Re Garett Seepaul, 2026 CanLII 39773

Re: Garett Seepaul

ORB File No: 6150

Hearing held on: Tuesday, March 17, 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: Garett Seepaul Counsel: Mr. B. Irvine

The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Mr. L. Crowell Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. T. Hewitt

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated April 28, 2026)

Introduction

1On June 22, 2012, Garett Seepaul was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of repeatedly following another person (x2), assault and failure to comply with a probation order, all contrary to the Criminal Code.

2Mr. Seepaul is currently subject to an Ontario Review Board Disposition dated January 22, 2025, which orders him discharged and subject to conditions including that he not contact the victims of the index offences and on consent, that he shall take medication further to s. 672.55(1) of the Criminal Code.

3On March 17, 2026, the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing at Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (“Ontario Shores”) to conduct Mr. Seepaul's annual review and to make a disposition. Mr. Seepaul was present and represented by counsel Mr. Irvine. The issues to be determined at this hearing are whether Mr. Seepaul continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public, and if so, what is the appropriate disposition.

4At the outset of the hearing, the hospital maintained that Mr. Seepaul remained a significant threat to the safety of the public and recommended a continuation of his current disposition. Significant threat was conceded by all parties. The hospital recommendation was supported by counsel for the Attorney General, Mr. Hewitt, and counsel for Mr. Seepaul, Mr. Irvine.

Index Offences

5The index offences are described as follows:

“The accused had been convicted of assault on July 8, 2011, and had been placed on probation with a condition to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. The following day the female victim, who did not know the accused, was walking towards her apartment building. The accused and the victim met on the sidewalk near the building and the accused immediately changed his direction and began to walk next to her in close proximity towards the building. While walking, he stared at her while saying nothing. The victim was fearful of his actions.

Despite attempted restraint by two men believed to be the accused's father and brother, the accused aggressively pushed past them and followed the victim into the apartment building and onto the elevator. He was eventually pulled out of the elevator by the two men. The victim reported the incident to the police and he was arrested on July 18.

The accused was charged with criminal harassment as a result of a December 23, 2011, incident when he followed a 17-year-old female victim into the elevator while staring at her. He followed her down the hallway when she exited the elevator.

On December 24, 2011, the accused grabbed a female victim's arms and tried to pull her towards him into his apartment building. The victim was hysterical and screamed loudly. The emergency task force was contacted and the accused barricaded himself in his apartment and told officers to go away and that he would kill anyone who tries to get in and he will kill himself.”

Background

6A Hospital Report dated February 18, 2026, was filed at the hearing as Exhibit 1. This report contains significant detail about Mr. Seepaul's background, history and prior course in hospital. Mr. Seepaul is 45 years of age and has been living in the community over the course of the last year. He is supported by the Ontario Disability Support Program and is capable to manage his finances. He enjoys a supportive relationship with his father and brother, who he visits with and speaks to on the phone. Mr. Seepaul is incapable to consent to treatment, and his father is his Substitute Decision Maker (SDM).

7Mr. Seepaul lives at Home on Rouge in a shared accommodation, and receives support from staff with his medications, as well as being supported by Dr. Pallandi and the Forensic Outpatient Service. Over the course of the last reporting year, he had not required readmission to hospital but had five incidents of medication non-compliance.

8His current diagnoses are schizophrenia and cannabis and alcohol use disorders in early remission.

Evidence at the Hearing

9Dr. Pallandi gave evidence at Mr. Seepaul’s hearing. He advised that he was the attending psychiatrist in the Forensic Outpatient Service and that Mr. Seepaul had been under his care for less than a year. It remained Dr. Pallandi’s opinion that Mr. Seepaul continued to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public.

10The treatment team and hospital were recommending no change to Mr. Seepaul’s disposition at this hearing. Dr. Pallandi’s evidence was that the disposition had worked well over the last reporting year. It allows the treatment team and Dr. Pallandi to provide Mr. Seepaul with the support that he needs to assist him with medication compliance and ensuring abstinence from the use of substances. Mr. Seepaul is required to submit to urine analysis for the treatment team to ensure abstinence.

11Dr. Pallandi indicated that Mr. Seepaul had had a recent minor relapse with cannabis just a few days prior to the hearing but that had been brought under control. However, Dr. Pallandi highlighted that abstinence from substances remains an ongoing issue with Mr. Seepaul in terms of his compliance. The treatment team must continue to monitor his mental state to ensure Mr. Seepaul’s risk to the safety of the public is well managed. They do this through frequent check-ins and contact with Mr. Seepaul to monitor his mental state.

12Dr. Pallandi provided evidence about Mr. Seepaul's insight into the use of cannabis on his mental state and risk. Dr. Pallandi advised that when Mr. Seepaul uses cannabis his sleep is disrupted and impaired, his personal hygiene and self-care deteriorate, he is more talkative and elated and he has the intensification of his auditory hallucinations which are chronic to begin with. He has a restlessness about him that is impacted by the use of cannabis. A secondary effect indicated by Dr. Pallandi is that when Mr. Seepaul uses cannabis, he is more psychotic and more likely to stop his treatment. This is a risk factor for Mr. Seepaul that requires ongoing support and management from his treatment team. Dr. Pallandi’s evidence is that when Mr. Seepaul is more unwell there is more resistance or reluctance to take treatment and, as Dr. Pallandi indicated, this points towards a global deterioration in Mr. Seepaul’s mental state. He becomes more paranoid, disorganized and experiences more auditory hallucinations.

13Dr. Pallandi gave evidence that Mr. Seepaul had screened positive for the use of cannabinoids as recently as March 6, 7, 9, and 12. The treatment team did not have any more recent results but that was a stretch of use that was consistent and confirmed by the urinary screening.

14Mr. Seepaul had been meeting with the treatment team regularly, including his clinician Ms. Wooten, who he has been seeing about once a week or so. Dr. Pallandi advised he sees Mr. Seepaul monthly. Since Mr. Seepaul's use of cannabinoids Ms. Wooten had been seeing him daily which seemed to be working well.

15In terms of planning for the future and what the treatment team would need to see in order to recommend an absolute discharge, Dr. Pallandi advised that it would be premature for Mr. Seepaul to be absolutely discharged at this point; that the team would want to see a longer period of stability in his mental state and make a thoughtful plan for the transition of Mr. Seepaul to non-forensic mental health services. This would allow for a supportive transition of Mr. Seepaul from the Review Board jurisdiction to accessing mental health services in the community.

16In response to questions from counsel for the Attorney General, Mr. Hewitt, Dr. Pallandi advised that absent Board supervision he believed that Mr. Seepaul would discontinue his medications resulting in an increase in his psychotic symptoms and his global level of risk. This is also elevated by Mr. Seepaul's use of cannabis.

17Dr. Pallandi was asked questions by counsel, Mr. Irvine. Dr. Pallandi provided evidence that Mr. Seepaul’s insight into his illness and need for treatment is quite poor, that Mr. Seepaul benefits from the oversight of the Ontario Review Board and the support that he receives as a result. Dr. Pallandi also provided evidence that it has been difficult to support Mr. Seepaul in not accessing cannabis given that it is now a legal substance as opposed to an illicit substance. When asked, Dr. Pallandi indicated that if Mr. Seepaul were discharged absolutely Dr. Pallandi would expect to see Mr. Seepaul using cannabis right away and falling away from his medication regimen. The evidence given in the hearing was that Mr. Seepaul’s symptoms are present but controlled. If he were not under the Board those symptoms would be unchecked and he would decompensate.

18Mr. Irvine questioned Dr. Pallandi regarding Mr. Seepaul's lack of motivation. Dr. Pallandi fairly characterized this lack of motivation as the negative symptoms associated with Mr. Seepaul's illness. These cause him to struggle with motivation and make the connection to the benefit that these kinds of programming and other initiatives could have for him. Dr. Pallandi fairly explained that it is not that Mr. Seepaul is resistant to suggestions and programming but that he lacks the ability to engage because of his illness. Dr. Pallandi did advise that with encouragement and support it was possible that Mr. Seepaul could benefit from some additional programming and work towards further engagement.

19In response to questions from the Board, Dr. Pallandi advised that Mr. Seepaul is a routine-oriented patient. He tends to carry out his day-to-day activities in a predictable manner. He benefits from visits from his father and leads a stable and predictable lifestyle.

20Dr. Pallandi indicated that Mr. Seepaul would be offered psychological services including seeing someone from the psychology team on an individual basis. That would be the type of supportive programming that could be set up for him if he were willing to engage.

Submissions of the Parties

21The parties addressed the two conditions that were to be contained in the disposition: the cannabis use restriction and the consent to treatment. All parties agreed that Mr. Seepaul would benefit from and was likely to adhere to a cannabis prohibition clause, and given his diagnosis, this clause was necessary and appropriate to manage his risk. Further, all parties agreed with respect to the s. 672.55 condition that Mr. Seepaul takes his medication. He provided his consent to this clause being included and, on that basis, all parties were in agreement and presented the Board with a joint submission.

Analysis and Conclusion

22The Board accepts the evidence of Dr. Pallandi and the evidence in the Hospital Report that supports that Mr. Seepaul remains a significant threat to the safety of the public. Mr. Seepaul continues to struggle with abstinence and had many occasions over the last year where he used cannabis and was not compliant with his medication. Given that these two factors elevate Mr. Seepaul’s risk to the safety of the public, the Board accepts that these are factors that require close management.

23The current disposition is the least onerous and least restrictive and supports Mr. Seepaul's reintegration into the community, as the current disposition allows him to continue to live in his community-based accommodations when he is well. Notably, he has not required any readmissions to hospital over the last year, and the Board is encouraged that he has consented to treatment and maintains a positive alliance with his treatment team.

24The Board carefully considered the issue of the inclusion of an abstinence provision that Mr. Seepaul refrain from the use of cannabis and given the evidence of Dr. Pallandi regarding the extent to which this presents issues for Mr. Seepaul and significantly elevates his risk to the safety of the public, the Board finds that this clause is necessary and appropriate.

25The parties jointly submitted that it was appropriate for the Board to include a treatment clause, and Counsel on behalf of Mr. Seepaul advised that he was consenting to the inclusion of a treatment clause. The Board considered the submissions of the parties and the evidence and agrees that the inclusion of this condition is reasonable, necessary and in the best interest of Mr. Seepaul as it will support his treatment and assist him in moving forward with his reintegration into the community.

26We also found that the conditions prohibiting no contact with the victims and to stay away from their residence was not longer necessary. Given the date of the allegations, counsel for the Attorney General agreed that there is no evidence that the victims continued to reside there and there was no suggestion that Mr. Seepaul would contact them. So those two clauses were deleted.

27Having considered all the evidence and considering the criteria set out in s. 672.54 of the Code, with the paramount consideration being the safety of the public the Board finds that disposition proposed was the least onerous and least restrictive. Further, we considered the mental state of Mr. Seepaul, his reintegration into society, and his other needs and found this is the necessary and appropriate disposition.