Re: Tyler H. Edgar
ORB File No: 6517
Hearing held on: Tuesday February 17, 2026
Place of hearing: Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alt. Chairperson: Ms. L. Maunder
Members Dr. P. L. Darby
Dr. G. Nexhipi
Mr. E. Siebenmorgen
Mr. A. Mete
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Tyler H. Edgar:
Counsel: Mr. M. Davies
Person in charge of Hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. L. Lefebvre
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. J. Armenise
Amicus Curiae Ms. M. Perez
REASONS FOR ORDERING AN INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT
(Dated February 26, 2026)
Background
Mr. Edgar suffers from schizophrenia, borderline personality disorder, and substance use disorders. On April 16, 2014, he was found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder on several Criminal Code (the “Code”) charges. He has remained under the jurisdiction of the Board since that date. Mr. Edgar is currently bound by a disposition dated November 27, 2023, detaining him at Waypoint. Mr. Edgar has been in seclusion for more than six years.
This panel convened in person at Waypoint on February 17, 2026, to conduct Mr. Edgar’s annual review. The reasons for the delay are described elsewhere and will not be repeated here.
The panel heard evidence from Dr. Misha (Mr. Edgar’s treating psychiatrist), Dr. Naidoo (who conducted an external seclusion consultation), and Mr. Edgar. We also went on a view of a seclusion and step-down room (similar to the rooms Mr. Edgar has occupied).
Mr. Davies, on behalf of Mr. Edgar, asked the Board to order one or two independent assessments. He suggested Dr. Phillip Klassen (a forensic psychiatrist unconnected to Waypoint) and Andrea Monteiro (the principal of Ethical Correctional Consulting with a master’s degree in criminology and extensive corrections experience). He hoped they would be able to help the panel “set parameters” with respect to how Mr. Edgar is managed in seclusion.
The hospital, through Dr. Mishra, expressed reservations about how helpful an assessment from someone with largely corrections experience would be. The hospital was not opposed to us ordering an independent assessment nor the appointment of Dr. Klassen to conduct one.
Counsel for the Attorney General took no position on the request for an independent assessment.
The panel decided to order a single independent assessment pursuant to s. 672.121(b) of the Code, to be conducted by a forensic psychiatrist who may, at their discretion, consult with and obtain input from an individual with expertise in seclusion (ideally in both correctional and forensic settings). Below, I will set out the panel’s reasons for ordering the assessment and then elaborate on the assessment itself.
As mentioned above, Mr. Edgar has been in seclusion for more than six years. Everyone wants to find a safe way for Mr. Edgar to come out of seclusion, but there are hurdles. The panel noted two prominent hurdles.
First, Dr. Mishra testified that Mr. Edgar is inadequately treated for his schizophrenia and experiences symptoms of psychosis. Although he receives a long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication on the consent of his substitute decision maker, he refuses oral medication including mood stabilizers and clozapine – an antipsychotic used for those with treatment resistant schizophrenia and the medication most likely to have significant results. Dr. Mishra testified that he was confident that Mr. Edgar would transition out of seclusion relatively quickly (within months) if he agreed to be treated with clozapine – Dr. Mishra anticipated that on clozapine, Mr. Edgar’s psychosis would be better treated, and he would be less aggressive.
Second, Mr. Edgar is offered seclusion relief most days (limited by the occasional staff shortage and those days when Mr. Edgar is assessed, based on his mental state, as not being appropriate for seclusion relief). Seclusion relief can take different forms. One option is a shower – Mr. Edgar is given access to the hallway outside his room and the shower room, he does not need restraints because no one else is in the space, and he can shower and then walk the hallway until the seclusion relief period is over. Other options involve Mr. Edgar being put in restraints and then taken to the yard, the canteen, etc. where he may have an opportunity to interact with others. Mr. Edgar almost always opts for a shower. He does not like to be in restraints and does not like to be seen in restraints. This is a hurdle to Mr. Edgar coming out of seclusion because it allows Mr. Edgar no opportunity to be tested in an environment with greater stimuli and other patients, and no opportunity for the team to see if he can manage these without becoming agitated and aggressive. Dr. Mishra testified that any path out of seclusion will necessarily involve such a progression. Without exercising seclusion relief other than showers, Mr. Edgar is unable to establish that he can be out of seclusion safely – or put another way, the hospital is unable to conclude Mr. Edgar would not pose a serious risk to staff if out of seclusion. It is important to note, in this context, that although opportunities for physical aggression are limited during seclusion relief due to the measures that are taken, it has been several years since Mr. Edgar has tried to physically attack staff.
Dr. Mishra testified about his efforts to overcome the first hurdle – that is, to adequately treat Mr. Edgar’s psychosis. In addition to exhaustive efforts to convince Mr. Edgar to try clozapine, the team has explored alternatives and combinations at length. As for the second hurdle, although it sounds like the team encourages Mr. Edgar to utilize his seclusion relief in varied ways, we did not hear any specific evidence about such efforts or strategies.
The panel noted that although Mr. Edgar has been in seclusion for a very long time, there was some progress during this review period. During the summer of 2025, Mr. Edgar moved from the seclusion suite to a “step down” room. Although he remains locked in his room on his own when not taking part in seclusion relief, his room is different – not all surfaces are hard, he has a bigger window with a view of the lake, and perhaps a little more room. The success of this move has been due to Mr. Edgar agreeing not to damage the room – an agreement he has upheld.
There has also been some improvement in Mr. Edgar’s mental state – he partakes in seclusion relief more frequently, he has been less aggressive, and he is less distressed by his symptoms. His communication with his brother and sister-in-law, who live in the Ottawa area, also seems to have improved.
The panel was satisfied that given the length of time Mr. Edgar has been in seclusion and the lack of progress on two significant hurdles to transitioning him out of seclusion, it was appropriate to order an independent assessment pursuant to s. 672.121(b) of the Code to seek evidence identifying more effective treatment and management strategies with a view to assisting us in making a disposition under s. 672.54 of the Code.
The panel did not conclude that there was a treatment impasse. As the parties pointed out, it was not necessary for us to find an impasse to order an independent assessment. See Hamblett (Re), 2026 ONCA 9 at para. 15
To ensure that the panel receives the most helpful information possible, we set out the following expectations for the assessment (some of which are intended to contrast explicitly with the several external seclusion consults obtained by Waypoint since 2023):
The assessment shall be based on the assessor’s independent review of Mr. Edgar’s clinical record – rather than a synopsis or summary prepared by Waypoint – and interviews with individuals on his treatment team as the assessor considers appropriate;
The assessor shall make all reasonable efforts to meet with Mr. Edgar in person;
The assessor shall make all reasonable efforts to meet with Mr. Edgar’s brother and sister-in-law (his SDM);
The assessor shall consider the current strategies in place, as well as any alternative strategies with a view to overcoming the barriers to Mr. Edgar leaving seclusion, including pharmacological and non-pharmacological options.
The assessor shall consider the current conditions of Mr. Edgar’s seclusion and whether any modifications to those conditions may enhance the likelihood of his progression out of seclusion.
The assessor shall seek consultation and input from an expert in seclusion issues, with the nature and scope of such consultation and input to be determined by the assessor.
The assessor shall prepare and deliver to the Board two reports:
a) a redacted report for all parties, with all disposition information ordered withheld from Mr. Edgar and his counsel pursuant to s 672.51(3) during this proceeding removed; and
b) an unredacted report for the parties other than Mr. Edgar and his counsel. Each version shall be clearly marked.
Once the Board receives the assessor’s report, the Board will review the unredacted version to ensure all disposition information ordered withheld from Mr. Edgar and his counsel is removed before the reports are distributed to the parties.
If Dr. Klassen is available and willing to conduct the assessment, an order will follow setting a start date for the 60-day assessment that works with his schedule. If a different assessor is required, the Board will schedule a PHC with a view to securing the agreement of the parties to an assessor and establishing a timeline. Failing an agreement the Board will choose an assessor.
Once the report of the assessor is available and the parties have had a chance to review it, a PHC will be scheduled to discuss the continuation of the hearing before this panel, including whether any party intends to tender further evidence arising from the report, and any other scheduling or procedural matters.
DATED this 26th day of February 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. L. Maunder
Alternative Chairperson
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board