Ontario Review Board
Re: Claudio L. Villanova
ORB File No: 8205
Hearing held on: Wednesday, April 8, 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: Mr. J. Weinstein
Members: Dr. K. Hand Dr. M. Kalia Hon. A. Sosna Mr. J. Cyr
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Claudio L. Villanova Counsel: Ms. J. Boissonneault
The person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. D. Pallandi
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. N. MacDonald
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated April 30, 2026)
Introduction
On December 23, 2022, Mr. Claudio Villanova was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, on a charge of possession of weapon for dangerous purpose, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”).
Mr. Villanova is subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”), dated April 30, 2025, which ordered that he be detained within the Forensic Program at Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (“Ontario Shores”).
On April 8, 2026, the Board convened a hearing at Ontario Shores to conduct the annual review of the current Disposition.
Mr. Villanova was present for the hearing and was represented by his counsel, Ms. J. Boissonneault. Mr. Villanova’s parents were also in attendance.
A Hospital Report, dated March 18, 2026 (the “Hospital Report”), was entered as Exhibit 1.
The issues at this hearing were whether Mr. Villanova is a significant threat to public safety, as defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code, and, if so, what is the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances, bearing in mind the factors enunciated in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
For the reasons set out below and based on the evidence before us, the Board concluded that Mr. Villanova continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public.
The Board found that the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances is for Mr. Villanova to be granted a Conditional Discharge. This Disposition will require that he report not less than once every four weeks, that he reside at a specified address, and other terms as set out in our formal Disposition and as agreed to by all parties.
Current Psychiatric Diagnoses (As testified to by Dr. Pallandi)
- Schizoid Personality Disorder
Schizotypal Personality Disorder Traits
Other Hallucinogen Use Disorder (in remission)
Index Offence
- The circumstance giving rise to the Index Offence are extracted from last year's Board Reasons, as follows:
“On July 24, 2022, Mr. Villanova attended his grandparents’ home with a rifle in the intent of killing them to assist his family financially. His uncle interrupted him taking the firearm away from Mr. Villanova. He was subsequently taken to Markham Stouffville Hospital (MSH) by his family for a mental health assessment.
During a treatment with his doctor, he disclosed that he purchased the firearm to kill his grandparents.
On August 2, 2022, York Regional Police attended MSH and arrested Mr. Villanova charging him with Attempted Murder, Utter Death Threats, and Weapons Dangerous.”
Course Since Last Disposition
- Mr. Villanova’s course since his last Disposition is set out in detail in the Hospital Report. The following extracted paragraphs are relevant to this hearing.
“Mr. Villanova was discharged from FTU to the Forensic Outpatient Service (FOS) on November 24, 2025, and now resides at his family home in Stouffville. At home, Mr. Villanova lives with his parents and younger siblings. Mr. Villanova has been followed routinely in the community by FOS and has been consistent with meeting his primary clinician three times a week and his psychiatrist once a month.
Mr. Villanova’s routine has become increasingly structured over time.
On February 2, 2026, Mr. Villanova obtained employment through a recruitment agency and now works at IAA Stouffville which is an auction house selling used vehicles. He currently works Monday to Friday from 8AM to 4PM, performing tasks such as photographing vehicles and assisting in the yard.”
Position of the Parties
Dr. Pallandi (on behalf of the hospital and as the most responsible physician), counsel for the Attorney General and counsel for Mr. Villanova advised that this was a joint submission; all were adopting the hospital’s recommendation of a Conditional Discharge.
For the purposes of this hearing, counsel for Mr. Villanova advised that significant threat was not in dispute.
Evidence at the Hearing:
- The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence from Dr. Pallandi. Dr. Pallandi co-authored the Hospital Report, and he testified as follows:
a) He is Mr. Villanova’s forensic outpatient psychiatrist. Mr. Villanova has met regularly with him, and with the forensic outpatient treatment team, and he has presented as being stable.
b) Mr. Villanova has transitioned very well into living in the community, without any problems. He has caused no behavioural concerns, and there has been no evidence of any decompensation.
c) All Mr. Villanova’s urine drug screens have tested negative for drugs and alcohol.
d) In a key development, Mr. Villanova has returned to work full time and has been gainfully employed for three months, working 40 plus hours per week. He has coped very well with the transition back to work. This employment provides structure in his daily life. The treatment team has no concerns regarding his day-to-day activities or his mental state.
e) Mr. Villanova should be commended for this very good transition back to the community. Given the good progress that he has made, the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Conditional Discharge.
f) For the reasons set out in the Hospital Report, he continues to find that Mr. Villanova meets the “significant threat” threshold.
- In response to questions from counsel for Mr. Villanova, Dr. Pallandi testified:
a) Mr. Villanova lives with his family, who are very supportive and involved in his treatment and care. Mr. Villanova’s housing is stable and appropriate for him. The family is a strong protective factor. As set out in the Hospital Report, his parents and siblings, “would likely quickly identify any concerning changes in his presentation and seek assistance.”
b) Mr. Villanova’s parents completed the Family Intervention Therapy program.
c) Returning to full time work can be stressful, but Mr. Villanova has tolerated this transition extremely well, with no signs of decompensation. He is functioning well, both socially and occupationally.
d) His attention was drawn to page 24 of the Hospital Report, in which Dr. Marshall suggested that: “it may be prudent to remove the substance use prohibition prior to the Absolute Discharge, to test ability.” He explained that the team debated this suggestion extensively, and it ultimately leaned toward keeping this prohibition in the Disposition. They might be more comfortable removing the prohibition if they had had more time observing him in the community. It is only in his current Disposition because Dr. Pallandi has just recently taken over Mr. Villanova’s care and has not gotten to know him well enough. Mr. Villanova has no substance use disorder for alcohol or cannabis. Mr. Villanova does not need to be assessed without the abstention term in his Disposition for the team to be comfortable granting an Absolute Discharge at his next hearing. As long as he continues to do well, he is on track for one.
- In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Pallandi testified:
a) Mr. Villanova does not present with a psychopathic profile. The PCL-R score of 18 may not reflect true psychopathic traits, but rather they may be artifacts of Mr. Villanova’s schizoid personality features. The PCL-R needs to be rescored before the upcoming hearing.
b) He agreed that the diagnostic section of the Hospital Report should be corrected before the next hearing. There are diagnostic statements that are incorrect. The Hospital Report lists “moderate psychopathic traits” as a diagnosis, which is not a diagnosis, but a clinical construct. It mentions a “grandiose sense of self-worth”, which has not been observed in Mr. Villanova and he believes is also incorrect. Before the next hearing, the PCL-R related language should be removed or revised, and the Hospital Report should reflect accurate diagnoses which are as stated in paragraph 9 of these Reasons.
- No other evidence was called.
Analysis and Conclusions
Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence as well as the submissions from the parties, the Board agrees with the joint submission: Mr. Villanova remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.
In Winko, the Supreme Court outlined that, in coming to the 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 treatment; the present state of the NCR accused’s medical condition; the NCR accused’s own plans for the future; the support existing for the NCR accused in the community; and most importantly, the recommendations provided by experts who examined the NCR accused. In coming to our conclusion in this matter, the Board relies on the uncontroverted expert evidence of Dr. Pallandi, in addition to the documentary evidence before us.
In particular, the Board relies on the following extracted paragraphs as to why Mr. Villanova remains a significant threat to the safety of the public and why a Conditional Discharge is the necessary and appropriate Disposition:
“Regarding dynamic (or changeable risk), on the Clinical risk items, when considering the past 6 months, Mr. Villanova displays partial evidence of recent problems with Insight which is relevant to his future risk for violence. While Mr. Villanova demonstrates appropriate insight into certain aspects of his mental illness, risk for violence, and need for treatment, he does not appear to fully comprehend nor agree with his diagnosis of schizoid personality disorder. He also does not believe that a risk for future violence exists and subsequently does not believe that future treatment may be necessary. Because of these gaps, Mr. Villanova may not be as quick to acknowledge or disclose a change in his thinking patterns and he may not be fully willing to quickly accept mental health supports to prevent further decompensation, if such were to occur.
In the context of a conditional discharge, a possible re-offence scenario would likely require Mr. Villanova to relapse to substance use, particularly psilocybin or cannabis. If he were to use either substance he may have an increase in problematic thoughts that could result in violent plans. He would be unlikely to express a change in thoughts and would instead begin to isolate and ruminate, which could evolve into plans of violence. Additionally, should he experience a significant stressor in combination with substance use and social isolation, his risk for violence would increase further. Positively, however, Mr. Villanova currently resides at home with his parents and siblings who are all well informed about possible signs of decompensation for him and they would be likely to quickly identify any concerning changes in his presentation and seek assistance. Further, Mr. Villanova has expressed an intention to refrain from psilocybin use given his understanding of the risks, and to refrain from cannabis use as long as he is prohibited from using.
He identified that some early warning signs of his mental health worsening include social isolation and increased rumination. Mr. Villanova can identify when his is not doing well, when others point out that there has been a noticeable behavior change. When asked what keeps his mental health well, Mr. Villanova reports maintaining structure, staying busy, exercising, and engaging with family help him remain well.”
Dr. Pallandi acknowledged that the PCL-R traits are better understood as features of schizoid personality disorder rather than reflecting a core psychopathic personality structure. He agreed that the test should be rescored before the next year’s annual review. Dr. Pallandi also clarified that the reference to “grandiose sense of self” in the Hospital Report was not accurate. Dr. Pallandi also agreed that the label “moderate psychopathic traits” is not appropriate and would be removed from the list of diagnoses.
Mr. Villanova should be commended for how well he has done since his reintegration into the community. He is gainfully employed, appears to enjoy a good relationship with his family, and has engaged in no problematic behaviour whatsoever. Mr. Villanova has been consistently calm, cooperative, and pleasant during visits with the forensic outpatient staff. He has attended appointments on time, engaged in them appropriately, and complied with monitoring, including urine drug screen collections. The panel also commend and thank his parents for their strong support.
In consideration of all the evidence, submissions of the parties and criteria set forth in s. 672.54, the paramount consideration being the safety of the public, in addition to the mental condition of Mr. Villanova, his reintegration into society and his other needs, the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Conditional Discharge upon the terms set out in our formal Disposition.
DATED this 30^th^ day of April 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Mr. J. Weinstein Alternate Chairperson Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board