Re: George Bennett, 2026 CanLII 39769

Ontario Review Board

Re: George Bennett

ORB File No: 7829

Hearing held on: Friday, March 27, 2026

Place of hearing: St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton West 5th Campus, 100 West 5th Street

Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. G. Beasley

Members: Dr. R. Kunjukrishnan Dr. G. Stones Ms. J. Fuller Mr. A. Bouvier

Parties Appearing:

Accused: George Bennett Counsel: Mr. R.W. Browne

The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. L. Barney

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. B. Adsett

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated April 29, 2026)

Introduction

1. On January 4, 2021, the accused, George Bennett, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on a charge of arson - damage to property, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. By reason of a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB”) dated March 24, 2025, Mr. Bennett was ordered to be detained at the Forensic Psychiatry Program of St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, West 5th Campus, (“the hospital”), with privileges up to and including residing in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge.

2. On March 27, 2026, the ORB convened a hearing at the hospital for the purpose of the annual review of Mr. Bennett’s Disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Bennett was in attendance at the hearing and represented by counsel, Mr. Browne. Counsel for the hospital was Ms. Barney and Mr. Adsett appeared as counsel for the Attorney General of Ontario.

Index Offence

3. The circumstances of the index offence are taken from the Hospital Report as follows:

“On Thursday, October 15th, 2020 at approximately 8:12 PM police received a call for service in regard to a fire at a residence, located at 660 Montego Crescent, Burlington. It was reported that an explosion occurred blowing out the side window of the house.

Police arrived on scene and were made aware that a male, later identified as the accused, George BENNETT, was being combative with the fire department in the backyard of the residence.

Police attended the backyard and escorted the accused. Upon doing so, the accused made several spontaneous utterances that he had started the fire intentionally.

The accused was subsequently placed under arrest, read his rights to counsel, and transported 20 Division CLU. The accused provided an inculpatory statement that he was responsible for setting the fire. The accused admitted to pouring gas throughout the house making a trail which led to the backyard of residence. Once outside of the house he lit it on fire.

Current Diagnosis

4. Current diagnosis from the Hospital Report is as follows:

Delusional Disorder, Persecutory type

Criminal Record

5. Mr. Bennett did not have a criminal record prior to the index offence.

Background and Personal History

6. The Hospital Report, which was filed as an exhibit at the hearing, contains extensive information with respect to Mr. Bennett’s background and the details will not be repeated in these Reasons. By way of summary, Mr. Bennett was born in Burlington, Ontario and has three older sisters. He was raised in a family home where his father was an Air Canada pilot and his mother worked as a nurse. By all accounts he had a normal, happy childhood and was involved in multiple sporting activities. He graduated from high school. Mr. Bennett’s father reported that in his teenage years Mr. Bennett became more difficult and increasingly confrontational. He began to have difficulty managing his anger. His parents believed that he began associating with the “wrong crowd” and experimenting with alcohol and illicit substances. As a result, in 2005, Mr. Bennett and his mother moved to British Columbia in an attempt to provide him with a “new start”.

7. Mr. Bennett attended the University of British Columbia but did not complete his degree program. He began studies at Selkirk College for the purpose of becoming an electrician. It was at Selkirk College that Mr. Bennett had some kind of altercation with an individual who he believed was a member of the Hell’s Angels Motorcycle Club. He began to fear that the Hell’s Angels would kill him. His belief that he could be identified and located by members of the club resulted in him urgently leaving the city, province, and even the country on several occasions. He became increasingly suspicious of strangers, friends, and family members. In 2019, he believed that he had been identified and fled to London, England. He was brought to hospital in England by police after expressing concerns about being followed by the “mafia biker mob.” After a lengthy admission to hospital, he was diagnosed with delusional disorder. He refused medication and was returned to Canada by the British government. In 2020, he fled Canada to the United States after again believing he had been identified by the Hell’s Angels. Mr. Bennett had a number of admissions to hospital which are detailed in the Hospital Report. Following a short admission to hospital in September 2020, he was discharged to the family home where the index offence was committed on October 16, 2020.

Position of the Parties

8. At the outset of the hearing Ms. Barney submitted that the recommendation of the hospital is that Mr. Bennett continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition was a continuation of the current Detention Order without amendment. Both Mr. Adsett and Mr. Browne joined Ms. Barney in the submission. Mr. Browne acknowledged that for the purposes of the hearing there would be no challenge to a finding that Mr. Bennett continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public.

Evidence

9. The evidence on behalf of the hospital was presented by Dr. Prat. He stated that he has been Mr. Bennett’s attending psychiatrist since June of 2025. He is the co-author of the Hospital Report which was filed as an exhibit. Dr. Prat confirmed that Mr. Bennett was transitioned to reside in the community at the end of November 2025. This return to community living has gone well. Mr. Bennett remains involved in programs organized by both the Canadian Mental Health Association (“CMHA”) and the Forensic Outpatient (FOP) team from the hospital. He decides on his own activities. Recently he requested day passes to travel to Toronto which Dr. Prat characterized as being a good thing in that he was taking the initiative to travel outside the community. He has also reconnected with one of his sisters. Mr. Bennett is not looking for employment at this time.

10. Mr. Bennett reports to the hospital twice per week. He is currently residing at First Place, which is subsidized housing in the community. He receives support there for his compliance with his oral medications. Dr. Prat stated that he did not know Mr. Bennett prior to assuming his care in June of 2025 but that on talking to his colleagues and reviewing the file, Mr. Bennett began to receive medication in 2024. Dr. Prat stated that as soon as Mr. Bennett became optimally treated his mental status improved and he became more settled. He is not preoccupied by his false fixed delusional beliefs. Prior to his discharge Mr. Bennett had demonstrated a lack of motivation and he expressed the belief that he was “limited and trapped.” He did not expect to receive housing as quickly as he did, so this resulted in his poor mood and lack of motivation. He was selected to move to the housing opportunity in the community, and this resulted in significant progress. Dr. Prat stated that his increase in motivation is demonstrated by his decision to travel to Toronto on his own initiative. Mr. Bennett has a good rapport with the treatment team. In particular, he has an excellent relationship with his outpatient case manager. He is willing to move forward in his treatment. Notwithstanding his progress, Dr. Prat stated that in his opinion Mr. Bennett continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition is the continuation of the Detention Order.

11. In response to questions from Mr. Adsett, Dr. Prat confirmed that there was a definite increase in Mr. Bennett’s motivation when he was discharged to his apartment in the community. Although there was some initial decline in his mood when he became aware of some of the limitations involved in residing in the community, this has since improved. When asked about Mr. Bennett’s insight into his illness and his need for treatment, Dr. Prat stated that this is “very limited.” Dr. Prat confirmed that Mr. Bennett is prepared to work with the team and at the same time the team are prepared to let him direct his next steps. Although Mr. Bennett still has some residual delusions about the Hell’s Angels, these are much less than before.

12. Mr. Browne asked Dr. Prat if the treatment team had considered a conditional discharge as the necessary and appropriate disposition. Dr. Prat stated that the Mental Health Act (MHA) would not provide sufficient protection for the safety of the public in the event of a rapid decompensation in Mr. Bennett’s mental status leading to the necessity of a readmission to the hospital. Dr. Prat stated that at the present time Mr. Bennett has quite a “simple life” in the community. He said the treatment team are unsure as to how Mr. Bennett will react to an increase in stressors in his daily life as he begins to engage more with the community. Mr. Bennett is considered incapable to consent to his treatment for his illness. Mr. Browne asked what the treatment team would expect of Mr. Bennett over the next reporting year in order to move towards a conditional discharge. Dr. Prat stated that the team would like to see stability over an extended period of time. They would like Mr. Bennett to engage in more activities to assess his ability to manage stress and its effect on his wellbeing. The treatment team believe that Mr. Bennett needs to do something more challenging. This might include either working or volunteering in some capacity or returning to school. In addition, Mr. Bennett needs to work on his social attitude. Dr. Prat acknowledged that Mr. Bennett likes to engage in workouts and encouraged this as a means of building up his physical strength and conditioning. However, he did not believe that this was the best outlet for him to improve his social skills and engagement with others. At this time people are unlikely to come towards him and Mr. Bennett naturally pushes people away.

13. In response to a question from the Board, Dr. Prat stated that Mr. Bennett was not adequately treated for a long period of time. He stated that the treatment team have been able to identify significant improvement with his current treatment and believe that it is the best available at the present time. The treatment team do not believe that there would be necessarily any change if Mr. Bennett were treated with any different medications. He is fully compliant with his long-acting injection. Dr. Prat stated that for a long time Mr. Bennett did not have any connection with his family. He has not had any contact with his father for a considerable period of time. His connection with his sister is quite recent. Dr. Prat said that there are no restrictions on how long Mr. Bennett can stay at his current residence. Although Mr. Bennett is not necessarily pleased by his environment because of the substance use by co-residents and other factors, he is pleased by his stability in the community. Dr. Prat said that the medication which Mr. Bennett had been receiving for ADHD was intended to increase his motivation.

14. Dr. Prat was asked by a Board member about what kind of activities he was hoping Mr. Bennett would engage in to develop more internal motivation to his transition to the community. Dr. Prat stated that he would like to see Mr. Bennett involved in programming which was not necessarily connected to either the CMHA or the outpatient programming offered by the hospital and to be more independent in his activities doing things that he likes to do. Dr. Prat was asked about an expression of some suicidal ideation by Mr. Bennett. He stated that this came at a time when discharge was being planned but had not yet taken place and Mr. Bennett’s mood and motivation were low. He said the treatment team had been discussing with him the possibility that he would be taking medication on a life-long basis and that this might have been an attempt by Mr. Bennett to have the treatment team reconsider the treatments being proposed. Dr. Prat stated that in fact he believes that Mr. Bennett’s mood is probably higher than he presents. When asked about any friends, Dr. Prat stated he did not know of anybody who Mr. Bennett would characterize as a friend. However, he does engage with certain people. Dr. Prat was asked if Mr. Bennett were on a conditional discharge whether he would show up at a clinic to receive medication. Dr. Prat stated that Mr. Bennett is well aware of the legal consequences and requirements of his Disposition and that he would in all likelihood comply with it. He said Mr. Bennett’s motivation is purely externally motivated.

15. Dr. Prat was asked about the comment that the risk assessment had not been updated since the previous year. He stated that it was not his decision, but he did agree that it was unnecessary for the purpose of this report. He stated that the treatment team would like to see a period in the community in order to assess how Mr. Bennett is handling the stressors which go with his newfound independence. Dr. Prat stated that Mr. Bennett’s residence would remain available to him if he were to obtain employment at some point in time in the future. The only consequence might be that he might have to pay a higher rent dependant on his income. Dr. Prat stated that the team would work with Mr. Bennett if he obtained employment to find the balance between working and maintaining his current residence. The treatment team are also encouraging Mr. Bennett to consider volunteer work.

16. No other evidence was called at the hearing.

Submissions

17. At the conclusion of the evidence all counsel relied upon the joint submission made at the outset of the hearing that the necessary and appropriate disposition was a continuation of the current Detention Order without amendment.

Analysis and Disposition

18. The threshold issue for the panel to determine is whether or not Mr. Bennett continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. The “significant threat” standard is an onerous one. There must be both a likelihood of a risk materializing and the likelihood that serious harm will occur. An accused is not to be detained based on mere speculation; the Board must be satisfied as to both the existence and gravity of the risk of physical or psychological harm posed by the accused to deny them an absolute discharge. As set out in Winko ([1999] 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), 2 S.C.R. 625) the threat must be:

(1) More than speculative in nature and must be supported by the evidence;

(2) Significant in the sense of there being a real risk of physical or psychological harm to individuals in the community and in the sense that this potential harm must be serious; and

(3) The conduct creating the harm must be criminal in nature.

As stated by McLachlin, J. (as she then was) at para. 69

“it is for the court or Review Board, acting in an inquisitorial capacity, to investigate the situation prevailing at the time of the hearing and determine whether the accused poses a significant threat to the safety of the public. If the record does not permit it to conclude that the person constitutes such a threat, the court or Review Board is obliged to make an order for unconditional discharge.”

19. The Ontario Court of Appeal re-emphasized the onerous test in Re: Gibson 2022 ONCA 527, per Lauwers J.A. at para. 9:

Huscroft J.A. said in Carrick (Re), 2015 ONCA 866, 128 O.R. (3d) 209, at para. 17, that “the ‘significant threat’ standard is an onerous one”. He added that “[t]he board must be satisfied as to both the existence and gravity of the risk of physical or psychological harm posed by the appellant in order to deny him an absolute discharge.” Mere speculation is insufficient. See also, Sim (Re), 2020 ONCA 563, at paras. 63-65, per Strathy C.J.O., Marmolejo (Re), 2021 ONCA 130, 155 O.R. (3d) 185, per Tulloch J.A., at paras. 33-37.

20. As indicated above, both at the outset and conclusion of the hearing, counsel jointly submitted to the Board that the necessary and appropriate disposition was the continuation of the current Detention Order without amendment. Notwithstanding the joint submission, the Board is obliged to consider all of the evidence in coming to a conclusion with respect to both significant threat and the necessary and appropriate disposition. The Board is unanimous in finding that Mr. Bennett continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. As stated by Dr. Prat, Mr. Bennett has very limited insight into both his illness and his need for treatment. Although he has not posed any significant management issues over the past reporting year, he continues to exhibit symptoms related to his delusional disorder. He continues to have fixed beliefs related to his past delusional ideas, on which he acted at the time of the index offence. Mr. Bennett’s transition to residing in the community is relatively recent. He is in supported and subsidized housing and is carefully monitored by the outpatient team. Dr. Prat testified that the MHA would not be sufficient to facilitate a timely readmission to hospital in the event of a decompensation in Mr. Bennett’s mental status. The Board accepts Dr. Prat’s opinion that Mr. Bennett continues to represent a significant threat.

21. In September of 2025, Mr. Bennett was fortunate in obtaining a bed offer at First Place in the St. Joseph's Homecare Program. After a gradual transition beginning with day passes and gradually progressing to overnight passes, having successfully completed a gradual transition, Mr. Bennett was discharged to First Place on November 25, 2025. Following his discharge, Mr. Bennett has been seen by the FOP team twice per week either at the clinic or at his residence. Mr. Bennett has been on time for all his appointments with the FOP team. Dr. Prat testified as to the significant progress Mr. Bennett has made since his transition to the community. He has demonstrated an increase in his motivation as demonstrated by his initiative in arranging trips to Toronto and reconnecting with his sister. He has a very positive relationship with the outpatient treatment team and is willing to move forward in his programming. In particular, Mr. Bennett has an excellent rapport with his outpatient case manager. Overall, it is clear that Mr. Bennett’s transition to independent community living has been successful. The joint submission of the parties is that the necessary and appropriate disposition is the continuation of the current Detention Order without amendment. The Board is unanimous in finding that this submission is well supported by the contents of the Hospital Report and the evidence of Dr. Prat at the hearing.

DATED this 29th day of April 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

Mr. G. Beasley Alternate Chairperson

Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board