Re: Steed Dewayne Valentine, 2026 CanLII 36983

Re: Steed Dewayne Valentine

ORB File No: 6024 Hearing held on: Wednesday, March 18, 2026 Place of hearing: Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences, 700 Gordon Street, Whitby Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code

Before: Alternate Chairperson: Ms. C. Finley Members: Dr. P. Prendergast, Dr. W. Loza, Ms. J. Greenwood, Ms. R. MacIntyre

Parties Appearing: Accused: Steed D. Valentine Counsel: Ms. J. Boissonneault

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

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. T. Hewitt

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated April 22, 2026)

Introduction

1On December 13, 2011, Steed Valentine was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of assault and failing to comply with a probation order, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. He is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (ORB/the Board) dated March 18, 2025, discharging him with conditions including that he reside at Canadian Mental Health Association housing and abstain from the use of alcohol or drugs. Mr. Valentine is supported by the Forensic Outpatient Service at Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (Ontario Shores/the hospital).

2On March 18, 2026, the Board convened a hearing to conduct the annual review of Mr. Valentine’s disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Valentine was present and represented by his counsel, Ms. Boissonneault.

3At the outset of the proceedings, the parties were canvassed as to their positions on the issues to be determined by the Board: whether Mr. Valentine remains a significant threat to the safety of the public, and if so, the necessary and appropriate disposition having regard to the criteria in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

4Ms. Szabo, on behalf of the hospital, submitted that Mr. Valentine remains a significant threat to the safety of the public and there should be no change to his current disposition. Mr. Hewitt, on behalf of the Ministry of the Attorney General, concurred in the hospital’s positions. Ms. Boissonneault indicated that Mr. Valentine does not believe that he represents a significant threat to the safety of the public and is therefore entitled to an absolute discharge. Should the panel find that the threshold for significant threat has been met, Mr. Valentine agreed that his current disposition should continue.

Findings

5For the reasons that follow, the panel found that Mr. Valentine remains a significant threat to the safety of the public and the necessary and appropriate disposition is a continuation of the current detention order.

The Evidence

6The evidence at the hearing consisted of the Hospital Report dated February 24, 2026 (ex. 1), and the viva voce evidence of Dr. Pallandi, Mr. Valentine’s treating psychiatrist.

The Index Offences

7A summary of the circumstances of the index offences is taken from last year’s Reasons for Disposition:

“On September 17, 2011, the victim, a 54-year-old female was walking to church with her husband in Toronto. The victim walked past the accused, who was lying on a bench. The accused leered at her. She nodded to him and stated, “God bless you”, and kept walking. The accused approached the victim while yelling at her and then punched her in the face. He then spit in her face and continued to accost the victim. The victim’s husband chased the accused. Officers in the area at the time of the assault witnessed the accused running away through traffic and arrested him.”

8The punch caused a laceration and swelling to the victim’s lip. She complained of headache and nausea, indicative of a possible concussion, and was taken to hospital.

9On May 24, 2011, Mr. Valentine was convicted of assault causing bodily harm and assault and sentenced to a suspended sentence with two years’ probation. He was subject to that probation order, including that he keep the peace and be of good behaviour, at the time of the assault.

Background Information

10The Hospital Report contains limited information as to Mr. Valentine’s personal history and psychiatric treatment and need not be reviewed in detail in these reasons but for the following material points.

11Mr. Valentine is a 39-year-old single man who was born and raised in Toronto. He has a grade ten education and limited work experience. Prior to his arrest for the index offences, Mr. Valentine was living at his mother’s residence, shelters or on the streets. He is currently supported by the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP).

12Mr. Valentine has a significant criminal record including multiple convictions for robbery, assaults with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, being in possession of a weapon and failing to comply with court orders.

13Mr. Valentine’s first admission to hospital for psychiatric care occurred in 2007. He was admitted to Humber River Regional Hospital following an altercation. Upon admission, Mr. Valentine was experiencing acute symptoms of psychosis, including paranoid ideation. He was noted to have consumed THC. Mr. Valentine was treated with an antipsychotic medication and released a week later. His diagnosis on discharge was schizophrenia, paranoid type and substance abuse.

14Subsequent assessments by forensic psychiatrists occurred in the context of criminal court proceedings, either to assess fitness to stand trial or criminal responsibility. On each occasion, Mr. Valentine appeared to suffer from paranoid delusions and disorganized behaviour.

15Following his NCR verdict, Mr. Valentine was transferred to Oak Ridges (now Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care) where he remained until his transfer to Ontario Shores in July 2012. He was discharged to the community in February 2018. However, within a month, he was readmitted to hospital twice.

16On November 1, 2018, there was a shortage of supported housing in the community. As a result, Mr. Valentine was discharged to reside with his mother and brothers. Unfortunately, his mother reported problematic behaviour over the first weekend, and Mr. Valentine was readmitted on November 5, 2018. Although he was compliant with medication, he continued to consume cannabis, both in the community and while residing in the hospital. This had a negative impact on his mental stability and exacerbated his psychotic symptoms.

17Mr. Valentine remained an inpatient at Ontario Shores until his most recent discharge to a supported residence operated by the Canadian Mental Health Association (CMHA) in May 2022. Mr. Valentine transitioned to his current residence in April of 2024 after continued interpersonal conflict at his previous group home. He moved to Petre House, another group home within the CMHA program.

Course Since the Last Disposition

18Mr. Valentine’s current diagnoses are Schizophrenia, Cannabis Use Disorder, Antisocial Personality Disorder, and Mild Intellectual Disability. He remains incapable of making treatment decisions and his mother remains his substitute decision maker (SDM).

19On April 3, 2025, Mr. Valentine was found at his residence in a stuporous state and minimally responsive. Emergency services transported him to Lakeridge Health Oshawa emergency department. He was administered Narcan with a positive response and discharged back to his residence. Members of his forensic treatment team attended the residence the next day and found Mr. Valentine to be irritable, argumentative and defensive. A positive urine drug screen for THC was noted. The team had received persistent reports from the staff at the residence of Mr. Valentine’s behavioural instability at the residence and substance use, both cannabis and alcohol. Given the concerns of his ongoing drug use and the impact on his mental status, Mr. Valentine was readmitted to hospital for further assessment and stabilization.

20Mr. Valentine’s SDM declined to consent to the use of long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication, however she did consent to the use of Divalproex Sodium. Mr. Valentine refused that medication, however, the next month he agreed to an increase in his dosage of Olanzapine. The change appeared to have a positive effect on his mental status.

21On April 28, 2025, while still admitted to hospital, Mr. Valentine approached a female patient and made comments regarding her physical appearance. When she attempted to disengage, Mr. Valentine attempted to hug her and grabbed her arm.¹ During subsequent discussions with the treatment team about the incident, Mr. Valentine did not accept responsibility for his behaviour and appeared unconcerned.

22On May 16, 2025, Mr. Valentine had a verbal altercation with another patient during the course of which Mr. Valentine slapped him across the head, causing the patient’s hat to fall off his head. Mr. Valentine stated that he was provoked by the patient and, once again, refused to accept responsibility for his behaviour.

23Mr. Valentine was discharged back to his residence on June 19, 2025. Since then, he has transitioned to an independent subsidized apartment operated through CMHA. The following description of his status since that move is taken from the Hospital Report, at page 57:

“Despite the functional stability, at times he exhibited increased irritability and guardedness, which limited his outpatient team’s ability to engage and assess him. During this period, he repeatedly tested positive for Ethyl Glucuronide in his urine drug screens. He initially denied any alcohol use, however during an appointment with his psychiatrist he reported some alcohol use in August related to familial stressors. When presented with any subsequent positive result, he related this to his reported use in August. He tested positive regularly for Ethyl Glucuronide from August until November. There has been a marked improvement in his presentation and engagement with his team since November.”

24Mr. Valentine did not attend any structured psychosocial groups, nor did he voice an interest in doing so. He was referred to the Concurrent Disorders program for individual counselling, however, he declined to participate when provided with the opportunity to initiate this.

25Dr. Pallandi testified before the panel. He indicated that Mr. Valentine’s risk to the safety of the public arises from a combination of his major mental illness, ongoing maladaptive personality traits, and some degree of intellectual limitation. His recent admission to hospital was required as a result of a combination of those factors. Mr. Valentine’s use of substances led to a fairly lengthy hospitalization.

26Dr. Pallandi also indicated that Mr. Valentine has compromised insight into a number of factors, including his use of substances and the impact substances have on his mental stability, his ongoing need for treatment, and the need for that treatment to continue in perpetuity.

27Dr. Pallandi testified that Mr. Valentine has continued to consume substances, as confirmed by the results of his urine drug screens, which, however, Mr. Valentine continues to flatly deny. Dr. Pallandi noted that the biomarker indicative of alcohol use is fairly reliable. Mr. Valentine has indicated that on one occasion in August 2025 he had a glass of wine. That would not account for the dozens of positive samples that Mr. Valentine has provided between August and November of 2025.

28Dr. Pallandi reported that Mr. Valentine remains in his subsidized independent apartment. He seems to enjoy his apartment and there have been no reported concerns. Although the apartment is part of the CMHA program, there are no on-site staff and the support is minimal. Staff are able to visit the apartment and ensure that it is being kept in good order.

29In order for the treatment team to consider making a recommendation for an Absolute Discharge, they would want to see Mr. Valentine being more transparent and honest with them, in particular around his use of alcohol and demonstrate better engagement.

30When asked about a transition of Mr. Valentine’s care to a community physician, Dr. Pallandi testified that Mr. Valentine has refused to provide the treatment team with any information about a doctor in the community. Dr. Pallandi indicated that he would be obliged to continue to provide care to Mr. Valentine should he receive an Absolute Discharge, but it would be entirely up to Mr. Valentine whether or not to engage with treatment.

31Dr. Pallandi testified that in discussions with Mr. Valentine, Mr. Valentine has not been forthcoming about his plans should he be granted an Absolute Discharge. He has stated that it is up to him where he lives and what he wants to do.

32Over the course of the last clinical year, Mr. Valentine has remained compliant with medication. He also has consistently met with the doctor and his case manager.

33Dr. Pallandi noted that there was a discernable change in Mr. Valentine’s mental state during the period that he tested positive for Ethyl Glucuronide. He is less agreeable, less pleasant, and a little surlier during those times. Conversely, when the screens came back as negative, there was a discernible change, a positive change in his mental state and his engagement. No positive symptoms of psychosis were observed. However, the Hospital Report notes that during these periods there is a change in the negative symptoms of his schizophrenia, such as poverty of speech and poor hygiene.

34Dr. Pallandi testified that Mr. Valentine tested positive for the biomarker on February 12, 2026. Once again, the treatment team observed a notable change in his mental state and engagement with the treatment team.

35When asked by the panel about Mr. Valentine’s presentation on April 3, 2025, Dr. Pallandi testified that he attended the residence and was struck by Mr. Valentine’s presentation. He was completely obtunded and unrousable. The doctor had never seen him in that state. Further, the positive reaction to the administration of Narcan suggested some other substance may have been consumed. In Dr. Pallandi’s opinion, the lack of insight or lack of judgement into regulating his use of substances to such a degree that he can be obtundent in his residence, is cause for great concern. Further, the irritability displayed by Mr. Valentine while in the hospital rose to the level where the safety of the public was a concern. It took some time for Mr. Valentine to return to his functional baseline, resulting in his continued admission for approximately six weeks, until June 19, 2025.

36At the conclusion of the evidence, all parties maintained their initial positions.

Analysis and Conclusion

37The panel carefully considered the Hospital Report and the evidence of Dr. Pallandi and unanimously found that Mr. Valentine remains a significant threat to the safety of the public. Mr. Valentine’s risk flows from his diagnoses of schizophrenia and cannabis use disorder. Notwithstanding compliance with medication, Mr. Valentine exhibits changes in his mental status in the context of ongoing problematic substance use.

38Mr. Valentine’s relapse in April 2025 was particularly concerning. He was found obtunded and unrousable and emergency services had to be summoned. The administration of Narcan resulted in a positive reaction, suggesting that the consumption of a substance other than cannabis or alcohol, such as an opioid. It took six weeks in hospital before Mr. Valentine’s urine drug screens were negative and he returned to his functional baseline. During that time Mr. Valentine was irritable, argumentative and defensive.

39During this recent admission to hospital there were two notable incidents involving Mr. Valentine behaving aggressively towards two co-patients. One involved an assault in the context of previous sexual comments and the other an assault during an altercation. Fortunately, on the occasion of the second incident, staff were present to intervene before it could escalate. Mr. Valentine refused to accept responsibility for either incident.

40Notwithstanding that incident in April and his disposition prohibiting substance use, Mr. Valentine has continued to provide urine samples that indicate the presence of alcohol. The most recent was in February 2026. These positive results coincide with a change in Mr. Valentine’s mental status. He becomes increasingly irritable and is guarded and oppositional toward the treatment team.

41When determining whether the threshold for significant threat has been met, the panel is mindful that of the test as articulated in the decision of the Supreme Court in Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 624, In that case, the Court identified a significant risk as a "real risk of physical or psychological harm to members of the public that is serious in the sense of going beyond the merely trivial or annoying. The conduct giving rise to the harm must be criminal in nature". In Winko, the Supreme Court also outlined that in coming to a conclusion on the issue of significant risk, a Review Board should closely examine a range of evidence including: the circumstances of the original offence, the past and expected course of the accused's circumstances and treatment, the present state of the NCR accused's medical condition, the NCR accused's own plans for the future, the support services existing for the NCR accused in the community and, perhaps most importantly, the recommendations provided by experts who have examined the NCR accused.

42When reviewing Mr. Valentine’s case, the index offence was serious, in that it involved an unprovoked attack on a stranger on the street. Mr. Valentine has multiple convictions for violence including convictions for robbery, assaults with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, being in possession of a weapon. Those historical factors remain static.

43Mr. Valentine has been residing in the community since May 2022. Although there have been some incidents of interpersonal conflict, Mr. Valentine has remained compliant with medication and consistently met with his treating psychiatrist and case manager. However, over the course of the past year he has continued to consume substances, contrary to his disposition. Mr. Valentine has tested positive for ethyl glucuronide on multiple occasions over the past year, the most recent last month. The treatment team has noted a change in his mental status, in that he becomes more irritable, argumentative and less engaged with his treatment team.

44Of particular concern were the circumstances of his admission in April and the subsequent incidents while an inpatient. These events reflect an instability on Mr. Valentine’s part. He does not acknowledge his problematic behaviour. He does not engage in recommended programming to address these risk factors. He is not forthcoming with the treatment team about any possible supports in the community that could provide assistance. Mr. Valentine does not have good insight into his illness and the ongoing need for treatment. Critically, he has not linked his substance use to his mental health deterioration and his aggression. As such, the panel found that he remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.

45Having found that Mr. Valentin represents a significant threat to the safety of the public, the panel considered the necessary and appropriate disposition having regard to the criteria found in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

46The panel accepted Dr. Pallandi’s opinion that Mr. Valentine’s current disposition of a discharge with conditions is the least restrictive and least onerous disposition that is necessary and appropriate to manage Mr. Valentine’s threat to the safety of the public. Mr. Valentine currently is doing well in a subsidized independent apartment operated through CMHA. He continues to meet with Dr. Pallandi and his case manager, although with varying levels of engagement.

47Over the course of the next clinical year, the treatment team will continue to support Mr. Valentine to develop insight into the use of substances on his mental stability and the benefits of abstaining from substance use. Historically, periods of abstinence have resulted in Mr. Valentine achieving some measure of mental stability, such that his risk to the public would decrease significantly. Ideally, Mr. Valentine will work with the treatment team to develop appropriate community supports, including a transition of care to a doctor in the community and permission for the team to engage with that doctor.

48In arriving at our conclusion, the panel has considered the paramount factor of the safety of the public, Mr. Valentine’s mental condition, his community reintegration, and his other needs, all as required by s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

Footnotes

1. 1These actions were captured on security footage.