Re C. (M. L.), 2026 CanLII 36973

Ontario Review Board

Re: C. (M. L.)

ORB File No: 3957

Hearing held on: Tuesday March 3, 2026

Place of Hearing: St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton

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

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. R. Bigelow

Members: Dr. K. Hand

Dr. T. Stirpe

Mr. K. McKenna

Ms. M. McKinnon

Parties Appearing:

Accused: C. (M. L.)

Counsel: Mr. A. Rai

The Person in Charge Counsel: Mr. S. O’Brien

Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. J. McKenzie

*Pursuant to s. 672.501(1) of the Criminal Code, the Ontario Review Board prohibits the publication, broadcasting, or other transmission of any information that could identify a victim in this matter or a witness who is under 18 years of age.

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated April 20, 2026)

Introduction

1. On March 24, 2004, Mr. C. (M. L.) was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of assault, sexual interference with a person under 16, and sexual assault, all contrary to the Criminal Code. Mr. C. (M. L.) is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the Board) dated March 24, 2025 ordering his discharge on conditions including but not limited to residence, reporting not less than once per month, a prohibition from the nonmedical use of alcohol or drugs or any other intoxicant and a prohibition from being alone in the presence of any person under the age of 16 years in the absence of supervision or without the approval of the person in charge of the Hospital.

2. On Tuesday, March 3, 2026, the Board convened a hearing to review Mr. C. (M. L.)’s disposition pursuant to section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. C. (M. L.) was present at the hearing and represented by counsel, Mr. Rai.

3. The issues to be determined at the hearing were whether Mr. C. (M. L.) continued to be a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and, if so, what was the necessary and appropriate disposition that was also the least onerous and least restrictive, taking into account the factors set out in 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

Initial Positions of the Parties

4. At the commencement of the hearing the parties were requested to provide their initial without prejudice positions with respect to the issues before the Board. Counsel for the Hospital submitted that Mr. C. (M. L.) no longer represented a significant threat to the safety of the public and accordingly was entitled to be discharged absolutely.

5. Counsel for the Attorney General advised that she wished to reserve her position pending hearing of the evidence.

6. Counsel for Mr. C. (M. L.) submitted that his client no longer constituted a significant threat to the safety of the public and was therefore entitled to be discharged absolutely.

Evidence at the hearing

7. The evidence at the hearing consisted of the Hospital Report dated November 21, 2025, February 12, 2026 and the oral evidence of Dr. Naidoo, Mr. C. (M. L.)’s most responsible physician and oral evidence of Ms. Parent, a member of the Hamilton Program for Schizophrenia (HPS) team.

Findings:

8. For the Reasons that follow, the Board finds that Mr. C. (M. L.) no longer represents a significant threat to the safety of the public and therefore he was entitled to be discharged absolutely.

Index Offences:

9. The circumstances surrounding the index offences as summarized in last year’s reasons for disposition are as follows:

Sexual Assault, Sexual Interference (February 23, 2002)

“On February 23, 2002, Mr. C. (M. L.), who was then 23 years old, was living in his mother’s home, as were other members of his family, including his 12-year-old sister. At 7:30 p.m., Mr. C. (M. L.) entered his sister’s bedroom, where she was alone talking to friends on the telephone. Mr. C. (M. L.) looked “high” and “not very sober.” His eyes were red, he smelled of smoke, and he was muttering to himself. He asked his sister if she had weed, but she did not answer. She didn’t think he knew who she was. He locked the door behind him, turned off the lights, ripped the telephone cord out of the wall, removed his sister’s clothing, pushed her down on the bed, and had sexual intercourse with her. He did not use a condom and ejaculated on his sister. His sister disclosed this information to friends, who eventually notified school authorities. The CAS and the police were contacted. Mr. C. (M. L.) turned himself in to the police on February 28, 2002. His sister told the police that Mr. C. (M. L.) smoked all the time, had depression and would sleep all day.

Assault with a Weapon (November 1, 2002)

“On November 1, 2002, at 10:00 p.m., during an argument that Mr. C. (M. L.) was having with his mother in the kitchen of her home, Mr. C. (M. L.) grabbed a knife, approached his mother, raised the knife over his head and said, “I'll stab you, I'll stab you”. His mother asked him to put the knife down, and he put it on the ground. Mr. C. (M. L.) then became very quiet. His mother was aware that after quiet periods, Mr. C. (M. L.) sometimes became violent and broke things, so she took her computer into her daughter's room and locked the door behind her.

Mr. C. (M. L.)'s mother telephoned the police, who attended the residence and found Mr. C. (M. L.) sitting on the couch in the living room, with a knife nearby. Mr. C. (M. L.) remained still and did respond to police commands. The police apprehended him under the Mental Health Act and took him to a hospital. After being assessed for less than 15 minutes, he was released, and the police arrested him.

Mr. C. (M. L.)'s mother told the police that one week prior to the incident, Mr. C. (M. L.) said to her that he was going to “kill you all while you are sleeping”. She felt that Mr. C. (M. L.) could carry out his threats if he was depressed. She reported that Mr. C. (M. L.) was not taking medication and had not seen his doctor for approximately six months. She was of the view that Mr. C. (M. L.) was not capable of caring for himself in his then current state.

Background Information Regarding the Accused:

10. As of the date of the hearing, Mr. C. (M. L.) was 47 years of age. He was born in Dominica and his biological parents never married. His biological father died when Mr. C. (M. L.) was 9. His mother married when Mr. C. (M. L.) was 10 years old, and the family immigrated to Canada in 1989. He has two younger half-sisters, and one older stepsister. His stepfather returned to Dominica for employment, and Mr. C. (M. L.) resided with his mother and grandmother up to the time of the NCR finding.

11. Mr. C. (M. L.) left high school in Grade 9 without graduating. He then had intermittent employment including temporary positions in factories, a courier company, and a furniture supply company. He was fired from a number of jobs for “not showing up.” He often missed at least one day of work per week in order to “stay home and smoke marijuana.” He was also frequently late for work and attended jobs under the influence of marijuana.

Substance Use History

12. Mr. C. (M. L.) began using alcohol when he was 19 and was soon drinking on a daily basis. He also began smoking marijuana around the same time. He reports operating motor vehicles frequently while cannabis – intoxicated and was under the influence of cannabis when he hit his sister with a hockey stick, when he sexually assaulted his sister and when he threatened his mother.

Legal History:

13. Mr. C. (M. L.) was found guilty of assault with a weapon in 1998 after hitting his sister was a hockey stick and was granted a conditional discharge and two years’ probation. He reports that he was charged with a break and enter when he was 11 or 12 and possession of a stolen car when he was 15.

Psychiatric History

14. Mr. C. (M. L.)’s first admission to hospital with respect to mental health related issues was in March 2000 when his mother brought him to hospital due to increasingly severe depressive symptoms. He was experiencing auditory hallucinations, passive suicidal ideation, had little emotional expression, lack of insight into his need for hospitalization, and requested discharge. He was discharged after three weeks with a referral for follow-up with a community psychiatrist. Discharge diagnosis was major depressive disorder, substance use (cannabis), and schizotypal personality disorder. Shortly after discharge he stopped taking medication.

15. He was admitted to hospital overnight in August 2001 due to “acute stress reaction”. On admission he was “severely despondent, displayed psychomotor retardation, angered easily, uttered suicidal threats and denied having a mental illness.”

16. On November 1, 2002, Mr. C. (M. L.) was brought to hospital by police after his arrest on the index assault and threatening charges. He presented as selectively mute and was not detained in hospital. After release he was arrested and taken to the Maplehurst Correctional Complex. He was initially found unfit to stand trial but, after a treatment order, was found fit and eventually released from custody to reside with his mother and grandmother.

Current Diagnosis

17. Mr. C. (M. L.)’s current diagnoses are Schizophrenia and Substance Use Disorder (Alcohol, Cannabis, Stimulant), Severe, in remission in a controlled environment.

Evidence of Dr. Naidoo

18. Dr. Naidoo indicated that:

• He was Mr. C. (M. L.)’s most responsible physician and had reviewed and adopted the contents of the Hospital Report. Over the reporting year Mr. C. (M. L.) had been involved in programming and had been accepted into the Hamilton Program for Schizophrenia (HPS) and has been attending that program for the last six months. The HPS reports that he attends all appointments on time and readily engages their staff.

• Mr. C. (M. L.) continues to require support should he be granted an absolute discharge and the HPS will take over from the Forensic Outpatient Program (FOP).

• Mr. C. (M. L.)’s last relapse with respect to substance use was in 2022 and although addiction is a lifelong illness, his addiction is currently well-managed, and he has good insight into impact of substance use on his mental health.

• Mr. C. (M. L.) has not displayed any psychotic symptoms for over 10 years and has good insight into his illness.

• He disagreed with the psychological risk assessment report with respect to evidence of impulsivity by Mr. C. (M. L.). The incidents relied upon in that assessment were not predatory and only occurred after individuals asked for his assistance.

• A transition from the forensic outpatient service to a civil mental health support program usually had a 3-to-6-month transition and that Mr. C. (M. L.) had now been with the HPS for six months.

• Over the reporting year Mr. C. (M. L.) had completed the CBT for Psychosis program, had attended all appointments both with the FOP and the HPS, his last incident involving aggression was in 2017 and there had been no sexually inappropriate behaviour since the NCR finding over 20 years ago.

• Both the treatment team and HPS were satisfied that HPS would be able to manage Mr. C. (M. L.)’s risk and that the Mental Health Act would be sufficient to deal with any potential decompensation.

Final Positions of the Parties

19. Counsel for the Hospital and counsel for Mr. C. (M. L.) maintained their initial positions that Mr. C. (M. L.) no longer represented a significant threat to the safety of the public and was entitled to absolute discharge.

20. Having heard the evidence, counsel for the Attorney General submitted that, despite the progress made by Mr. C. (M. L.), he continued to represent a significant threat and the necessary and appropriate disposition would be a continuation of the current conditional discharge with a reduction of the terms and conditions.

Analysis and Conclusion, Significant Threat:

21. Section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code defines significant threat to the safety of the public as follows:

For the purposes of section 672.54, a significant threat to the safety of the public means a risk of serious physical or psychological harm to members of the public – including any victim of or witness to the offence, or any person under the age of 18 years – resulting from conduct that is criminal in nature but not necessarily violent.

22. The Supreme Court of Canada has held that in order to meet the test for significant threat to the safety of the public:

……the threat posed was must bemore than speculative in nature; it must be supported by evidence: the threat must also be “significant,” both in the sense that there must be a real physical or psychological harm occurring to individuals in the community and in this this potential harm must be serious. A minuscule risk of grave harm will not suffice. Similarly, a high risk of trivial harm will not meet the threshold. Finally, the conduct or activity creating the harm must be criminal in nature.¹

23. Mr. C. (M. L.) has not displayed any psychotic symptoms in 10 years, has not displayed any aggression since 2017, has been abstinent from substances since 2022 and has not displayed any sexually inappropriate behaviour in over 20 years since the NCR finding. He has good insight into his mental illness, need for treatment and the impact of substance use on his mental health. He has the comprehensive support of the HPS.

24. Given all of those circumstances the evidence clearly fails to establish that Mr. C. (M. L.) represents a real risk of serious physical or psychological harm to members of the public. Accordingly, he is entitled to be discharged absolutely.

DATED this 20th day of April 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

Robert Bigelow

Alternate Chairperson

Office of the Registrar

Ontario Review Board

Footnotes

1. 1Winko v B.C. (Forensic Psychiatric Institute) 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 SCR 625 at para 58