Ontario Review Board

Re: Glen W. Collins

ORB File No: 8709

Hearing held on: Tuesday, March 24, 2026

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

Pursuant to: Sections 672.81(1) and 672.48(1) of the Criminal Code

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Ms. T. Mann

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

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Glen W. Collins 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 23, 2026)

Introduction

1. Mr. Collins is charged in three separate Informations with several offences. The first Information alleges he committed the offences of assault police with a weapon, threatening death, and possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace. The second Information alleges he committed the offences of failing to comply with the conditions of a release order (2 counts), threatening bodily harm, threatening death, obstructing a police officer, attempting to disarm a police officer, and assaulting a police officer. The third Information alleges he committed the offences of dangerous driving, failure to stop during a police pursuit, obstructing police, and assaulting police with a weapon.

2. All three Informations indicated that pleas and findings by the court were set aside pursuant to s. 672.31 of the Criminal Code on January 22, 2025, as Mr. Collins had been found unfit to stand trial and was remanded to the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board for an initial hearing. At the initial hearing, on April 29, 2025, the Board found that Mr. Collins was unfit to stand trial and that an order detaining him at the Southwest Center for Forensic Mental Health Care (“the Hospital”) was the necessary and appropriate, least onerous and least restrictive disposition. Further, the Board found that indirectly supervised entry to Elgin County be the most liberal condition.

3. On March 24, 2026, the Board convened this panel to conduct a hearing to determine Mr. Collins’ fitness to stand trial and, if found unfit, the necessary and appropriate disposition in accordance with the requirements of s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

4. At the commencement of the hearing, counsel for the Hospital recommended a finding that Mr. Collins’ was unfit to stand trial and that there be no change to the terms and conditions of the disposition order of May 8, 2025, save for the addition of a condition prohibiting him from possessing incendiary devices and materials. Counsel for the Attorney General concurred with the Hospital. Counsel for Mr. Collins advised that Mr. Collins objected to parts of the Hospital Report [dated January 16, 2026, which was filed as Exhibit 1 at the hearing], but wished to focus on the issue of fitness to stand trial. In this regard, Mr. Collins took the position that he be found fit to stand trial and returned to court for a fitness hearing.

Index Offences (Alleged)

5. The following summary of facts of the Index Offences is taken from the Board’s Reasons for Disposition dated May 13, 2025:

On October 18, 2021, it is alleged that Mr. Collins threatened police with a large kitchen knife when they attended his residence to apprehend him under the terms of the Mental Health Act. He also threatened to kill them and was observed shooting fireworks at emergency response unit members, nearly striking them. He was observed holding a mason jar filled with a clear liquid and a white cloth hanging out of the top and is alleged to have set the cloth afire and to have thrown the suspected “Molotov cocktail” at police standing behind a pickup truck, striking the truck. The Waterloo Regional Police Service Emergency Response Unit arrived, relieved the Stratford Police Service, and resolved the situation by apprehending Mr. Collins following the seventeen-hour long incident.

On March 7, 2022, police observed Mr. Collins driving a motor vehicle. They were aware a bench warrant was outstanding for his arrest and activated their emergency lights and siren. Mr. Collins took flight and after a pursuit the police vehicle blocked his way forward. Police approached his vehicle on foot and ordered him to turn off the ignition. He is then alleged to have reversed at a high rate of speed, causing officers to step away. Mr. Collins is alleged to have then driven toward the officers, striking the rear driver's side of the police vehicle, and causing one police officer to jump over the corner of the police vehicle to avoid being struck.

The police pursuit continued and ended when both ends of the vehicle driven by Mr. Collins were blocked by police vehicles. Police exited their vehicles with guns drawn, but he ignored their orders to exit his vehicle. Officers are said to have struck the driver’s side window with a baton while another officer gained entry from the passenger side door and turned off the ignition. Officers then physically removed Mr. Collins from the vehicle and transported him to Stratford police headquarters. Damage to police vehicles totalled about $14,000 and one officer suffered a minor injury to his right leg which did not require medical treatment.

The third set of charges involve allegations that on June 12, 2024, an individual complained to police that Mr. Collins was yelling and swearing on his property and threatening to kill another individual. When police attended his residence Mr. Collins is alleged to have opened the door, yelled at police, and threatened to “kill, zap, and hurt” officers on scene. A taser was applied to Mr. Collins when he resisted his arrest. He allegedly tried to take hold of the taser from police, held down the trigger continuously, and tasered an officer in the hand. Several closed hand strikes were applied by police to Mr. Collins in their effort to regain control of the taser.

Background and History

6. Mr. Collins was born in Manitoba. His family moved to Ontario in 1986. He has an older stepsister and a younger brother from whom he is currently estranged. His father, who was a judge/magistrate, passed away when Mr. Collins was an adolescent. His mother died in a car accident in 2019. His current diagnosis is Schizophrenia.

7. Mr. Collins had no learning problems at school and attended college. He worked in a factory for an extended period until he injured his shoulder. He subsequently worked at other jobs but illness symptoms, particularly paranoid thoughts about his coworkers, affected his ability to remain employed. Mr. Collins last worked in mid-2021. He lived in his brother’s house for about 30 years, but in 2025, his brother revoked his invitation to remain there and moved to another province. Mr. Collins has had a number of short-term relationships with women but is not married and does not have children.

8. Mr. Collins’ brother has reported he started to present with symptoms of paranoia more than ten years ago. His paranoia intensified after the death of his mother in 2019 and became more intense in 2021, leading to two involuntary hospital admissions.

9. Mr. Collins used cannabis regularly in his adult life. He has a history of declining treatment with anti-psychotic medication. According to the information contained in the Hospital Report, his belief that he does not have a psychotic disorder is long-standing, as are his strongly-held beliefs that the criminal justice system is “rigged” against him.

10. Mr. Collins has a dated criminal record consisting of convictions between 1987 and 1992 for possession of a narcotic, assault, and driving with excess blood alcohol before being charged with the Index Offences between 2021 and 2024. However, the Crown Brief Synopsis dated June 13, 2024, and filed as an exhibit at Mr. Collins’ initial hearing, notes that since 2018 police had a total of 196 calls for service, specifically regarding criminal behaviour and mental health-related matters, with respect to Mr. Collins. Of note, since June 23, 2022, Mr. Collins has been suspended from driving a vehicle.

Progress under the Jurisdiction of the Board

11. The Hospital Report dated January 16, 2026 was filed as an Exhibit at the hearing. It details his course of treatment after his admission to the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care on February 7, 2025.

12. On February 25, 2025, Mr. Collins was found incapable of consenting to treatment. The Consent and Capacity Board upheld the finding of incapacity on March 13, 2025. Mr. Collins’ brother had been acting as his substitute decision maker (SDM) and consented to treatment with the medication Abilify (generic name: aripiprazole) via injection. Treatment with Abilify commenced on April 3, 2025. His brother stepped down from the role of SDM in October 2025 due to Mr. Collins’ belief that he was not his real brother. Currently, the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) is charged with consenting to Mr. Collins’ treatment with psychiatric medications.

13. Mr. Collins agreed to commence treatment with clozapine on November 27, 2025. Titration has been very slow, due to Mr. Collins expressing a considerable amount of fatigue and some mild abnormalities in his bloodwork which are being closely monitored.

14. As to whether Mr. Collins was fit to stand trial, the Hospital Report contains the following analysis (at p. 38)¹:

“Though Mr. Collins is able to define the different roles in a trial procedure, he does not possess a reality-based understanding of the nature, object, or possible consequences of the proceedings as it relates to the charges against him. He believes the system is “rigged” and that there is zero likelihood of receiving a fair trial. He believes there is a giant conspiracy, determined to silence him due to “all the evidence” he claims to possess against the Stratford police. He no longer has faith in his lawyer, as he believes he is part of the conspiracy. Due to his delusional belief system, he would not be able to meaningfully participate in this trial or rationally communicate with his lawyer.”

15. The Hospital report went on to note that Mr. Collins was recently started on clozapine, and that more time is needed to titrate and assess its therapeutic effects. Because of this, it is the opinion of the treatment team that he has remained unfit to stand trial from a psychiatric perspective. The Hospital Report also contained a number of formulations regarding Mr. Collins’ risk to the safety of the public. If more information is required on this issue, reference may be had to the Hospital Report.

16. The following summary of Mr. Collins’ fitness to stand trial as assessed by various forensic psychiatrists beginning in 2022 (after the first set of charges on October 18, 2021) is taken from last year’s Reasons for Disposition (at para 12):

After being charged with the 2021 offences Dr. Helen Whitworth opined Mr. Collins was unfit to stand trial in March 2022. He was admitted to the Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences on April 14, 2022, pursuant to a treatment order. He was later assessed for fitness by Dr. Naghmeh Mokhber on February 1, 2023, but she was unable to render an opinion as Mr. Collins terminated their interview. He was found fit to stand trial following assessment at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care on February 9, 2023, and was returned to jail on February 14, 2023. Dr. Giovana De Amorim Levin in a criminal responsibility assessment prepared on September 20, 2024, expressed the opinion that “without medical treatment, the probability of Mr. Collins remaining unfit to stand trial will be high. Mr. Collins has been restored to fitness in the past while using an oral antipsychotic (Olanzapine) under a treatment order”.

17. Following Mr. Collins’ admission to Ontario Shores in April 2022, he was treated first with paliperidone and later with olanzapine, following which Dr. K. DeFreitas found him fit to stand trial. Dr. DeFreitas noted that Mr. Collins believed the judge over his case had asked people to murder him but did not believe that the Crown attorney or his lawyer were involved in this. Mr. Collins assured Dr. DeFreitas that he would assist his lawyer to the best of his ability to prepare his defence, despite his belief that he could not get a fair trial. Dr. DeFreitas also noted that Mr. Collins made it clear he would discontinue taking anti-psychotic medication once the treatment order expired. Should that happen, Mr. Collins could potentially revert to a state of unfitness. He appears to have been released to the community on conditions following his return to court.

18. Dr. Mokhber’s report in February 2023 included a recommendation that Mr. Collins’ fitness to stand trial be assessed on an in-patient basis. This was done and he was admitted to the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health care (“SWC”) for a fitness assessment.

19. The fitness assessment dated February 9, 2023 was conducted by Dr. Ajay Prakash at the SWC. Dr. Prakash noted that Mr. Collins answered the Taylor Test questions well. The Hospital Report (at pp 17-18) notes that “Mr. Collins did not believe he had a psychotic disorder, and his thought content was a feature of the [his] psychotic state of mine. He showed no insight into his mental condition or need for treatment. It was noted that when he was in jail (South West Detention Centre) he refused to take antipsychotic medications offered to him”.

20. Dr. Levin’s NCR assessment in September 2024 [with respect to the charges laid in March 2022], recommended, as an aside, that Mr. Collins be made the subject of a treatment order for the purpose of restoring his capacity to stand trial should the court determine he was unfit to stand trial. The doctor’s reference to Mr. Collins having been restored to fitness in the past while using an oral antipsychotic pertained to his admission to Ontario Shores in 2022.

21. Last year’s Reasons for Disposition summarizes the evidence in support of the treatment team’s opinion that Mr. Collins was unfit to stand trial as follows (at para 23):

The authors of the hospital report note Mr. Collins’ delusional thinking and thought disorganization have remained unchanged since he was found unfit to stand trial by the court on November 6, 2024. In their view he does not possess a reality-based understanding of the nature, object, and possible consequences of the outstanding court proceedings. They conclude, “on account of his florid symptoms of psychosis, he could not be meaningfully present, and could not meaningfully participate, in his trial”. Although he was started on oral antipsychotic medication on April 1, 2025, and an injectable anti-psychotic on April 3rd, clinicians feel more time is required to titrate and assess its therapeutic effects. In their view he remains unfit to stand trial.

22. In addition, at that time, Mr. Collins believed that the judge in his case was not a real judge and that he did not require counsel at any legal proceedings because he was a lawyer and therefore did not intend to instruct counsel in his defence (p. 30).

23. Based on the evidence before it, last year’s panel of the Board made the following findings as to Mr. Collins’ fitness to stand trial as it was at the time of his initial hearing on April 29, 2025 (at paras 38-40):

The panel notes that the evidence clearly establishes that Mr. Collins’ mental illness is not presently responding to his antipsychotic medication regimen. He continues to have a delusional and disorganized thought process, tangential thinking, and pressured speech. He seriously misinterprets situations, a fact demonstrated by the allegations involved in the Index Offences and his interjections and testimony during the hearing -- for example misinterpreting an innocuous comment by Dr. Ardani during his testimony as a threat. He thought all charges outstanding against him had been withdrawn by the prosecution.

In the circumstances we conclude Mr. Collins is unable to conduct a defence or to instruct counsel to do so. Due to the mental condition described above, he is unable to be meaningfully present and to meaningfully participate in his trial. The charges he faces are serious and involve three separate and complicated court proceedings. He is clearly unable to understand available options with respect to outstanding charges, as he considers them to have been withdrawn. Mr. Gehl’s suggestion that his discussion with prosecuting counsel of possible withdrawal, overheard by his client, may explain the basis for Mr. Collins’ impression, but does not explain Mr. Collins’ settled belief in their past withdrawal.

Mr. Collins is presently unable to intelligently communicate with his counsel due to his disorganized thought process, his flight between topics, tangentiality, and pressured speech. Accordingly, we find the evidence establishes that at the present time Mr. Collins is unfit to stand trial.

Evidence at the Hearing

24. In addition to the documents comprising the Hearing Record and the Hospital Report, the Board had the benefit of the oral evidence of Mr. Collins’ attending forensic psychiatrist, Dr. A. Malka. Dr. Malka adopted the contents of the Hospital Report and gave an overview of Mr. Collins’ progress over the review period, focusing on the factors informing her opinion as the issue of his fitness to stand trial. Dr. Malka’s evidence also addressed the basis for the Hospital’s recommendation that the necessary and appropriate disposition be a detention disposition, should Mr. Collins be found unfit to stand trial.

25. Given that the parties were ultimately joined on the terms and conditions of a detention disposition if Mr. Collins were found to be unfit to stand trial, the oral evidence focused primarily on Mr. Collins’ fitness to stand trial; the within Reasons will reflect this focus.

26. Dr. Malka advised the panel that there has been an improvement in Mr. Collins’ presentation since he was last before the Board. Over the time that Dr. Malka has been working with Mr. Collins – he was transferred to a treatment unit in June 2025 – she has not observed him to have elevated mood, extreme irritability or be significantly disorganized in his thinking. Mr. Collins still demonstrated some tangential thought process but all of the other symptoms, including negative symptoms, he was experiencing at the time of last year’s annual review have resolved, save for those pertaining to his delusional system. He is no longer impulsive and has not made threatening statements to anyone. Dr. Malka said that the intensity of Mr. Collins’ delusions had diminished to the point that if he was not asked directly about them, they did not always come up. However, if questions regarding fitness to stand trial or his legal situation were asked of him, they would come up at that time. He will at times say that he has Schizophrenia but also will say that he does not really have it. He sometimes says he needs to keep taking the medications but also will express the belief that he does not need antipsychotic medication. He is adherent to his treatment regimen within the supportive setting of the treatment unit.

27. Dr. Malka last assessed Mr. Collins’ fitness to stand trial both the day before and the day of his annual review hearing. In her opinion, Mr. Collins was unfit to stand trial. In response to questions posed by Hospital Counsel, Dr. Malka said that Mr. Collins demonstrated an awareness of the charges against him, the role of various participants in his court process such as a judge, the lawyer for the Crown and defence counsel. However, Mr. Collins’ beliefs that there is a conspiracy against him involving the Stratford Police and the OPP and that the system is “rigged” against him signified to Dr. Malka that Mr. Collins did not have a reality-based understanding of the nature and object of the proceedings.

28. While Mr. Collins is able to understand the “pleas or options” available to him, his belief that a trial is rigged and that he would not get a fair trial “no matter what” informed Dr. Malka’s opinion that he did not have a reality-based understanding “of the potential outcome” so that he could choose from the available pleas.

29. Dr. Malka stated that Mr. Collins understood the meaning of an oath, the importance of telling the truth in court and the potential consequences of lying under oath.

30. As to whether Mr. Collins was able to rationally communicate with and instruct counsel in defence of the case, Dr. Malka said the answer to that question was “a little bit unclear”. Dr. Malka expressed that Mr. Collins [now] trusted his lawyer to make decisions “in his best interests”. The doctor went on explain her lack of clarity on the question was based on Mr. Collins telling her that if his lawyer missed an objection to something going on in the courtroom, he would object to it himself. Upon hearing this, Dr. Malka explored Mr. Collins’ understanding of the potential consequences of objecting to evidence when he had a lawyer to do that for him. The doctor asked Mr. Collins whether he understood that speaking out of turn in court could result in charges against him/being held in contempt of court, he said that he did but still believed if something was missed, he would object.

31. Dr. Malka was asked whether, in the context of three sets of complicated charges, Mr. Collins could meaningfully participate in the legal process, including if cross-examined and replied that it would be difficult for him because of the beliefs he held about “the system” to the effect that it was rigged against him.

32. Dr. Malka indicated that if Mr. Collins were to be found unfit to stand trial, a detention disposition was necessary and appropriate and referred to the risk analyses set out at pages 33 to 34 in support of her opinion. Dr. Malka did not think that community living was a realistic possibility over the coming year because Mr. Collins’ delusional thought process is still entrenched and that he does not believe he has a mental illness. For community living to be realistic, he would need to recognize that he has a mental illness and that he is in need of treatment and support. These factors would also play a role in his being assessed as being suitable to transfer to a rehabilitation unit from the treatment unit where he currently resides.

33. In terms of strengths, Dr. Malka advised that Mr. Collins is working “really well” with the treatment team, is polite, goes to programs, engages well with co-patients and follows unit rules. He is working his way up the privilege ladder and doing well. Dr. Malka has ruled out a diagnosis of personality disorder.

34. In response to questions from counsel for the Attorney General, Dr. Malka confirmed that Mr. Collins’ delusional system (delusions, conspiracies, people/family members being imposters) likely pre-dated the [alleged] Index Offences and was longstanding in nature. Dr. Malka indicated that delusions can be difficult to get rid of but with adequate treatment, Mr. Collins might be more willing to focus on other things. Dr. Malka said that if Mr. Collins were to instruct counsel, those instructions would be in the context of psychosis instead of accurate facts. As such, those instructions would not be reality based.

35. In response to questions from panel members, Dr. Malka said Mr. Collins was capable of communicating with legal counsel to explain what his goals are in terms of his criminal matter. The strength with which Mr. Collins holds fixed, false beliefs suggests his beliefs were unlikely to change, even if he were to be presented with contradictory information. Dr. Malka admitted that there was a grey area in that persons without a psychiatric diagnosis may also perceive the legal system as being rigged against them; the doctor felt that recent legal cases have effectively raised the bar for a person to be found fit to stand trial. Dr. Malka also felt that Mr. Collins wouldn’t be able to advocate for himself in ways that could help him because his point of view was very much outside of reality. However, Dr. Malka believed that legal counsel could in fact help develop Mr. Collins’ understanding of issues or facts that seemed to be unchangeable, and that if his lawyer felt he could get adequate instructions, this would be important in her opinion as to fitness because if Mr. Collins could work with his lawyer in a reasonable way, and follow advice, then it would stand to reason he could be fit. Dr. Malka said it was hard to predict when Mr. Collins might become fit, but she was hoping this could be within a year, after Mr. Collins has had the benefit of a therapeutic level of clozapine for a lengthier period of time.

36. Mr. Collins provided the panel with oral evidence as to his fitness to stand trial. After leading Mr. Collins through some preliminary matters to do with orientation as to time and place, Mr. Gehl asked a series of questions pertaining to a number of elements relevant to the issue of his fitness to stand trial. Mr. Collins was able to identify he had charges facing him in Stratford Ontario; that his charges stemmed from three separate incidents (“sets” of charges); that he had pleaded not guilty to the charges but understood that he could have pleaded guilty to them as well. Although he did not know the name of the prosecutor, he knew his job was to prosecute him for the charges. He described his lawyer’s role as “defending me from these charges”. The judge’s role was to “filter through the evidence and find out whether I was guilty or not”. Mr. Collins indicated that if found guilty the judge would sentence him and if found not guilty, the judge could release him. Further, he estimated the length of a potential sentence if found guilty of 3-5 years.

37. Then Mr. Gehl took Mr. Collins through a brief overview of facts underlying certain charges against him, referencing select portions of the Hospital Report. For the most part, Mr. Collins gave brief responses either explaining or denying the information set out in the Hospital Report purporting to describe the facts underpinning (some) of his charges:

(a) that he was doing dishes and heard his air conditioner being jostled and saw an arm reaching inside and somebody trying to remove it from outside but the details were different than in the Hospital Report;

(b) that he didn’t shoot fireworks [at the police] but the fireworks fell over [and shot in that direction];

(c) that he didn’t throw a [suspected] lit “Molotov cocktail” at police, describing is as a circus prop that couldn’t be lit;

(d) that he had backed up his car because he couldn’t see the police officer’s vehicle and denied giving him “the finger”, and that the police officer shot at him while he was in his car;

(e) he denied threatening to kill the victim [complainant] and that he was on his property and didn’t leave;

(f) he remembered a part about a baseball bat, that he called police and that two people were firing microwaves at his house and he felt the police should be laying charges because firing microwaves at someone is attempted murder;

(g) he remembered that he was admitted to Stratford General Hospital on a “form 2’ [of the Mental Health Act]

(h) he agreed he didn’t like his previous psychiatrist because he was wanted for murdering two children and that he knew because he was there when the doctor was arrested.

38. Mr. Collins said that if he were to be found fit and sent back to court, he would plead “not guilty” in connection with the charges.

39. Hospital counsel deferred questioning of Mr. Collins to counsel for the Attorney General. In response to questions from the Attorney General exploring Mr. Collins’s statements about Dr. Ardani, Mr. Collins gave a number of answers elaborating on his beliefs that he himself was in Iran, that he was in the US military, in the 1990s, that Dr. Ardani had skipped bail on the murder charges, had help from the Canadian embassy to escape, that he was a toddler when he served with the US military in Viet Nam, had been turned into a “tunnel rat” and “sent down”, and was an honourary OPP officer. He went on at some length as to his being targeted by the Stratford and St. Mary’s police for several decades. There was one officer in particular, “Welsh”,² he described as being after him since the 1980s and who he maintained had shot a woman in Mr. Collins’ kitchen. Mr. Collins allowed that not all of the convictions in his criminal record were the result of targeted attacks on him but of him being guilty but that he though a lot of it was fabricated by the police. He spoke of microwaves being weapons, that some were pointed at his house by the neighbours and that he was safe from them because his house had a lot of aluminum in it. He also was prompted to speak to Dr. Malka’s evidence that family members of his had been replaced by imposters; Mr. Collins agreed that was the case and gave extensive commentary on the issue.

40. In response to questions from members of the panel, Mr. Collins indicated that to testify in court mean to testify about incidents or events; that telling the truth meant giving an accurate description of events that have happened in the past; that an oath meant promising to tell the truth and keep to your word and that getting caught in a lie meant a person could get charged with libel. He indicated a willingness to have a judge from another city such as Hamilton or London hear his case. When asked whether he could think of another way to advise his lawyer that he had forgotten something or wanted to ask a question other than standing up in court, Mr. Collins said he would ask for “a sidebar”. He explained that a sidebar is where you go to a room where he could go private with Mr. Gehl.³ When his beliefs about events were reflected back to him, he was asked whether a judge would be influenced by it, Mr. Collins said “probably not”.

41. Mr. Collins explained that courts were needed to determine whether people are guilty or innocent and to protect people’s rights. He indicated that he would like to go to trial on the charges against him. He described regaining fitness meant he had to explain how the courts work, each person’s job (judge, prosecutor, defender, juries). He did not believe that treatment with medication had anything to do with past times he had become fit to stand trial and did not believe he had Schizophrenia. When asked why, in such circumstances, would he be willing take medication, he named his medications and indicated he took them because they [clinical staff] said he had to take it and that it made it easier for people to put him back in the courtroom, and keep him well [“fit to stand”]. He agreed that he took the medication with the hope that it would get him back to court to discuss the issues.

42. Mr. Collins described his relationship with Mr. Gehl and expressed confidence in his ability to defend him and work with him through the trial process, saying he was “smart and knew his stuff”.

43. In her final submissions, Hospital counsel maintained the position that the evidence established that Mr. Collins remained unfit to stand trial. Although he understood the parties and their roles in the trial process, his delusional ideation prevents him from having a reality-based understanding of the nature and object of the proceedings at trial. Further, counsel submitted that while Mr. Collins’ could answer “Taylor-type” questions, he did not meet the test set out in Bharwani because his delusions prevented him from presenting his side of the story in a reality-based way. Counsel argued that Mr. Collins’ belief that he was the victim of a conspiracy prevented him from understanding that he had been charged criminally for his behaviour. She went on to say that the fact a person had confidence in legal counsel or that they could choose not to testify was irrelevant to whether they were fit to stand trial because the underlying rationale for the fitness rule was based on the notion of a fair trial. Counsel submitted that the impact of Mr. Collins’ symptoms of mental illness robbed him of the ability to make full answer and defence. She posited that if the Board were to find Mr. Collins unfit to stand trial, the necessary and appropriate disposition was a detention order on the terms recommended by the Hospital.

44. Counsel for the Attorney General adopted the submissions of counsel for the Hospital and added that Mr. Collins was clearly unfit because he did not have the capacity to communicate effectively with counsel, and of making critical decisions based on counsel’s advice. She emphasized the long-standing, multi-layered, pervasive character of Mr. Collins’ delusions which, in her view, highlighted the fact Mr. Collins was not fit stand trial.

45. Counsel for Mr. Collins submitted that neither the Taylor Test nor Bharwani required an accused to act in his own best interests and that Mr. Collins was not on trial because of what’s going on in Stratford or that police conspired against him; rather, he was on trial because of specific events and that he can tell [narrate to others] what happened from his point of view, including facts and events that may or may not have happened but which could offer a defence in a reality-based way. Mr. Collins understood and admitted he was there on the day of the (alleged) Molotov cocktail and doing approximately what others were saying he was doing. Counsel reminded the panel that Mr. Collins had stated that the object he threw was not a “Molotov cocktail”, but a jar with lighters in it which showed that he could tell a judge the facts of what happened to him from his point of view. Counsel submitted that there was a conceptual difficulty applying Bharwani to cases such as Mr. Collins’ because there is a line between issues around fitness to stand trial and those engaged by s. 16 of the Criminal Code [NCR]. Counsel admitted that any line to be drawn would have to be drawn on a case-by-case basis and that it would be difficult to do but it needed to be done in Mr. Collins’ case. Counsel submitted that if the Board were to find Mr. Collins unfit to stand trial, the position and privileges proposed by the Hospital would not be opposed.

Analysis, Finding and Recommendations

46. Having considered the evidence and the submissions of counsel, the panel unanimously concludes that Mr. Collins is fit to stand trial and directs that he be returned to court for a trial of the issue.

Legal Framework

47. The starting point for the analysis as to whether Mr. Collins is fit to stand trial is s. 2 of the Criminal Code which defines “unfit to stand trial” as meaning “unable on account of mental disorder to conduct a defence at any stage of the proceedings before a verdict is rendered or to instruct counsel to do so, and, in particular, unable on account of mental disorder to (a) understand the nature or object of the proceedings, (b) understand the possible consequences of the proceedings, or (c) to communicate with counsel”.

48. In 2023, the Ontario Court of Appeal released a decision in the case of R. v. Bharwani 2023 ONCA 203 which revisited the “Taylor Test” and expanded the factors to be considered in assessing an accused’s fitness to stand trial:

(i) There is one fitness test for all accused, whether represented by counsel or not. The test is to be applied contextually;

(ii) the test for fitness is set out in s. 2 of the Criminal Code as noted above;

(iii) a person is unfit to stand trial if, on account of mental disorder, the person is unable to conduct a defence or to instruct counsel to do so;

(iv) the purpose of the s. 2 fitness test is to ensure that the accused can be meaningfully present and meaningfully participate at their trial;

(v) the Taylor test questions are not a sufficient surrogate for assessing fitness but are helpful when providing insights into an accused’s abilities in relation to the s. 2 criteria. Applying the fitness test is more nuanced than the questions recognized;

(vi) the accused must have a reality-based understanding of the nature and object and possible consequences of the proceedings; and

(vii) the accused must have the ability to make decisions, which involves the ability to understand available options, to select from those options, to understand the basic consequences arising from the options and the ability to intelligibly communicate to counsel or the court the decision arrived upon; and

(viii) the accused need not have the capacity to engage in analytic thinking in the sense that the accused need not be capable of making decisions in their own interests.

49. This decision was in turn appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada which released its judgment in R. v. Bharwani, 2025 SCC 26 on July 25, 2025. In upholding the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, Justice O’Bonsawin, writing for the majority, stated (at para 6):

[An]accused is fit to stand trial when they are able to make and communicate reality-based decisions in the conduct of their defence or instruct counsel to do so. Conducting a defence includes making decisions that an accused must always make personally and those which relate to the exercise of their right to full answer and defence, such as decisions about pleas, the mode of trial, selection of counsel, whether to testify, whether to call or cross-examine witnesses, and closing submissions, among others. The capacity required to make those decisions is a reality-based understanding of the nature or object of the proceedings and their possible consequences, an ability to understand the available options and their consequences, and an ability to select between those options when making decisions. Fitness to stand trial does not require an accused to make decisions in their best interests. Rather, it requires making decisions based on an understanding of reality that is not overwhelmed by delusions, hallucinations, or other symptoms of their mental disorder. Transient mental health symptoms do not necessarily compromise an accused’s ability to conduct a defence. The focus is always on assessing the extent to which an accused’s mental disorder impairs their understanding of reality when making and communicating decisions in their defence [emphasis supplied].

50. The Court upheld the “Taylor Test” analysis of the Court of Appeal but expanded on it and clothed it with nuance. The Court emphasized that fitness to stand trial is a contextual concept, and any inquiry into fitness must focus on actual decisions forming part of an accused’s defence in a specific case, and not in the abstract.

51. Also of relevance is the case of Re Clayton, 2025 ONCA 308, the Court of Appeal noted that fitness to stand trial is be considered in the broader context of the impact of an unfitness finding, which not only places presumptively innocent individuals under the authority of the Review Board system, but also results in their removal from the criminal justice system, thereby depriving them of their day in court.

Findings as to Fitness to Stand Trial:

52. Counsel for the Hospital and the Attorney General, in their submissions, quite properly relied upon the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Bharwani, with particular emphasis on the aspect of the case requiring an accused to have a “reality-based understanding when making decisions in the conduct of their defence or to instruct counsel to do so”.

53. However, this panel of the Board does not agree with Dr. Malka’s belief that the reasoning in Bharwani has made it more difficult for accused persons to be found fit to stand trial on the basis that they do not have a reality-based understanding of their case. Nor does the panel agree that whether an accused will follow legal advice should play a role in the analysis of fitness. In the panel’s view, these beliefs cast the net too wide and leads to the potential mischief of conflating the facts relevant to the test for fitness to stand trial with those relevant to the potential eligibility for a s. 16 Criminal Code defence. This panel is of the view that it is important that fitness to stand trial and the NCR defence be kept analytically distinct, even if many issues and their underlying facts appear to overlap. Assessing an accused’s fitness to stand trial involves an individually-appropriate approach; broad pronouncements as to whether Bharwani has “raised the bar” on fitness to stand trial are the antithesis of Bharwani’s emphasis on the individual before the court and their specific circumstances. In cases such as those of Mr. Collins, this is not an easy task.

54. In the panel’s view, the evidence establishes, on a balance of probabilities, that Mr. Collins:

a) suffers from a disease of the mind, namely Schizophrenia. This condition impairs Mr. Collins’ mind and its functioning;

b) is not as frankly disorganized in his thinking as he was at the time of last year’s annual review;

c) demonstrates an adequate understanding of, and can retain, information regarding the functions of various court officials, the nature of a trial and its possible outcomes;

d) understands the various pleas available to him;

e) understands the meaning of an oath and the consequences of not telling the truth if he has promised to do so;

f) now evinces restored trust and confidence in his lawyer’s ability to represent him;

g) can sustain adequate attention and focus to engage effectively in discussions with counsel;

h) can make and communicate decisions regarding his defence, even if those decisions are not in his best interests;

i) can understand and process legal advice and guidance, including accepting or rejecting it;

j) express himself and articulate his point of view;

k) can follow court proceedings;

l) participate substantially and meaningfully in his trial.

55. The panel notes, as well, there has been a marked improvement in Mr. Collins’ presentation overall and in this regard accepts Dr. Malka’s description of the symptoms he displayed at the time of last year’s annual review as now being resolved, except for his beliefs in connection with the legal system. We agree.

56. However, in Mr. Collins’ case, the fact he believes the legal system is “rigged” and that the police have conspired against him does not in and of itself preclude him from being found fit to stand trial, even if this belief informs his thinking and judgment to some extent. Dr. Malka fairly conceded that in her opinion, Mr. Collins is “marginally” unfit to stand trial, and that there is a “grey area” between a reasonably held belief as to the legal system being “rigged” against an individual and a belief that is borne of psychosis. In the panel’s view, this case falls squarely within that grey area. The panel appreciates Dr. Malka’s clinical expertise but accords different weight to the factors bearing on fitness to stand trial; at the end of the day, a finding as to whether a person is fit to stand trial is a legal decision, not a medical one.

57. It must also be remembered that fitness to stand trial is to be assessed contextually, in an individually appropriate way. Even the “Taylor Test” did not require that an accused meet each and every criteria, and to a standard of perfection; the panel asserts that the “Bharwani Test” is the same; that is, an accused is not required to meet a standard of perfection in terms of whether all of their thinking must be entirely free of psychosis to engage in reality-based decision-making. Indeed, Bharwani requires only that an accused’s decision-making not be “overwhelmed” by delusions and other symptoms of psychosis. Mr. Collins’ thought processes related to the conduct of the trial are not delusional nor are they disorganized. In this regard, Mr. Collins is no different than innumerable accused persons who may be fit to stand trial but clearly still exhibit symptoms of their mental disorder or accused persons who hold an abiding belief that the system is rigged against them. In Mr. Collins’ case, this panel of the Board finds that his delusional thinking does not overwhelm his ability to make decisions with respect to the conduct of his case or instruct counsel to do so.

58. The panel deliberated at length on the evidence and the applicability of the law to the facts. There is no doubt that when pressed by counsel for the Attorney General to elaborate on his delusions, Mr. Collins’ evidence confirmed that his long-held, complex delusional symptoms were intact. However, in the panel’s view, considered as a whole, the majority of questions posed of him by counsel for the Attorney General were not related to Mr. Collins’ understanding of the facts underpinning his various charges, but to his broader delusional framework. His answers to questions pertaining to his charges were mostly reasonable even if they do not ultimately prove to be persuasive in the context of his criminal matter. His understanding of the legal process in general and the “Taylor Test” criteria was virtually impeccable.

59. To the submission that Mr. Collins is unable to understand available options with respect to outstanding charges, as he considers them to have been withdrawn⁴ ; the panel views this as an error on Mr. Collins’ that education or legal advice from counsel could address. Indeed, Mr. Collins is able to intelligently communicate with his counsel. The panel observed evidence of this during the hearing. The panel also noted that for the most part, Mr. Collins was able to be interrupted and redirected by his counsel, thus showing a degree of responsiveness to his lawyer that was absent at last year’s annual review and which this panel considers a relative strength in the context of fitness to stand trial.

60. In the specific circumstances of this case, we conclude Mr. Collins is able to conduct a defence and to instruct counsel to do so. Further, we conclude he is able to be meaningfully present and to meaningfully participate in his trial. There is no doubt that the charges he faces involve three separate court proceedings, each comprising several charges, some serious and complex and some not necessarily so, on facts that are becoming more remote as time passes. There is also little doubt that, at trial, Mr. Collins’ decision-making and/or testimony may appear at times to be overwhelmed by delusions and other symptoms of psychosis. However, there are ways in which to modify the court process to accommodate these fluctuations so that Mr. Collins can be brought back on track; Bharwani lists some of them but there are others, including the possibility that the three sets of charges could be heard on different days, or separated so that they are not all resolved at the same time or even by the same judge. Opportunities to confer privately with counsel can be provided. Trauma-informed modifications to the physical setting of the courtroom can be considered. Inquiring into whether a judge from out-of-town could be assigned by the regional senior justice might be possible. Steps such as these may be taken to lessen the stressful and potentially overwhelming nature of a trial, whether Mr. Collins is represented by counsel or not. The panel notes, as well, that accommodations such as these might be available and helpful to Mr. Collins – and ultimately, to the due administration of justice – at the trial of the issue of fitness to stand trial when he is returned to court.

61. In the meantime, the Board’s disposition dated May 8, 2025, remains in force until it is replaced by a new bail/judicial interim release order made by the court to which Mr. Collins is returned or another court possessing the authority to review the order. The Board has no authority to review, amend or replace the pre-existing disposition.

62. The history as to Mr. Collin’s fluctuant fitness to stand trial over many years, provides reasonable grounds to believe that if he were released from hospital to the community or placed in jail pending the trial of his fitness in court, he will again become unfit. Should Mr. Collins be found fit to stand trial, the panel recommends (but cannot order) that consideration be given to detaining him in hospital pending trial or the further and other resolution of his criminal charges. This may assist in maintaining his fitness to stand trial, so that he may at last have his day in court.

DATED this 23rd day of April 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.

Ms. T. Mann

Alternate Chairperson

Office of the Registrar

Ontario Review Board

Footnotes

1. 1The Hospital Report is dated January 16, 2026; the presumption is that the information in it is current to that date.
2. 2Officer Welsh is mentioned in the description of the alleged Index Offences at p. 3 of the Hospital Report: “The accused is well known to PC Welsh due to previous dealings…” The Hospital Report does not detail the names of all of the officers involved in each set of offences; this may be a limitation of the source material. In any event, it is not apparent from the information provided to the panel whether PC Welsh was also involved in the events of March 7, 2022 and June 12, 2024. Given the context of nearly 200 contacts with police, there may be some reality to Mr. Collins’ perceptions that he and Constable Welsh have a history.
3. 3Earlier in the hearing, Mr. Collins had advised that his court attendances had been on-line. It is a matter of public knowledge that many criminal court appearances were via Zoom during the coverture of the COVID-19 pandemic.
4. 4To be fair to Mr. Collins, he did not consistently say that all of his charges were withdrawn; he misinterpreted the term “released” (on conditions).