and least restrictive option available to the Hospital from the time initiated through to the date of the hearing. The Board also concludes that Ms. Wynter’s transfer to North Bay so she avails herself of the services available at Hummingbird Lodge satisfies the objectives set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code, accords with her treatment needs, is consistent with her reasonable views and preferences and as such should be granted.

22. The Board thanks all who have assisted in this hearing and expresses its encouragement to Ms. Wynter as she engages in the programming offered to her at Hummingbird Lodge.

23. An Order will issue accordingly.

DATED this 7th day of April 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

Mr. D. Sandor

Legal Member

Office of the Registrar

Ontario Review Board