Re Artimese Baker, 2026 CanLII 39778

Re: Artimese Baker

ORB File No: 8720

Hearing held on: Monday, March 16, 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: Artimese Baker Counsel: Ms. J. Boissonneault

The person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. J. Pytyck Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. T. Hewitt

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated April 28, 2026)

Introduction

1On February 4, 2025, Ms. Baker was found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder on charges of aggravated assault (x2), assault with a weapon (x2), possession of a weapon for the purposes committing an indictable offence (x2), utter threat to cause death and bodily harm, and assault. Ms. Baker is currently detained at Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences on a detention order.

2On March 16, 2026, the Board convened an in-person hearing at Ontario Shores to review Ms. Baker’s disposition and make a new disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code in accordance with the provisions of s. 672.54. Ms. Baker attended the hearing and was represented by her counsel, Ms. Boissonneault. Mr. Hewitt represented the Attorney General and Dr. Pytyck appeared on behalf of the hospital. In support of Ms. Baker and present in the room were her therapist, her husband and her mother-in-law.

3The issues at the hearing were whether Ms. Baker represents a significant threat to the safety of the public within the meaning of s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code, and if so, what is the necessary and appropriate disposition having regard to the evidence considering the factors in s. 672.54.

4At the outset of the hearing the parties were canvassed for their positions, and Dr. Pytyck, on behalf of the hospital, confirmed that the current disposition was the necessary and appropriate disposition in the circumstances with the addition of two clauses to allow Ms. Baker to enter the community and to be permitted to travel. Counsel for the Attorney General joined the hospital in their recommendation for no change with the additional clauses and supported Ms. Baker’s travel to the United States for up to seven days with an itinerary approved of in advance by the person in charge of the hospital.

5Counsel on behalf of Ms. Baker joined in the hospital’s recommendation for the continuation of the current disposition with the two additional clauses for Ms. Baker to be able to enter the community and to be able to travel. However, counsel submitted that with respect to the travel condition, Ms. Baker ought to be able to travel to the United States for up to fourteen days with an itinerary approved in advance by the person in charge of the hospital. This difference in days of travel was the only area where the parties did not jointly submit a recommendation to the Board. Ms. Boissonneault specifically conceded that Ms. Baker remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.

6The evidence at the hearing consisted of the viva voce testimony of Dr. Pytyck, Ms. Baker’s attending psychiatrist. In addition, the Hospital Report, dated February 23, 2026, was filed as an exhibit as well as a support letter from Ms. Williams, a Peel Children’s Aid Society worker, supporting Ms. Baker.

7At the conclusion of its deliberations, the Board found that Ms. Baker continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. In the circumstances the least onerous and least restrictive disposition is a continuation of Ms. Baker’s current disposition with the addition of clauses to allow her to enter the community and travel for up to seven days.

Index Offence

8The following was obtained from the Agreed Statement of Facts:

“Jeremy Maruso and his wife Artemise Baker have been together for 13 years. They have 6 children, all under the age of 12. The relationship has had its ups and downs, but in recent years, Mr. Maruso has observed his wife to be struggling mentally. She appeared to exhibit paranoia and often accused him of cheating. In the days leading up to the August 30, 2024, incident, Mr. Maruso indicated his wife’s behaviour had changed drastically. She would speak incoherently, make statements of his infidelity, believe the house was being watched, and stated she didn’t feel safe going outdoors.

On August 29, 2024, Artemise Baker had called the police for assistance as she believed people were trying to hurt her and her documents had gone missing. She stated she had gone for a walk and noticed several white vans in the area, and these cans follow people. She was suspicious of the vans. Officers inquired about her mental health and Artemise advised she had never been diagnosed before. Officers checked on the children, and all six appeared to be fine – happy and running around, well fed. The officers did place a call to the CAS to follow up. York Regional Police responded to another call at the Maruso – Baker residence, 89 Naisr Cres, at 00 28 hours on August 30, 2024. Jeremy Maruso had called the police because Artemise Baker had taken all 6 of the children and left in the van. She had driven to the gas station and was refusing to come home. When police attended, Ms. Baker advised she just needed a break – she was tired from taking care of the 6 kids. She denied any thoughts of self-harm, or thoughts of harming her children or partner. At that time, Artemise didn’t fit the criteria for apprehension under the Mental Health Act. Mr. Maruso wanted to take his partner to the hospital for an assessment. He called his mother on August 30th, Virginia Maruso, to come and watch the children while he took Artemise to the hospital. When Virginia arrived, Artemise and Jeremy were arguing. Virginia was preparing lunch for the six children. Artemise continually entered the kitchen and interfered with Virginia’s efforts, turning off the stove repeatedly. Artemise paced back and forth, rebuffing Jeremy’s pleas to go to the hospital.

Artemise then grabbed a small knife and attempted to strike Jeremy. They struggled over the knife and Artemise dropped the knife. Jeremy picked up the knife – he cannot remember if it was a small, serrated knife or a paring knife – and threw it under the couch. Artemise then grabbed a pair of scissors, and stabbed him in the head, on the left side.

At that point, his 71-year-old mother attempted to intervene. However, Artemise turned towards Virginia and struck her in the chest. He heard Artemise say “You’re not hurt yet?” She then struck Virginia again. At this point, Jeremy was able to get the scissors from Artemise and run out of the house, with Artemise chasing after him. She grabbed at him and tore his shirt sleeve. He went to his car and called 911. Artemise followed him and was banging on the car windows. When Artemise exited the house, Virginia locked the doors to the house to prevent Artemise from entering. The six children remained inside with Virginia.

While Jeremy was on the phone, Artemise started to walk away. Jeremy ran back into the house. When the police arrived on scene, Artemise was in the front of the house. She was arrested without incident.

Inside the house, police were able to render aid to Jeremy and Virginia. None of the six children were physically injured; however, they had been present during the altercation. The oldest told the police their mother had hit their dad with a knife, which was now under the couch after dad had thrown it there, and then their mother hit their dad with the scissors.

Both Jeremy and Virginia were taken to the hospital. Jeremy received 3 staples to close the wound to his head. Virginia also had her two stab wounds – to the left side of her chest, near the left clavicle – closed with staples. Both have made full recoveries.”

Background Information

9The details of Ms. Baker’s family background, early life, educational and work history, and emotional mental health challenges predating the index offence are contained in the Hospital Report dated February 23, 2026. Given the detail outlined in the Hospital Report, they need not be repeated here. However, the Board considered all the evidence before it.

10The Hospital Report lists Ms. Baker’s current diagnoses as follows: delusional disorder, rule out bipolar 1 disorder, and rule out schizophrenia.

11Ms. Baker's symptoms were well treated during her first year at Ontario Shores following the NCR verdict in February 2025. She had recently switched to a long-acting injectable and had been stable on this medication for some months.

12Over the last year, Ms. Baker had no notable incidents, took therapy, participated in several groups, volunteered at Ontario Shores and was making good progress.

Evidence at the Hearing

13Dr. Pytyck gave evidence on behalf of the hospital at this hearing. Ms. Baker had a positive reporting year and trajectory. She used her passes appropriately, returned to her family’s home and assisted with the care of her six children, and wanted to be able to visit her own family, who live in the United States.

14The hospital’s recommendation was a continuation of the current disposition of a detention order, with the expansion of passes to seven days for Ms. Baker to enter into the community and up to seven days for international travel to the United States. This travel would be indirectly supervised and subject to the approval of the person in charge of the hospital. Dr. Pytyck focused her evidence on the issues at this hearing as well as the plans for Ms. Baker in the upcoming reporting year.

15Dr. Pytyck became Ms. Baker's most responsible physician when she was transferred to her forensic unit earlier this year.

16Dr. Pytyck advised that Ms. Baker was free of psychotic symptoms. She had transitioned from oral to injectable medications seven months ago; that there had been no instances of substance abuse and that she had engaged in numerous groups and activities including therapy on the unit. Dr. Pytyck indicated that Ms. Baker's husband and mother-in-law had participated in family intervention therapy which had helped improve their relationship dynamics. Currently, Ms. Baker's family lives in her mother-in-law’s home in Brampton. Ms. Baker attends for visits to the home which started with single overnight visits and were gradually increased up to seventy-two hours of visits per week.

17Dr. Pytyck advised that this use of Ms. Baker’s passes had been ongoing for the past couple of months and that they were being used appropriately and were reported to be positive. Dr. Pytyck advised that the treatment team checks in with Ms. Baker regularly; she returns to the hospital on time, and she has reconnected with her family. The treatment team views Ms. Baker can now start planning for her discharge to the community. The team had considered whether she should reside closer to the hospital for supervision but ultimately supports her return to her mother-in-law’s home, given her strong desire to return home and the support from her husband and mother-in-law. Dr. Pytyck advised that there are several protective factors in place and, once she is discharged, the Forensic Outpatient Service would continue to monitor Ms. Baker using a combination of in-person and video visits. Dr. Pytyck had also made a referral of Ms. Baker to the SHIP North Peel ACT team so that they could assist with future plans for Ms. Baker to be supported in the community, once she is no longer under the jurisdiction of the Board.

18Dr. Pytyck gave evidence that the issue of significant threat continues to be made out, as outlined in the report. The Hospital Report outlines a potential reoffence scenario, where Ms. Baker decompensates due to stress which leads to breakthrough symptoms of her delusional disorder to manifest which in turn, would lead to conflict with her family at home. Ms. Baker is untested in coping with stressors as she spends more time in the family home and community. Dr. Pytyck highlighted a number of reasons of concern: that Ms. Baker has not been before the Review Board for very long, the nature and trajectory of her illness are not clear, she engaged in a serious index offence that could have harmed the victims, that there are a number of small children at home and that stress may be a destabilizing factor for her in the future. To be fair, Dr. Pytyck indicated that there had been no decompensations so far even though Ms. Baker had been attending at the family home regularly over the last few months.

19Dr. Pytyck advised that it is the treatment team's view that a conditional discharge disposition is premature at this time; that they continue to monitor her closely and will continue to support her to ensure she does not decompensate. She does not have significant insight when she is unwell, and the treatment team was not confident that she would recognize the symptoms if she did decompensate. The team requires the ability to bring her back to hospital if she becomes unwell and to be able to continue to approve her housing. It is on the radar of the treatment team that a discharge may be appropriate in the near future, and they are actively working on supporting Ms. Baker in her reintegration into the community.

20For these reasons Dr. Pytyck advocated that it is reasonable to include a travel pass to allow Ms. Baker to return to the United States to visit her family. The evidence was that she would likely not be able to use this privilege right away, but it would be reasonable for her to have such a clause to use in the future. Dr. Pytyck’s evidence was that one week was the least onerous and least restrictive at this time given the hospital’s need to monitor Ms. Baker closely and that she is being given privileges to use and the hospital wants to ensure that any trips are successful.

21Counsel for Ms. Baker, Ms. Boissonneault, questioned Dr. Pytyck on several areas. Dr. Pytyck clarified that Ms. Baker had no active psychotic symptoms and that it was fair to characterize her illness as in remission. Dr. Pytyck agreed that Ms. Baker appreciates the need to take medication and not use substances, and that she was keeping in contact with her psychiatric supports. The change to a long-acting injectable had been tolerated well by Ms. Baker, and Dr. Pytyck’s evidence was that would continue. Dr. Pytyck agreed that the long-acting injectable medication was a protective factor which guards against rapid decompensation. Ms. Boissonneault asked if the frequency for a long-acting injectable being administered every four weeks could be accommodated Ms. Baker’s travel. Dr. Pytyck agreed that it could.

22Ms. Boissonneault also asked about Ms. Baker's engagement in programming. Dr. Pytyck agreed that Ms. Baker was an active and engaged participant; that she had properly engaged in programming and the use of her leaves of absence from the hospital. Ms. Baker also had received positive feedback about her volunteering at Ontario Shores.

23Ms. Boissonneault asked Dr. Pytyck about the issue of stress being a destabilizing factor. Dr. Pytyck gave evidence about an unprovoked assault, where Ms. Baker was the victim, indicating that Ms. Baker tolerated the stress of that incident and did not decompensate. Further, Ms. Boissonneault asked Dr. Pytyck about Ms. Baker’s progress in returning to the family home. Dr. Pytyck agreed that Ms. Baker had been exercising the outer limits of her leaves of absence entering the community for up to 72 hours, and being actively engaged in the responsibilities of caring for her six children. This is significant and Dr. Pytyck agreed that Ms. Baker had not decompensated during this time.

24Lastly with respect to travel to the U.S., Ms. Boissonneault asked Dr. Pytyck about the reasons for the hospital’s recommendation of passes for seven days. Dr. Pytyck agreed with Ms. Boissonneault that Ms. Baker has family members in Mississippi, which is where she is from, including her mother, siblings and aunts. Dr. Pytyck agreed that Ms. Baker's mother is a support for her as much as she can be from afar and that the person in charge of the hospital would approve any travel plans that were made and those travel plans would not be approved if Ms. Baker was not stable and doing well.

25Dr. Pytyck was asked several questions by the Board with respect to Ms. Baker's travel. She was asked how Ms. Baker would get to the United States. The treatment team had not yet had an opportunity to discuss these logistics with Ms. Baker. However, Dr. Pytyck advised that there is a certain level of unpredictability with travel and that the team would need to monitor her closely when she leaves the hospital and manage any potential difficulties that might arise. Some issues identified by Dr. Pytyck would be, the availability of psychiatric care for Ms. Baker while out of the country, coverage for benefits, paying for medication, dealing with any unforeseen issues that arise that make it difficult for her to return and ensuring that Ms. Baker did not decompensate.

26Dr. Pytyck also advised in response to questions from the Board, that the purpose of this clause to allow Ms. Baker international travel is to be able to enter the United States to visit her family and it had not been contemplated that she would travel anywhere else. The doctor expressed concern that including international travel for a period of two weeks at this time may set up unrealistic expectations on the part of Ms. Baker.

27No further evidence was called at the conclusion of Dr. Pytyck’s testimony.

Submissions of Counsel

28At the conclusion of the evidence, the hospital and the Attorney General maintained their position of no change to the current disposition with the exception of the two additional clauses to allow Ms. Baker to enter the community and to allow her to be able to travel internationally to the United States for up to seven days with an itinerary approved of by the person in charge. Ms. Boissonneault advocated for her client to be able to travel for up to fourteen days as that was in her best interest and was the least onerous, least restrictive disposition.

29Ms. Boissonneault also brought the Board’s attention to the many positive strides her client had made over the last reporting year including engagement in programming, therapy and volunteer work.

Analysis and Conclusions

30The Board considered all of the evidence presented by Dr. Pytyck and in the Hospital Report in reaching the conclusion that Ms. Baker continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board considered the clinical assessment of risk, the recent and serious nature of the index offence and Ms. Baker’s willingness to comply with the medication and intervention from her team.

31In 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 this 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.

32There are the many positive and protective factors applicable to Ms. Baker. She has abstained from substance use, been compliant with treatment, she has visited her family home and assisted with childcare, completed many groups and programs and volunteered during the past reporting year.

33The evidence from the Hospital was that the team supports Ms. Baker’s desire to spend more time with her family and six children. For this reason, the evidence supports the inclusion of a clause that Ms. Baker be permitted to enter the community for up to seven days. She has appropriately used her passes and privileges without incident, staying at the family home for up to seventy-two hours without incident. She is closely monitored by her treatment team and allows them to test her stability and compliance over a longer period away from hospital.

34The Board considered Dr. Pytyck’s evidence regarding the unknowns that may be present if Ms. Baker is traveling to the United States and the need for the treatment team to monitor that kind of long-distance travel closely. For this reason, the Board finds that it is appropriate to include the clause that Ms. Baker be permitted international travel to visit her family, limited to one week at a time.

35The necessary and appropriate disposition to manage Ms. Baker’s significant threat to the safety of the public is one of no change to the current disposition, with the two additional clauses allowing Ms. Baker to enter the community or travel for up to seven days. The Board considered the criteria set for the in s. 672.54 of the Code, with the paramount consideration being the safety of the public. Further, the Board considered the mental state of Ms. Baker, her reintegration into society, and find that this is the necessary and appropriate disposition.