Ontario Review Board
Re: Anthony Minardi
ORB File No: 8829
Hearing held on: Thursday, March 26, 2026
Place of hearing: St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton West 5th Campus, 100 West 5th Street
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. J. Mills
Members: Dr. J. Watts Dr. G. Stones Ms. J. Fuller Mr. A. Bouvier
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Anthony Minardi Counsel: Mr. A. Confente
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Mr. S. O’Brien
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. B. Adsett
REASONS FOR DECISION
(Dated April 29, 2026)
Introduction
On July 14, 2025, Anthony Minardi was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCR) on one count of arson-damage to property, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (the “Criminal Code”).
Mr. Minardi is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”) dated December 9, 2025, detaining him at the Forensic Psychiatry Program of St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, West 5th Campus with privileges up to and including the ability to live in the community of Southern Ontario in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
On December 31, 2025, pursuant to s. 672.56(2) of the Criminal Code the hospital gave notice to the Board that Mr. Minardi’s liberties had been restricted for a period more than seven days. On March 25, 2026, the hospital again gave notice pursuant to s. 672.56(2) of the Criminal Code that Mr. Minardi’s liberties had been restricted for a period more than seven days.
On March 26, 2026, a panel of the Board convened to review Mr. Minardi’s restriction of liberties pursuant to s. 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Minardi was present for his hearing and was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings.
At the commencement of the hearing, counsel for the hospital submitted that the restriction of liberty imposed on Mr. Minardi on December 22, 2025, was necessary and appropriate and was the least onerous and least restrictive measure at the time it was imposed and continued to be so at the time of the hearing. Counsel for the hospital further submitted that the restriction of liberty imposed on Mr. Minardi on March 16, 2025, was also necessary and appropriate and represented the least onerous and least restrictive measure at the time it was imposed and continued to be so at the time of the hearing. Counsel for the Attorney General agreed with the hospital’s submission. Counsel for Mr. Minardi advised that the restrictions were not contested.
For the reasons outlined below, the Board finds that the restrictions of liberty imposed on Mr. Minardi on December 22, 2025, and March 16, 2026, were significant. The Board further finds that the restrictions of Mr. Minardi’s liberty were necessary and appropriate and represented the least onerous and least restrictive measures at the time they were imposed and continued to be so at the time of the hearing.
Evidence at the Hearing
- The Board received documentary evidence in the form of a Risk Assessment Report dated November 14, 2025, and a Restriction of Liberty Report dated March 3, 2026, marked as Exhibits 1 and 2 respectively. The Board also heard viva voce testimony from Dr. Widmer, a 4-year resident under the supervision of Dr. Sutton, who was present for the hearing.
The Restriction of Liberty December 22, 2025-ongoing
Prior to the restriction of his liberty, Mr. Minardi had been living in the community for appropriately six months. On December 15, 2025, Mr. Minardi attended an outpatient clinic with a follow-up appointment on December 18, 2025. At that time, he volunteered that he had engaged in occasional cannabis use, specifically THC oil.
On December 22, 2025, Mr. Minardi was admitted to the hospital due to ongoing substance use, difficulties with emotional dysregulation and poor coping. Mr. Minardi was asked to come into the hospital, which he did without difficulty. Mr. Minardi was admitted to Orchard 3, for violation of his disposition and review of his care plan to address his substance use.
Mr. Minardi began to adapt to the hospital environment and took advantage of the privileges offered to him. During this admission, Mr. Minardi did not exhibit signs of psychosis, mania or hypomania. He did express referential thoughts, but these did not result in any observed distress or functional impairment. As a result, his diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder was questioned, and a tapering of all psychotropic medication was proposed to Mr. Minardi. Mr. Minardi agreed and also agreed to remain in the hospital for this process. During this time Mr. Minardi had exercised up to level 4 privileges into the community appropriately. Notably, at the time the medication changes were proposed Mr. Minardi was ready to be discharged back to the community.
Restriction of Liberty March 16, 2025 - ongoing
On March 25, 2026, as a result of the earlier restriction of liberty, Mr. Minardi was residing on Harbour North 3. Mr. Minardi remained in the hospital for ongoing medication changes. On March 16, 2025, Mr. Minardi was given a level 3 pass which permitted him hospital and grounds privileges indirectly supervised for up to 2 hours, 3 times a day. Mr. Minardi contacted his mother to pick him up at the hospital (as she had done previously when he was exercising level 4 privileges). Mr. Minardi went home with her and whilst there drove his car around the neighbourhood. Mr. Minardi failed to return to the unit on time. At 4 p.m. he was contacted by the hospital unit and told to return to the hospital by 5:30 p.m., which he did. The s.672.56(2) Notice from the hospital incorrectly stated that Mr. Minardi had taken his mother’s car without her consent. Dr. Widmer testified that Mr. Minardi has a driver’s licence, is permitted to drive, and it was his own vehicle that he drove. It was the fact of his having converted a level 3 privilege to a level 4 privilege that caused his privileges to be cancelled. Mr. Minardi had exercised both level 3 and level 4 privileges previously and in Dr. Widmer’s view, Mr. Minardi was aware of the limitations and parameters of the respective privilege levels.
Dr. Widmer further testified that at the time of the hearing, Mr. Minardi remained confined to the unit. It is unknown when his privileges will be reviewed but likely within a couple of months.
The Law
- The analytical framework established by Campbell (Re), 2018 ONCA requires the Board to consider the liberty norm and the liberty status of an accused on a restriction. The liberty norm and liberty status for each restriction must be examined to determine the significance of the increase (if any) on the restriction of an accused’s liberty caused by the restriction. In determining the liberty norm of an accused at the outset of each period of restriction, the Board must “take a contextual approach, one that considers the individual’s pattern of liberty in the recent past.” ((Re) Campbell, para. 66). The liberty she/he was actually experiencing (rather than what she/he was entitled to) at the time of the increase is what the Board is to consider, and that “liberty must be of sufficient duration to have become, objectively speaking, the NCR accused’s norm” ((Re) Campbell, para. 65). The test to be applied to significant increases in the restriction of liberty is the same as is required for dispositions-whether the significant increase is necessary and appropriate to protect the safety of the public.
Analysis
Since his finding of NCR in July 2025, Mr. Minardi had been living in the community with the support of the forensic outpatient team for approximately six months. For this reason, the Board finds that community living was his liberty norm at the time he was admitted to the hospital. While in the hospital, Mr. Minardi has been unable to leave the hospital unit without prior approval of the hospital, and the Board finds that Mr. Minardi’s liberty status while an inpatient is significantly more restricted than when living in the community.
The Board further finds that prior to March 16, 2026, Mr. Minardi was able to exercise a range of privileges commensurate with his clinical presentation up to level 4 into the community indirectly supervised. Mr. Minardi’s ability to exercise privileges from December 22, 2025, to March 16, 2026, had continued for a sufficient period to become Mr. Minardi’s liberty norm. Since March 16, 2026, up to the time of his hearing, no privileges have been available to Mr. Minardi, and he has not been able to leave the unit. For this reason, the Board finds that Mr. Minardi’s current liberty status is significantly more restricted than his liberty norm prior to March 16, 2026.
The Board further finds that due to several factors as outlined in the Restriction of Liberty Report, and expanded upon in Dr. Widmer’s testimony, Mr. Minardi had been using cannabis regularly whilst in the community and that his behaviour was beginning to raise concerns regarding the stability of his mental health. On December 22, 2025, Mr. Minardi’s outpatient team noted forty-six contacts to the Crisis Outreach and Support Team (COAST), in December 2025. This together with his ongoing use of cannabis in contravention of his disposition, as well as concerns of psychiatric decompensation given the volume of calls to COAST gave rise to his admission to hospital. Notably, Mr. Minardi had displayed similar behaviour prior to the index offence that had denoted a decompensation of his mental state. On considering all of these factors, including that Mr. Minardi is relatively new to the treatment team and the seriousness of the index offence, the Board finds that his admission to the hospital on December 22, 2025, was necessary and appropriate and constitutes the least onerous and least restrictive measure at the time it was imposed and continued to be so at the time of the hearing.
The Board further finds that the significant restriction of Mr. Minard’s liberty on March 16, 2026, was necessary and appropriate and constituted the least onerous and least restrictive measure at the time it was imposed and continued to be so at the time of the hearing. The Board accepts the testimony of Dr. Widmer that Mr. Minardi more likely than not understood that level 3 privileges allowed for hospital and grounds access indirectly supervised and that he chose to leave the hospital grounds in violation of his privilege level. The Board finds that the decision to revoke Mr. Minardi’s privileges was necessary and appropriate and continued to be so at the time of the hearing (ten days later). In coming to this decision, the Board is mindful that Mr. Minardi is undergoing a titration of his current medication and that it is important to the safety of the public that he be closely monitored while that process is ongoing. However, the Board is concerned that Mr. Minard’s privileges are not likely to be reviewed for a couple of months. This appears to be an inordinate length of time and disproportionate to the reason for the restriction. Recognizing the hospital’s responsibility towards both Mr. Minardi and the public, care should be taken to ensure that a restriction of liberty and the consequences flowing there from do not become punitive.
DATED this 29th day of April 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Ms. J. Mills
Alternate Chairperson
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board