Re: B. (B.N.), 2026 CanLII 39760

Ontario Review Board

Re: B. (B.N.)

ORB File No: 8966

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 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code

Before: Alternate Chairperson: Ms. J. Mills Members: Dr. R. Sheppard Dr. G. Stones Ms. J. Fuller Mr. A. Bouvier

Parties Appearing: Accused: B. (B.N.) Counsel: Mr. J. Lefurgey The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Mr. S. O’Brien Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. B. Adsett

*Pursuant to s. 672.501(1) of the Criminal Code, the Ontario Review Board prohibits the publication, broadcasting, or other transmission of any information that could identify a victim in this matter or a witness who is under 18 years of age.

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated April 29, 2026)

Introduction

1On February 18, 2026, B. (B.N.) was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCR) on one count of sexual assault, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (Criminal Code). Mr. B. (B.N.) was subject to a Warrant of Committal detaining him in the Forensic Psychiatry Program of St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton (“the hospital”). The Court declined to make a disposition and referred the matter to the Board.

2On March 26, 2026, the panel convened to make a disposition pursuant to s. 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. B. (B.N.) was present for his hearing and was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings.

3The issues to be determined at this hearing are whether Mr. B. (B.N.) poses a significant threat to the safety of the public, and if so, the necessary and appropriate disposition having regard to the criteria set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

4At the commencement of the hearing, the hospital, the Attorney General and Mr. B. (B.N.) agreed that Mr. B. (B.N.) represents a significant threat to the safety of the public and jointly submitted that a detention order in the Forensic Psychiatry Program of St. Joseph’s with privileges and prohibitions is the necessary and appropriate disposition.

5All parties agreed that Mr. B. (B.N.) should be subject to the following privileges and prohibitions:

(a) to attend within or outside of the hospital for necessary medical, dental, legal or compassionate purposes.

(b) hospital and grounds privileges, escorted by staff.

(c) hospital and grounds privileges, accompanied by staff or a person approved by the person in charge.

(d) hospital and grounds privileges, indirectly supervised.

(e) to enter the community of Hamilton, Ontario, escorted by staff.

(f) to enter the community of Hamilton, Ontario, accompanied by staff or a person approved by the person in charge.

(g) refrain from having in their possession any firearm, ammunition, or other offensive weapons, or being in the company of any person possessing a firearm other than a peace officer.

(h) abstain absolutely from the non-medical use of alcohol or drugs or any other intoxicant.

(i) submit samples of urine and/or breath to the person in charge of St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton, West 5th Campus or his or her designate for the purpose of analyzing whether the accused has ingested alcohol, drugs or any other intoxicant.

6For the reasons outlined below, the Board is in agreement that Mr. B. (B.N.) represents a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a detention order with the privileges and prohibitions as recommended by the parties.

Evidence at the Hearing

7The Board received documentary evidence in the form of a Warrant of Committal, Disposition Hearing Outcome Form, Local Police Record, Crown Brief Synopsis, Information, NCR Report of Dr. Wu dated February 13, 2026, Transcript of the Court Proceedings and the Hospital Report dated March 17, 2026, marked as Exhibits 1 through 8 respectively. The Board also heard viva voce evidence from Dr. Wu.

Index Offence

8The circumstances of the index offence are excerpted from the transcript of the NCR proceedings dated February 18, 2026, as follows:

On October 6, 2025, the victim was walking with her four-month-old child in a stroller in the area of the City of St. Catharines. While the victim was walking, she noticed Mr. B. (B.N.) walk past her looking at her. He then circled back and walked past her for a second time. Mr. B. (B.N.) then struck the victim on the buttocks with his hand. The victim reported being extremely scared for her safety and the safety of her child. The incident was captured on CCTV.

9The Hospital Report outlines Mr. B. (B.N.)’s history and background and will not be repeated here in detail. In brief, Mr. B. (B.N.) was 22 years old at the time of the hearing. The Hospital Report indicates that he had a difficult childhood and was placed into foster care at an early age. Mr. B. (B.N.) reports having been emotionally abused by his foster parents. Later he reconnected with his mother. Unfortunately, that relationship was characterized by instability and Mr. B. (B.N.) was eventually asked to leave his mother’s home. Mr. B. (B.N.) remains estranged from his family.

10Mr. B. (B.N.) completed his high school diploma and was previously employed at a fast-food restaurant. Mr. B. (B.N.) is single and has no dependants. Mr. B. (B.N.) had no fixed address at the time of the index offence. He is currently supported by the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP).

11Collateral sources indicate that Mr. B. (B.N.) began experimenting with recreational substances and using cannabis regularly when he was approximately 15 years old. Prior to the finding of NCR, Mr. B. (B.N.) had convictions for sexual assault and assault in September 2025. Notably his sentence was one day plus probation for two years with credit having been given for 354 days pretrial custody to run concurrently. Mr. B. (B.N.) remains bound by a probation order which will expire in September 2027. He also is subject to two discretionary weapons prohibitions pursuant to s. 110 of the Criminal Code for 10 years.

Psychiatric and Medical History

12Beginning in 2022, Mr. B. (B.N.) had several presentations to emergency rooms and hospital admissions in the context of substance misuse, intentional overdose and substance-induced psychosis. Mr. B. (B.N.) also has a complicated medical health history due to a congenital birth defect in his lower abdomen wall. Collateral sources indicate the Mr. B. (B.N.) had been previously followed by outpatient mental health supports but more recently had fallen away from care.

13Mr. B. (B.N.) is diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia and sedative use disorder.

Course since the NCR finding

14Mr. B. (B.N.) was admitted to Mountain 3 Forensic Assessment Unit on January 19, 2026. He is described as forthcoming with the treatment team, agreeable to the unit rules and as having settled well on the unit. Mr. B. (B.N.) has been compliant with medication and has utilized as need medication appropriately. He has been forthcoming about his perceptual disturbances, describing them as non-distressing but sometimes commanding in nature. There have been no safety concerns or management issues.

15Mr. B. (B.N.) is described as having a moderate level of participation in therapeutic programming. Social work has assisted Mr. B. (B.N.) in transferring his ODSP file to Hamilton. Mr. B. (B.N.) has not provided contact information for his family. He has no social supports outside of the forensic system.

16A recent mental status examination conducted by Dr. Wu describes Mr. B. (B.N.) as having no signs of psychomotor agitation. His eye contact was direct. His speech was clear, soft and normal in rate and tone. Mr. B. (B.N.) described his mood as good and his effect was restricted but stable. Mr. B. (B.N.) denied any thoughts of self-harm or harm to others.

Analysis

17The hospital, the Attorney General and Mr. B. (B.N.) agree that Mr. B. (B.N.) is a significant threat to the safety of the public and jointly submit that a detention order on the Forensic Psychiatry Program at St. Joseph’s is the necessary and appropriate disposition. Dr. Tam agrees with this position. The Board is also in agreement.

18Mr. B. (B.N.) is currently being treated with therapeutic doses of multiple antipsychotic medications; however, he continues to experience break through symptoms in the form of perceptual disturbances and delusions similar to those at the time of the index offence. Mr. B. (B.N.) also has a recent history of falling away from treatment and no professional or social supports in the community to assist him. The clinical assessment of risk contained in the Hospital Report, describes Mr. B. (B.N.) as continuing to have active clinical factors and states that, “He requires ongoing intensive inpatient structure and support to manage his risk and provide therapeutic interventions to address his clinical risk factors.”

19Furthermore, Mr. B. (B.N.) has a significant history of substance use which is a salient risk factor for him and for which he will require treatment, support and monitoring. For these reasons, the Board finds that Mr. B. (B.N.) represents a significant threat to the safety of the public.

20The Board is also in agreement that a detention order is the necessary and appropriate disposition. As stated above, Mr. B. (B.N.) has no supports in the community and was homeless prior to the index offence. Furthermore, he is not clinically well enough to be discharged to the community and a discharge with conditions would not adequately address Mr. B. (B.N.)’s risk to the safety of the public. For these reasons, a detention order is the necessary and appropriate disposition.

21The Board has considered the privileges and prohibitions recommended by the parties. For the reasons set out above, the Board is in agreement that Mr. B. (B.N.)’s current clinical presentation is not conducive to the privilege of community living. Nor would it be appropriate for Mr. B. (B.N.) to be in the community unaccompanied. It is early days in Mr. B. (B.N.)’s recovery, and he will need monitoring and supervision when first in the community. The Board is also in agreement that privileges up to and including the ability to enter the community accompanied are necessary and appropriate. These privileges will provide Mr. B. (B.N.) with community access and will allow him to start the process of reintegration in the year ahead.

22The Board is in agreement with the prohibitions recommended by all parties. For the abstention from substances prohibition, to be appropriate there must be evidence before the Board that the use of the substance named in the prohibition by the accused would pose a significant threat to the safety of the public: Davies (Re), 2022 ONCA 716 at para.14. As previously noted, Mr. B. (B.N.) has a significant history of substance use beginning when he was approximately 15 years old. Substance use was a factor in the index offence. Mr. B. (B.N.) self reports having consumed 40 pills of 25mg Benadryl and three bottles of liquid Benadryl on the day of the index offence. While he denied consuming any other substances at the time of the index offence, his health records demonstrate the use of multiple substances including alcohol since his teenage years. Furthermore, the Hospital Report indicates that earlier admissions to hospital for psychosis were primarily substance-induced. While it may be that Mr. B. (B.N.)’s substances of choice are Benadryl and dextromethorphan, it is too early for the treatment team to determine what role other substances have had on Mr. B. (B.N.)’s mental health and his risk to the safety of the public and for this reason the Board finds the prohibition as recommended by the parties to be necessary and appropriate.

23Concomitant with the abstention prohibition, the Board finds that it is necessary and appropriate for the hospital to have the authority to test Mr. B. (B.N.)’s urine for substance use. While testing is inherently intrusive, the Board recognizes the value of such testing for someone with a substance use history in determining whether any change in mental status is as a result of substance use.

24Lastly, the Board is also in agreement with the weapons prohibition. While Mr. B. (B.N.) did not have a weapon in his possession at the time of the index offence, the index offence was an offence against the person as defined in the Criminal Code, and it is appropriate that a weapons prohibition be included in the disposition.

25Mr. B. (B.N.) has settled well on Mountain 3 forensic assessment unit and there have been no notable events since his admission. Currently, Mr. B. (B.N.) has level 1 privileges that allow him to access the courtyard and fitness room. He is described as soft spoken, polite and cooperative with staff direction. He socializes with select co-patients and staff and his interactions are appropriate. Mr. B. (B.N.)’s ability to adapt to the forensic unit bodes well for him going forward and the Board wishes him well in the year ahead.

Conclusion

26In making a disposition, the Board must take into consideration s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, including the safety of the public which is the paramount consideration and the mental condition of the accused, the reintegration of the accused into society and the other needs of the accused.

27For the above reasons, the Board finds that Mr. B. (B.N.) represents a significant threat to the safety of the public and shall be subject to a detention order with privileges and prohibitions as outlined in the formal disposition.