Re: Randall Just
ORB File No: 5485
Hearing held on: February 19, 2026
Place of hearing: St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton, West 5^th^ Campus
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. K.A Connidis
Members: Dr. J. Cheston
Dr. A. Prakash
Mr. D. D’Intino
Ms. B. Little
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Randall Just
Counsel: Ms. C. Whillier
The Person in Charge of Hospital: Counsel: Ms. L. Barney
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. A. Lepchuk
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated April 21, 2026)
Introduction
On November 5, 2009, Mr. Randall Just was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, on charges of unauthorized possession of a firearm, possession of firearm or weapon contrary to order, assault with a weapon and failure to comply with probation order (x2) contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”).
Mr. Just is currently subject to a Conditional Discharge Disposition Order dated March 3, 2025.
On February 19, 2026, a panel of the Ontario Review Board (ORB) convened in person and a hearing was held at St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton (SJHH). Mr. Just was present with his counsel. The purpose of the hearing was to determine if Mr. Just continues to present a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in the Criminal Code of Canada, and if so, to decide on the necessary and appropriate Disposition.
For the reasons set out below, the Board unanimously finds that Mr. Just continues to meet the threshold for significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is continuation of the existing Conditional Discharge Disposition with the sole change to its conditions being the deletion of term 1(c) which prohibited him from consuming alcohol, drugs or other intoxicating substances.
Current Psychiatric Diagnosis:
Schizophrenia;
Intellectual Disability;
Polysubstance Use Disorder, in sustained remission
Index Offences:
- The facts arising from the index offences were set out in the last year’s ORB reasons and are reproduced as follows:
“February 20, 2009
Police responded to a call from the victim, who reported that he had been stabbed in the leg above the knee by Mr. Just. When police arrived, the victim stated that Mr. Just had been showing the knife to him while he was seated. Mr. Just poked the victim in the area of the left knee, which pierced his pants and caused a pinhead-sized injury. The victim told the police that Mr. Just had then put the knife back in his pocket and left
April 8, 2009
Police received information on the whereabouts of Mr. Just, who was wanted on an outstanding warrant, presumably in relation to the events of February 20, 2009. Police were advised that Mr. Just was possibly armed with a knife. Police attended the location and arrested Mr. Just, who was found in possession of a knife with a 150 mm length blade contained in a sheath worn on his belt. A .22 calibre rifle was found concealed in a pant leg."
Without Prejudice Positions of the Parties:
At the commencement of the hearing, the parties were canvassed for their initial positions.
The Hospital took the position that Mr. Just continues to meet the threshold for significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition was a continuation of the existing Conditional Discharge Disposition with one change to its terms and conditions: the removal of condition 1(c).
Counsel for the Attorney General reserved her position until hearing the evidence of the Hospital.
Counsel for the accused agreed and conceded the presence of significant threat to the safety of the public.
Evidence at the Hearing:
The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence from Dr. Yuri Alatishe, who is Mr. Just’s attending psychiatrist.
Dr. Alatishe testified that Mr. Just has had issues in the past reporting year with attending on time for his medication administration, but that there were no recent concerns in this regard. Dr. Alatishe noted improvements in this domain and credits Mr. Just’s case manager for encouraging Mr. Just to have his alarm on his phone set up properly.
Dr. Alatishe was then asked to explain why the Hospital was recommending the removal of condition 1(c) in Mr. Just’s Conditional Discharge. Dr. Alatishe explained that Mr. Just has done quite well abstaining from the use of intoxicating substances while in the forensic system and eventually he is going to move to an Absolute Discharge. When this occurs, Mr. Just will have unrestricted access to legal and illegal substances, notwithstanding the fact that the treatment team has educated Mr. Just on the dangers of consuming those substances.
The treatment team wants to test Mr. Just while he is still under the jurisdiction of the ORB to see if Mr. Just can either maintain his abstinence or at the very least, moderate and control his consumption of legal substances while maintaining abstinence from illegal ones. The team would then have the opportunity to monitor any changes in Mr. Just’s mental status and return him to the Hospital if his risk can no longer be managed in the community.
In response to questions from the Crown Attorney, Dr. Alatishe testified that Mr. Just’s insight surrounding the risks of cannabis use is not fully developed. As a result, Mr. Just does not fully appreciate the connection between cannabis use and the risk of destabilizing his mental health.
Dr. Alatishe further testified that while there is concern on the part of the treatment team regarding Mr. Just consuming any psychoactive substances, the main concern is with the consumption of cannabis. This is because Mr. Just has only mentioned a desire to use cannabis and has not expressed any interest in using any other substances.
Dr. Alatishe testified that he has a great rapport with Mr. Just, as does his case manager, and Dr. Alatishe feels as though Mr. Just is receptive to the suggestions and recommendations of his treatment team.
When asked what, in his opinion, has kept Mr. Just from consuming cannabis while under the ORB jurisdiction, Dr. Alatishe explained that it is likely a combination of factors, such as the condition of his Conditional Discharge Disposition which prohibits substance use and also the recommendations of the treatment team.
Crown Counsel then asked Dr. Alatishe why an updated risk assessment was not completed, given the recommendation of the treatment team that the prohibition clause of the Disposition was to be removed and given that the past risk assessment for Mr. Just identified substance use as a key risk factor. Dr. Alatishe agreed that normally when such a change to Disposition is made a new risk assessment is ordered, however, he felt that the increase to risk posed by Mr. Just to the safety of the public was apparent should he consume psychoactive substances.
Dr. Alatishe testified that if Mr. Just does engage in substance use and if that negatively affects his mental stability, the treatment team could rely on the provisions of the Mental Health Act to return Mr. Just to the Hospital or, the team could ask for an early annual ORB hearing to request that the prohibition condition be reimposed.
In response to questions from Ms. Whillier, Dr. Alatishe was unable to inform us what position Mr. Just occupied on the waiting list for community housing with Six Nations. Dr. Alatishe did not think there was much movement with the waitlist because it is a good facility and people do not leave it quickly. Dr. Alatishe also confirmed that there have been no recent interpersonal or management issues with Mr. Just.
Dr. Alatishe testified that Mr. Just has enjoyed outings with his Passport worker in the past reporting year, that the worker would discourage Mr. Just from consuming substances and would disclose to the treatment team should they become aware of any substance use by Mr. Just.
In response to questions from the Panel, Dr. Alatishe confirmed that conditions in the Disposition allowing for the testing of random urine samples from Mr. Just would remain.
Dr. Alatishe also supported the Panel’s request for a Gladue Report to be produced for the next annual hearing, given Mr. Just’s Indigenous identity. He further confirmed that the Hospital has and will continue to do everything in its power to ensure that Mr. Just’s cultural needs are met and that he can attend any culturally appropriate programming he wished to engage in.
Concerning the index offences, Dr. Alatishe confirmed that both alcohol and cannabis consumption were factors in the index offences, which also involved the possession of a knife and a firearm. He further agreed that cannabis consumption is not recommended for persons with schizophrenia because it can exacerbate the psychotic symptoms that such a person is already predisposed to experiencing. Dr. Alatishe also confirmed that, for Mr. Just, substance use alone has historically resulted in violent behaviours, as reported by Mr. Just’s family.
Lastly, Dr. Alatishe agreed with the suggestion that, while psychotropic medications such as clozapine provide some protection against mental status decompensation, even when psychoactive substances are consumed, this protection has its limitations and thus the consumption of cannabis and similar substances is contraindicated for persons with psychotic disorders.
When asked to explain why Mr. Just poses a significant risk to the safety of the public and what his most likely reoffence scenario would be, Dr. Alatishe explained that, when unwell, Mr. Just has been prone to violence against both his family members and the general public. Furthermore, he has a history of substance abuse and medication non-compliance, which are not concerns under the highly structured environment of the hospital, but would be a reason for caution when Mr. Just makes the transition to community living.
The most likely reoffence scenario according to Dr. Alatishe is one where, in a less structured environment, Mr. Just becomes overwhelmed with stress and then returns to substance use, which in turn triggers rapid mental status decompensation and eventually a return to physical violence.
At the conclusion of the evidence, the counsel for Hospital and defence maintained their joint recommendation, while Crown Counsel objected to the removal of condition 1(c) in the Disposition.
Analysis and Conclusions
Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence as well as the submissions from the parties, the Board finds that Mr. Just continues to meet the threshold for significant threat to the safety of the public and finds that a continuation of the existing Conditional Discharge Disposition is the least onerous and least restrictive, necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances.
The Panel has come to this decision after a careful review of the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Ramos (Re), 2025 ONCA 820. While the facts in Ramos differ significantly from that of the present case, the ratio decidendi is relevant to all cases that the Board hears.
In summary, the case of Ramos requires the Board to:
Remain attentive to constitutional protections and avoid the influence of stereotypes or prejudice;
Give thoughtful weight to the reasonable wishes and preferences of NCR individuals, while still prioritizing community safety;
Undertake a careful, individualized assessment that avoids assuming permanent or inherent dangerousness and instead evaluates the person’s present clinical and social circumstances;
Keep the legal thresholds distinct from hospital preferences or institutional rule compliance, recognizing that clinical convenience cannot substitute for the legal test and conducting a holistic assessment which acknowledges strengths and improvements;
Exercise its own independent judgment when reviewing professional opinions; and
Approach hearsay evidence with care, ensuring that any reliance on such information is fair, balanced, and consistent with the Board’s dual role of protecting both individual rights and public safety.
A significant threat to the safety of the public cannot be speculative. It must entail a real risk of serious physical or psychological harm arising from conduct that is both serious and criminal in nature.
In determining whether Mr. Just represents a significant threat to the safety of the public, the Board has carefully analyzed the evidence as it relates to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Winko, 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625 and the definition of the term in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code.
Mr. Just suffers from a psychotic disorder which is largely treated by his current medication regimen and the structure and supports of the forensic mental health system. He has made excellent progress in the past reporting year, has not presented any management or safety issues, and has worked collaboratively with his treatment team, while remaining abstinent from substances and medication compliant.
He has been under the jurisdiction of the ORB since 2009. Prior to that point, he accumulated convictions as both an adult and a youth for offences which included acts of violence, possession of a weapon and possession of a schedule I substance for the purpose of trafficking.
Mr. Just has a longstanding history of physical and verbal aggression, substance abuse, auditory hallucinations and ongoing intellectual disability. He had a history of hospitalizations prior to the NCR finding, and subsequent to that finding he struggled at times with medication compliance.
When unwell, Mr. Just has been physically violent, both in and outside the Hospital setting, to the point where seclusion was needed and, ultimately, he required a period of time at Waypoint to manage his institutional violence.
In recent years, Mr. Just has made remarkable progress toward his mental status stability, which can be attributed to the tremendous forensic and family support and structure he receives, but credit to him must also be given.
As per the most recent risk assessment, substance abuse remains the most relevant risk factor for Mr. Just and a key potential destabilizer. While he has developed some degree of insight into the destabilizing nature of psychoactive substances, his insight remains underdeveloped, notwithstanding psychoeducation provided by the treatment team.
As Mr. Just continues to progress toward an Absolute Discharge, the Hospital rightly wishes to see to what extent Mr. Just is internally motivated to maintain his abstinence, to test his ability to resist peer influence and his coping skills, and to monitor Mr. Just for any changes to his mental status should he engage in the consumption of legal substances such as alcohol or cannabis.
Given the above noted evidence, Crown Counsel was understandably concerned about the possibility that the Board would remove the prohibition clause from Mr. Just’s Disposition. As Dr. Alatishe testified, substance use has been a longstanding concern for Mr. Just, factored into the commission of the index offences, and it remains his most significant risk factor for future violence.
However, on the issue of the necessary and appropriate Disposition, the Panel prefers the position of the Hospital and the defence: that the least onerous and least restrictive Disposition is a continuation of the existing Conditional Discharge with a removal of clause 1(c).
The Panel concludes that it is more in keeping with the factors set out in s. 672.54, especially the protection of the safety of the public, to test Mr. Just’s ability to abstain from the consumption of substances in the absence of the external control provided by the prohibition clause in his Disposition. Should Mr. Just decide to engage in the consumption of legal substances, then the Hospital can monitor not only his consumption but look for any changes in his mental status that would indicate an elevation in risk to public safety.
Should such concerns arise, the Hospital has the ability to use the Mental Health Act to return Mr. Just to the Hospital, or in the alternative, request an early Annual Hearing to either impose a Detention Order or to reimpose the prohibition clause.
None of these options would be available to the Hospital should Mr. Just be granted an Absolute Discharge which will eventually be a consideration for the ORB. In order to move closer toward that goal, Mr. Just needs to be tested in the community and to demonstrate his willpower, insight, good judgment, coping skills and the ability to resist peer influences and temptations in the community setting.
If Mr. Just is unable to remain abstinent from legal substances, at the very least he will have the opportunity to demonstrate the ability to moderate his consumption while under the supervision of the treatment team and the ORB by extension.
This outcome is far preferable to simply maintaining the existing prohibition, having him earn an Absolute Discharge and then being unable to intervene at all should his mental status deteriorate and his risk to the public increase. To opt for that approach could invite more serious consequences for Mr. Just and the public at large.
In consideration of all the evidence, the submissions of the parties, the wishes of Mr. Just and the criteria set forth in s. 672.54, the paramount consideration being the safety of the public, in addition to the mental condition of Mr. Just, his reintegration into society and his other needs, the Panel finds that a continuation of the existing Conditional Discharge Disposition with the prohibition clause removed is the necessary and appropriate Disposition.
Furthermore, the Board directs that a Gladue Report be produced for Mr. Just’s next annual hearing, and moreover, that the Hospital conduct an updated risk assessment for Mr. Just to account for the removal of clause 1(c) of his Disposition, also for the next annual hearing.
DATED this 21^st^ day of April 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. D. D’Intino
Legal Member
___________________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board