Re: F. (G.A.)
ORB File No: 4404
Hearing held on: Wednesday, March 18, 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: Ms. C. Finley
Members: Dr. P. Prendergast Dr. W. Loza Ms. J. Greenwood Ms. R. MacIntyre
Parties Appearing:
Accused: F. (G.A.) Counsel: Ms. J. Boissonneault
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Szabo
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. T. Hewitt
*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 28, 2026)
Introduction
On February 17, 2006, F. (G.A.) was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, on a charge of sexual assault.
Mr. F. (G.A.) is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated March 18, 2025, with Reasons for Disposition dated March 18, 2025, by which he was ordered to be discharged subject to conditions, including that he reside at his current residence, abstain from substances, and refrain from communicating with the victim of the index offence.
On Wednesday, March 18, 2026, the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing at Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (Ontario Shores/the hospital) and conducted the annual review of Mr. F. (G.A.)'s disposition.
The Board admitted into evidence the Hospital Report which was dated February 23, 2026. This was marked as Exhibit 1. The Hospital Report provides significant detail about Mr. F. (G.A.)'s background, personal history, mental health history, details of the index offence and course when he was in hospital, and his time in the community which will not be reproduced here.
Position of the Parties
At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as to their recommendations to the Board. All parties were in agreement with the hospital's recommendation for the continuation of the conditional discharge and the removal of two clauses: one regarding a prohibition against substances and a second condition involving Mr. F. (G.A.)'s address.
The issues to be determined at this hearing are whether Mr. F. (G.A.) poses a significant threat to the safety of the public, and if so, the necessary and appropriate disposition to manage that risk, having regard to the criteria set out in s. 672.54 of the Code.
For the reasons set out below and based on the expert evidence and opinion before the panel, the Board concluded that Mr. F. (G.A.) continues to present a significant threat to the safety of the public. This issue was conceded by all parties.
After considering all of the evidence, including the testimony of Dr. Pallandi, the Hospital Report, and the submissions of counsel, the panel accepted the joint submission of a discharge with conditions, and agreed with the removal of the two clauses regarding abstinence from substances and the residence requirement.
Index Offence
- “On November 25, 2005, Mr. F. (G.A.) approached a young girl as she was walking in an area behind a store. He grabbed her in the crotch area. He then ran through the alley and across the street to a residence where he was apprehended by the police.”
Diagnoses
- Mr. F. (G.A.)’s current diagnoses are outlined in the Hospital Report as follows:
Schizophrenia
Substance Abuse Disorder (synthetic) cannabis; moderate severity; in sustained remission in a controlled environment)
Other Specified Paraphilic Disorder (hebephilia and coercive preference without current associated behaviours)
Evidence at the Hearing
The Board heard evidence from Dr. Pallandi, who is Mr. F. (G.A.)’s most responsible physician. Dr. Pallandi advised that Mr. F. (G.A.) had a successful year. He continued to reside at Halsey Lodge, which is located in Jackson’s Point, Ontario. Mr. F. (G.A.) had been residing there since February of 2024 and had done very well.
The Hospital Report outlined that Mr. F. (G.A.) had been visited regularly by the Forensic Outpatient Service Clinician twice per week without incident. He had been compliant with urine screens and screened negative.
Dr. Pallandi advised that Mr. F. (G.A.) had been the subject of an abstinence condition over the last reporting year and was prohibited from the use of substances. He was also subject to a condition which required him to reside at Halsey Lodge. It was the evidence of Dr. Pallandi, and with the support of the treatment team, that the removal of these two clauses would provide an opportunity for the team to observe Mr. F. (G.A.)’s independence in the community without this oversight. It was the evidence of Dr. Pallandi that Mr. F. (G.A.) respected his disposition without incident and that he was diligently moving towards an absolute discharge. Providing more independence and less oversight is a goal of the treatment team for Mr. F. (G.A.) for the next reporting year. Dr. Pallandi’s evidence was that the rationale for this is to provide Mr. F. (G.A.) the opportunity to demonstrate his ability to live on his own in the community without requiring the support of the treatment team, and that this would assist the team in recommending an absolute discharge.
Dr. Pallandi reported that Mr. F. (G.A.) is amenable; that he enjoys the support of his treatment team and that he is “a cooperative participant in his overall rehabilitation”. Although Dr. Pallandi noted that there had been one notable incident in the past treatment year, when Mr. F. (G.A.) made verbal threats towards a co-resident and housing staff. Dr. Pallandi provided context that Halsey Lodge has a diverse forensic population, and at times, there can be discord between the residents. However, as Dr. Pallandi noted, police were involved at the time of the incident, and no charges were laid. Mr. F. (G.A.) and the other resident had since made amends between themselves and Dr. Pallandi was satisfied that this incident did not increase Mr. F. (G.A.)'s risk to the safety of the public. Dr. Pallandi also gave evidence about Mr. F. (G.A.)'s desire to move from Halsey Lodge at some point and provided evidence that Mr. F. (G.A.) has, over the course of the last reporting year, considered other housing options. This is an area that Mr. F. (G.A.) had previously raised with his treatment team, and Dr. Pallandi was committed to working with Mr. F. (G.A.) to discuss all appropriate options.
Dr. Pallandi was asked questions by counsel for the Attorney General, Mr. Hewitt. Dr. Pallandi acknowledged that housing instability had been an issue for Mr. F. (G.A.) in the past. Further, Dr. Pallandi agreed that Halsey Lodge is a subsidized residence. Dr. Pallandi advised in response to Mr. Hewitt’s questions that the treatment team had discussed the possibility of Mr. F. (G.A.) renting a room and that he would have the means to do so. However, in response to questions from the Attorney General, Dr. Pallandi did not feel that Mr. F. (G.A.) was at risk to move out of the catchment area.
In response to questions from Ms. Boissonneault, Dr. Pallandi provided evidence that Mr. F. (G.A.)'s illness is in remission, he is fully compliant with his medication, and he tolerates his long-acting injectable well. Further, Mr. F. (G.A.) participated in the Link employment program over the course of the last reporting year which ended up assisting him in obtaining part-time employment. Dr. Pallandi agreed with Ms. Boissonneault’s suggestion that Mr. F. (G.A.) is stable in the community and overall is progressing well. Dr. Pallandi also agreed with Ms. Boissonneault that Mr. F. (G.A.) is exercising good judgment and although he has a degree of impulsivity in his past decision making, he is open with the treatment team to discuss future residence options. Dr. Pallandi agreed that Mr. F. (G.A.) had a strong therapeutic alliance with his team and was not at risk to disengage.
Ms. Boissonneault also asked Dr. Pallandi about the status of Mr. F. (G.A.)’s Developmental Service Ontario (“DSO”) assessment. The Hospital does not have a definitive answer on that yet from the DSO and is awaiting that reply, as it may impact the resources and funding available to Mr. F. (G.A.).
In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Pallandi advised that Mr. F. (G.A.) is not engaged in many programs outside of the employment program he completed. While Mr. F. (G.A.) was not working at the time of the hearing, he had been and it is his goal to go back to part-time employment.
Submissions of Counsel
- At the end of the hearing, all parties agreed with and endorsed the joint submission. The Hospital’s position was that Mr. F. (G.A.) is on a positive trajectory towards working towards an absolute discharge. All parties agreed with this submission. Ms. Boissonneault highlighted that the proposed disposition was the least onerous and least restrictive and took into consideration Mr. F. (G.A.)’s rehabilitation.
Analysis
The panel considered all of the evidence presented in reaching the conclusion that Mr. F. (G.A.) continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public. The panel considered the risk assessment of Dr. Levi conducted on January 23, 2026, the reoffence scenario outlined in the Hospital Report and the notable incident on February 4, 2026 outlined in the Hospital Report and described by Dr. Pallandi in making this finding.
The panel considered the many positive and protective factors applicable to Mr. F. (G.A.). He has abstained from substance use, he is compliant with treatment, he is in regular contact with his sister and is capable of managing his own finances. He also worked part-time during the reporting year.
In Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 SCR 625, the Supreme Court of Canada outlined that in coming to a conclusion on the issue of significant risk a Review Board must closely examine a range of evidence including the circumstances of the index offence, the course of the accused’s treatment, the present mental state of the accused’s medical condition, the accused’s plans for the future, the level of support existing for the accused in the community and the recommendations by the treatment team and experts who have examined the accused.
The panel commends Mr. F. (G.A.) for having an otherwise very positive reporting year and commends him for his continued compliance with his medication and working collaboratively with his treatment team. He is on a positive trajectory and hopes to be discharged from the Ontario Review Board.
The Board further agrees with the parties’ joint recommendation to remove the residence requirement and the abstinence condition from the previous year’s disposition.
The Board considered the case of R v Davies, 2022 ONCA 716, where the Court of Appeal ordered a new hearing on the issue of the denial by that panel to grant a cannabis exception to the prohibition clause. The Court of Appeal made clear that there must be an increase in the risk posed by the patient in order to continue a prohibition. In this case there was no such evidence that there would be an increased risk posed by Mr. F. (G.A.). The Board agreed with the submissions of the parties and agreed that Mr. F. (G.A.) no longer requires the additional clauses to manage his risk.
The appropriate disposition is a conditional discharge removing the inclusion of an abstinence and the residence condition. The panel took into account the criteria in s. 672.54 of the Code, with the paramount consideration being the safety of the public. Further, we consider the mental state of Mr. F. (G.A.), his reintegration into society, and find that this is the necessary and appropriate disposition.
DATED this 28th day of April 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Ms. J. Greenwood Legal Member
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board