Ontario Review Board
Re: Russell Farthing
ORB File No: 8655
Hearing held on: Friday, December 19, 2025
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: Mr. C. MacIntyre, KC
Members: Dr. K. Hand
Dr. M. Kalia
Mr. E. Siebenmorgen
Mr. R. Rainboth
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Russell Farthing
Counsel: Ms. J. Boissonneault
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. A. Marshall
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. N. MacDonald
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated January 20, 2026)
Introduction
On October 23, 2024, Russell Farthing was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on charges of assault causing bodily harm, assaulting a peace officer, mischief under $5,000.00, and break and enter with intent, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”). Mr. Farthing was most recently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB” or “the Board”) dated December 6, 2024 pursuant to which he was ordered detained at the Forensic Program of the Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (“OSCMHS” or “the Hospital”), subject to various conditions and privileges, up to and including 48-hour accompanied passes and 12-hour indirectly supervised passes into the community within a 150-kilometre radius of the Hospital. This Disposition was Mr. Farthing’s first since coming under the Board’s jurisdiction for the second time. Mr. Farthing had previously been found NCR for the offence of assault on June 16, 2008 and had been subject to the Board’s authority from that year until he was absolutely discharged in June of 2012.
On Friday, December 19, 2025, a panel of the Board convened in person at the Hospital to conduct the annual review of Mr. Farthing’s Disposition. The issues at the hearing were: (a) whether Mr. Farthing represents a significant threat to the safety of the public within the meaning of s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code; and (b) if so, to determine the necessary and appropriate Disposition that is also the least onerous and least restrictive in the circumstances, having regard to the factors in s. 672.54 of the Code as they apply in Mr. Farthing’s situation. Mr. Farthing was present for his hearing and was represented by his counsel, Ms. Boissonneault.
The evidence at the hearing consisted of the Hospital Report dated November 7, 2025 (the “Hospital Report”) and the oral evidence of Dr. L. Wong, who has been Mr. Farthing’s attending psychiatrist since he arrived on his unit in December of 2024 following the issuance of the Board’s initial Disposition.
Positions of the Parties
At the start of the hearing, counsel for the Hospital confirmed that the Hospital was seeking, as recommended in its Report, a community living privilege for Mr. Farthing. Counsel further advised that counsel for Mr. Farthing was seeking, with the Hospital not opposing the request, increases in both Mr. Farthing’s accompanied and indirectly supervised community privileges to 72 hours. It was noted that the latter change was specifically to enable Mr. Farthing to visit his family for the upcoming Christmas holiday. As the hearing was occurring in the afternoon of December 19, counsel for the Hospital asked the panel to consider taking steps to facilitate the issuance of its Disposition before December 24, 2025. Counsel for Mr. Farthing confirmed her client’s requests and stated that there was no issue in relation to “significant threat”.
Counsel for the Attorney General stated that subject to hearing the evidence, she anticipated joining in the other parties’ recommendations, and stated that she was seeking a noncommunication term in relation to the victims of the index offences. She submitted that the Disposition ought to identify the victims by name.
At the conclusion of the evidence, counsel for the Attorney General confirmed that she was joining with the Hospital and Mr. Farthing in their requests. She maintained her initial position that the Disposition should require that Mr. Farthing refrain from communicating or associating with the victims of the index offences and that the victims should be named. She also pointed out that the prohibition of Mr. Farthing’s possession of offensive weapons should, out of an abundance of caution, contain an exception for the tools used by Mr. Farthing while engaged in woodcutting with his father. Counsel for Mr. Farthing did not object to a non-communication/non-association term.
Findings
Following its deliberations, the panel reconvened the hearing and announced, through the alternate chairperson, that it had decided to accept what was essentially a joint recommendation, including making provision for Mr. Farthing to celebrate Christmas at his mother’s home by making its best efforts to have the Disposition issued on an expedited basis. The Reasons for the Disposition would follow in the usual course.
The following Reasons explain why the panel concluded that Mr. Farthing represents a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Detention Order with the following modifications in the terms of the Disposition dated December 6, 2024:
that Mr. Farthing’s discretionary accompanied and indirectly supervised community passes are extended to a 72-hour duration with the proviso that his indirectly supervised community passes be pursuant to an itinerary approved in advance;
that at the discretion of the person in charge of the Hospital, Mr. Farthing may live in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge;
that the prohibition on Mr. Farthing’s possession of weapons be subject to the following qualification: “. . . save and except for the purpose of and while engaged in woodcutting with his father”;
that Mr. Farthing refrain from any direct or indirect contact or communication with the victims of the index offences; and
that when living in the community, Mr. Farthing be required to report to the person in charge of the Hospital or their designate not less than once every two weeks.
Index Offences
- The circumstances of the index offences are taken from the transcript of the proceedings in the Ontario Court of Justice at the time of the NCR finding and are reproduced in the Hospital Report. The following extract from last year’s Reasons for Disposition has been modified slightly to remove the victims’ names:
“On June 4th, 2024, at approximately 7:58 a.m., Peterborough Police Service received a call about a mischief at B[…] Street. The complainant, [Victim #1], reported that there was a male on her property who had smashed the window on her front door. She reported that the male was wielding an axe and that she was too scared to leave her home to go to work. The male was later identified as Russell Farthing.
The damage to the glass pane of the front door was estimated to be worth somewhere in the range of $500 to $1000 worth of damage. At 8:04 a.m. that same day, the Peterborough police received a call about a male who had broken into a dwelling house at D[…] Street. The report indicated that [Victim #2] had been struck in the head with a hatchet and that the male was trying to take items from the home unsuccessfully. The male was described as having pants that were falling down, button up shirt that was unbuttoned. He was carrying two jackets. He had gained entry through the unlocked front door of the residence.
[Victim #2] was taken to the Peterborough Regional Health Centre. She had a laceration, approximately two and a half inches in length on her face near her left eye. She also had some bruising in that area. [She] reported that shortly before 8:00 a.m. that morning, she had been inside her home at D[…] Street getting ready for work. She heard her screen door close and when she went to look, she saw an unknown male leaving her house with a bunch of bags. She followed him outside and grabbed the bags back. He began yelling at her and that is when the male hit her on the side of the head with the hatchet.
[Victim #2] reported that the male tried to strangle her. [She] did not know who this male was. The hatchet had been taken from [her] home. [She] reported that the male had called her a cunt during this incident and she feared for her safety. The male was later identified as Mr. Farthing.
That same day, at 8:11 a.m., officers located Mr. Farthing near Trinity United Church. He was wearing dark blue shorts that were falling down. He had no shoes on. He had a black button up coat with no shirt on underneath and he was carrying two jackets that were slightly covering a hatchet. He was arrested and was given his rights to counsel and cautioned. Mr. Farthing advised that officers were not able to charge him and this was a false arrest. While officers were placing Mr. Farthing in the rear of the cruiser, he looked towards [one officer] and spat at him. The saliva struck [this officer] under his right eye.”
Personal and Family Background
Mr. Farthing’s personal background is set forth in detail in the Hospital Report which was entered as an Exhibit at the hearing. That background therefore need not be repeated here in detail. Briefly stated, Mr. Farthing is 45 years old, single, and has one child who is in the custody of Mr. Farthing’s mother. At the time of the index offences, he was living in a shelter in Peterborough and was supported by ODSP. The details below are provided to place Mr. Farthing’s current relationship with his mother and with his young son into context.
Mr. Farthing was born in Lakefield, Ontario. He was raised by his mother, Vicki Farthing, and stepfather, Robert Farthing, who adopted him at the age of two years. His mother and stepfather had three children of their own, two sons (one now deceased) and a daughter. His mother and adopted father divorced when Mr. Farthing was in grade 9. Mr. Farthing reported that his mother did not remarry but has been in a lengthy common-law relationship with Mr. Greg Lustic.
Mr. Farthing reported that he has had minimal contact with his stepfather since the divorce from his mother, though they have occasionally run across each other in passing in the community and exchanged pleasantries. Mr. Farthing reconnected with his biological father, Ken Palmer, when he was 23 years old. Though he was not involved in his childhood, Mr. Farthing has described Mr. Palmer as currently very supportive of him.
Mr. Farthing reported doing well in elementary school and receiving high marks. His marks dropped significantly when he was in high school. He became truant from school and began drinking alcohol and consuming cannabis. When his mother and stepfather divorced (he was reportedly age 14 at the time), he moved in with a friend instead of moving to Barrie with his mother. He returned to living with his mother when she moved to Peterborough before he completed high school. He started two post-secondary college programs but did not complete either. He has worked at various part-time and summer jobs as an adolescent, starting at age 12. As an adult, he held a variety of full-time positions working at a grocery warehouse, in carpentry, as a delivery driver, and at a hardware store. He reported leaving two of his jobs, including the most recent position at the store, due to his mental health issues.
Substance Use, Criminal Record, and the Prior NCR History
As previously noted, Mr. Farthing reported first using alcohol in high school and drank consistently until he was 21 years old, at which point he quit for some time. At one point, he was consuming at least 26 ounces of liquor per night, usually in social settings. He would "get into trouble" when he consumed that amount of alcohol such as "getting into fights.... getting obnoxious, loud, rowdy". Mr. Farthing reported having driven while under the influence of alcohol and having been charged for this. More recently, he reported social drinking at most once a month, usually no more than two drinks. He stated that his last use of alcohol was likely a few weeks prior to his arrest for the index offences. Mr. Farthing had also been a regular user of cannabis since high school. At times, he would be intoxicated while in school.
Mr. Farthing accumulated six criminal convictions between 1999 and 2003, when he was between 19 and 23 years old. Those convictions include two for impaired driving and one for assault. There is then a 15-year gap in his record. Numerous convictions were entered in February of 2023 and then in August of 2023. More will be said of those offences later in these Reasons.
Mr. Farthing’s recorded psychiatric history prior to 2007 (when he committed the assault that resulted in his prior NCR finding) consists of admissions from June 21, 2001 to July 9, 2001 and from June 17, 2005 to August 31, 2005. On the first occasion, he was admitted following reported bizarre and violent behaviour, including attempting to strangle his brother. He had also attempted to self-harm. He evidenced religious preoccupation and there was a reported history of alcohol abuse, as well as illicit drug use that included cannabis and ecstasy. He was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and cannabis use. He was discharged with antipsychotic and antidepressant medication and was to follow up with a psychiatrist. The 2005 admission resulted from being brought to hospital by police following reported "steady deterioration in his schizophrenic illness", as he was increasingly withdrawn and expressing various delusional beliefs, such as others conversing about him and able to hear his thoughts. He was found incapable of consenting to treatment, his mother was appointed as his substitute decision maker (SDM) and he was started on antipsychotic medication. He was placed on a Community Treatment Order (CTO) and referred to the Whitby Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) Team.
In 2007, Mr. Farthing and his half brother, Andrew, were living with their mother. In September of that year, Mr. Farthing became assaultive towards her, the police became involved, and Mr. Farthing was removed from the home. During that period, Mr. Farthing had become very ill. He was pacing around the home and talking about “the lord”. He got into an argument that eventually led to an assault upon his brother. He was charged, assessed for criminal responsibility at the Hospital (then the Whitby Mental Health Centre) in October of 2007, and ultimately found NCR. He received both pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment, actively participated in vocational programming such as volunteering and employment, and transitioned back to the community in 2009 with the support of an ACT team. Mr. Farthing reportedly engaged in no incidents of violence and maintained abstinence from substances from 2008 until after receiving an Absolute Discharge in 2012.
Mr. Farthing was reportedly followed by an ACT team until approximately eight weeks prior to a July 31, 2014 hospital admission. The team was no longer able to locate him. He was brought to hospital in Peterborough pursuant to a Mental Health Act Form 2 obtained by his father. On examination, he was agitated, paranoid, and had grandiose delusions. His urine toxicology was positive for cannabis. He was pleasant, cooperative and adherent to his prescribed medication throughout his two-week admission and had no behavioural issues. On discharge, he was agreeable with continuing to be followed by the ACT team and having them administer his medications in the community.
Mr. Farthing had further admissions in 2016 and again in 2018, in the context of challenges with medication compliance, disengagement from his ACT team and, in the case of the 2018 admission, self-harm and increasing aggression towards family members and mental health workers. He reported having started to use stimulant drugs, specifically cocaine, in 2017 due to "having a hard time in life". Upon his discharge from hospital in 2018, the plan was for him to continue being followed by his ACT team, with a CTO also initiated.
Sometime in the 2018-2019 timeframe, Mr. Farthing began a two-year relationship with Ms. Ashley Payne and they reportedly lived together for a year. While Mr. Farthing’s CTO had lapsed in October of 2018 and was not renewed, he continued to be seen by his ACT team. On July 10, 2019, Mr. Farthing spontaneously presented to the ACT office requesting assistance to look for new housing. The team expressed suspicion that there was a sex or drug trafficking ring operation out of the apartment. There was also concern that he was using cannabis as he smelled of it and wore sunglasses throughout the appointment.
Mr. Farthing and Ms. Payne had a son together. He was born a month early in November of 2020. The Children's Aid Society (CAS) apprehended him from the hospital after a period of stabilization. Mr. Farthing reported that Ms. Payne was using substances throughout their relationship. When she became pregnant with their son, Mr. Farthing requested that she stop using substances such as fentanyl, crystal methamphetamine and cocaine. However, Ms. Payne did not want to change that aspect of her lifestyle and it created conflict in the relationship, so eventually they went their separate ways. Ms. Payne reportedly resumed her habit of using substances within a week of giving birth. According to Mr. Farthing, Ms. Payne did not express interest in co-parenting their son.
Mr. Farthing’s son remained in foster care for four months while Ms. Farthing worked with the CAS to secure a plan. Thereafter, Mr. Farthing and his son moved in with his mother. During that time, Mr. Farthing was reportedly compliant with his responsibilities, and Mr. Farthing and his mother applied for joint custody. This living situation continued for a year, with Mr. Farthing actively participating in his son's upbringing. After Ms. Farthing’s year of maternity leave ended, she returned to work, and daycare was arranged for the son in Lindsay. Mr. Farthing rented the second floor of a house in Lindsay for himself and his son. Ms. Farthing, who worked in Lindsay, often drove by to check on them until matters deteriorated as described below.
Mr. Farthing reported having been abstinent from substances for the first two years following his son’s birth. However, during separate visits by Ms. Farthing and by Ken Palmer (Mr. Farthing’s natural father), the son was found wandering about unsupervised, and on one occasion, Mr. Palmer observed Mr. Farthing sitting with a friend with the apartment filled with garbage and debris, along with various pieces of drug paraphernalia, including spoons with lighters scattered throughout the apartment, all while the child was left unsupervised. Mr. Palmer called the police out of concern for his grandson’s safety. In addition, Mr. Farthing’s ACT team contacted the CAS at some point in late 2021 or early January of 2022. Already late for his antipsychotic medication injection, Mr. Farthing presented to his ACT team in an angry and agitated state. After receiving confirmation that the team had contacted the CAS, Mr. Farthing stopped attending his appointments. He was evicted from his apartment in January, and in March of 2022, Ms. Farthing applied for custody of her grandson. She was eventually granted full custody.
Mr. Farthing resumed the use of substances, including regular consumption of both cocaine and methamphetamines. He was of no fixed address and used the shelter system. He also spent time in custody at the Central East Correctional Centre during the remainder of 2022, as well as portions of 2023 and 2024.
Overall, Mr. Farthing has a chronic history of medication non-compliance, except while previously subject to the Board’s jurisdiction, and has had multiple emergency department visits and hospitalizations dating back to 2001. There were many such emergency department visits from 2022 to 2024, shortly before the index offences. He was admitted to Peterborough Regional Health Centre (PRHC) in June of 2023 for two weeks, in the context of worsening psychosis and the making of homicidal threats. At that time, he was paranoid and guarded and was placed on a Form 1. He was treated with oral olanzapine as he declined treatment with a long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication. Mr. Farthing was discharged at his request as he was no longer certifiable. Historically, Mr. Farthing has been placed on a Form 1 and brought to hospital via Form 2 obtained by his family on multiple occasions. When in a decompensated state, he has typically presented with paranoid delusions, religious preoccupation, loosening of associations, disorganized thinking, internal preoccupation, poor hygiene, and agitation.
Behaviours documented in Mr. Farthing’s medical/psychiatric records (including hospital admissions for mental health deterioration) include the following:
attempting to strangle his brother and trying to lacerate his own wrists (2001);
verbal threats to harm others (2016);
aggression toward family and mental health workers and environmental destruction at his home (2018);
a physical altercation while in custody (2022);
anger, belligerence, and a threat to kill a psychiatrist during a consultation in hospital (2023); and
assault charges resulting in being in custody at the Central East Correctional Centre (September 28, 2023-March 22, 2024).
Mr. Farthing’s First Reporting Year Under Board Jurisdiction
By the time of his initial ORB hearing in November of 2024, Mr. Farthing had been on olanzapine for six months and his mental state had stabilized. On December 16, 2024, he was transferred from FAU (a secure forensic unit) to FPRU (a general forensic unit), where he remained as of the hearing date. Overall, he is reported to have had a good reporting year and made steady progress in his rehabilitation. He did not engage in any aggressive behaviours or require either locked seclusion or mechanical restraints. There were a few incidents of suspected provision of tampered urine samples; however, there was no confirmed substance use, obvious signs of intoxication, or a deterioration in his mental status.
On his unit, Mr. Farthing was pleasant and cooperative in routine clinical interactions. He typically kept a low profile and socialized with select co-patients, albeit with those that tended to be more antisocial and struggled with substance use and/or gambling problems. He was warned about this, given its potential impact on his own risk factors.
Mr. Farthing spends his time socializing with peers, making use of his passes both on hospital grounds and in the community, and participates in Bible studies. Once granted community privileges, he was quick to start visiting his family and find employment. He works for his father by chopping firewood at his home and has participated in a resume workshop in hopes to apply for positions relevant to his work history. He identifies that being part of his son’s life and practicing his faith are both important to his recovery and act as motivators to focus on his rehabilitation.
Mr. Farthing has almost without exception utilized his privileges without incident. He obtained the maximum duration of privileges and has typically used his community passes to visit with his mother and son, or his father (to help chop firewood), or attend local plazas / malls. Mr. Farthing has also attended many in-hospital programs, including three that relate to help with addictions/substance use. The programs are listed in the Hospital Report.
Mr. Farthing is considered capable of consenting to his psychiatric treatment and capable of managing his finances. He has been adherent to his prescribed medication and agreed to transition from oral to long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication.
Mr. Farthing participated in a psychological risk assessment during the year, including an interview on September 19, 2025. The report of this assessment, completed on October 1, 2025, is incorporated into the Hospital Report. It discusses both risk and protective factors that apply to Mr. Farthing’s situation. It includes the following helpful summary:
“In consideration of the factors delineated above, it is opined that Mr. Farthing is at Low risk for future violence when considering community living under a detention order at the present time. He has had a successful reporting year, the majority of which he was placed on a general security unit. Although there are concerns regarding partially developed insight—particularly with respect to his understanding of his mental illness and the associated constellation of symptoms—the risk stemming from the same is mitigated by the support and monitoring afforded to him by the continuation of a detention order. Moreover, it is also noted that Mr. Farthing presents with a high degree of motivation to adhere to all treatment and supervision conditions; this is certainly protective. With respect to risk management recommendations, it does appear that a gradual transition to the community is prudent. Mr. Farthing’s historical difficulties with substance use, and its demonstrated impact on his mental stability and treatment adherence, is significant; while his voiced commitment to abstinence is admirable, the durability of the same whilst in the community remains to be seen. It is understood that Mr. Farthing has participated in some concurrent disorders programming; periodic review of this material would likely be of benefit. Additionally, the development of insight, particularly regarding his mental illness, is indicated. Gentle psychoeducation and health teaching regarding his diagnosis may be helpful in this regard. Should he be willing to explore symptoms of psychosis in a therapeutic context, CBTp should be considered.”
Evidence at the Hearing
- Mr. Farthing’s current diagnoses are:
schizophrenia;
substance-induced psychosis; and
substance use disorders (alcohol, cannabis, stimulants – severe, in early remission, in a controlled environment).
Dr. Wong’s evidence was focused upon the key points as narrowed by the parties’ agreements on the issues. He adopted the Clinical Risk Assessment in the Hospital Report and briefly reviewed Mr. Farthing’s positive reporting year. He stated that it was to his credit that Mr. Farthing agreed to change his medication to a long-acting form, as previously noted. He agreed that this is a protective factor in risk management. Dr. Wong highlighted that Mr. Farthing’s use of his community passes includes visits with his mother and father (who, as previously noted, are separated). Those visits have gone well, and in response to a question from Mr. Farthing’s counsel, Dr. Wong confirmed that the family support is strong.
With respect to Mr. Farthing’s mother’s involvement in his care, Dr. Wong pointed out that Ms. Farthing is a social worker herself. She reportedly did very well during her interview for becoming an Approved Person. That process has almost concluded, with the Hospital simply awaiting her criminal record check.
Dr. Wong outlined the treatment team and Hospital’s plan for accommodating Mr. Farthing’s desire to spend Christmas on an overnight basis with his mother and son at his mother’s home. While he has visited the home pursuant to his 12-hour indirectly supervised passes, he has not yet had overnight visits. Typically, the Hospital would approve 72-hour passes on a stepwise basis, beginning with overnight visits and progressing from there if 24-hour passes went well. For the upcoming Christmas visit, the treatment team has communicated with both Mr. Farthing’s mother and with Hospital management. Ms. Farthing would come to the Hospital on Christmas Eve, pick Mr. Farthing up, and take him to her home. The initial plan includes Mr. Farthing returning to the Hospital on Christmas Day so that the treatment team could assess the situation following the overnight stay and then determine whether the pass could be extended. The “backup plan” would still be a day pass. In response to a panel member’s suggestion that Mr. Farthing’s indirectly supervised 72-hour passes should be granted on the basis of an approved itinerary, Dr. Wong agreed, noting that approved itineraries are utilized anyway for indirectly supervised privileges.
Dr. Wong addressed the Hospital’s recommendation for a community living privilege for Mr. Farthing. Noting that Mr. Farthing had done quite well in the assessment by Occupational Therapy (he reportedly has the skills to live independently), Dr. Wong supported the recommendation for housing through the Transitional Rehabilitative Housing Program (TRHP) as a first step. Through TRHP, Mr. Farthing could experience almost independent living while being supported by twice-daily staff home visits. Dr. Wong advised that Mr. Farthing was accepting of the TRHP housing plan.
Asked whether Mr. Farthing would be considered ready for community living if the Board were to include this privilege in his Disposition, Dr. Wong believed that he was, though he noted that through Mr. Farthing’s indirectly supervised privileges, the treatment team would have the ability to gradually effect a transition to a community living setting. Through this process, the Hospital would still require the ability to approve Mr. Farthing’s housing.
Dr. Wong could not provide a tentative timeframe as to when an appropriate TRHP residence would be available for Mr. Farthing, though he would not be surprised if he was required to wait another year for his placement.
Prior to the conclusion of Dr. Wong’s evidence, counsel for the Attorney General raised the issue of a potential modification to the weapons prohibition in Mr. Farthing’s Disposition, in light of the circumstances of the index offences and the nature of Mr. Farthing’s wood chopping work with his father. Mr. Farthing himself interjected at this point to advise that the tool he used was a wood splitter.
No further evidence was led following Dr. Wong’s testimony.
Analysis and Conclusions
The panel unanimously found that Mr. Farthing represents a significant threat to the safety of the public. As earlier noted, this matter was undisputed among the parties. The index offences were serious and one was potentially lethal, involving as it did the use of an edged weapon resulting in bodily injury. The offences occurred in the context of acute symptoms of his major mental disorder, namely, schizophrenia. At the time, Mr. Farthing had for some time been non-adherent with prescribed antipsychotic medication and despite a period of abstinence during his earlier time under ORB jurisdiction, was also regularly using cannabis, cocaine, and methamphetamines. On the evidence, he has a significant substance use disorder that exacerbates the symptoms of his major mental illness. He has a significant history of medication non-compliance in the community, but also a history of responding readily to antipsychotic medication when provided with supports and when abstinent from substance use. His insight into the symptoms of his mental illness remains limited, although to his credit he can identify the importance of ongoing pharmacological treatment and abstinence from substances, especially for the management of violence risk.
As noted in the psychological risk assessment report, “. . . the vast majority of Mr. Farthing’s prior incidents of violence have occurred in the context of mental destabilization from psychosis and/or substance use.” The assessment continues: “In such a state, Mr. Farthing’s ability to problem solve—particularly when faced with interpersonal conflict—becomes compromised, leading to violence. This has been the case on several occasions throughout his history, including a prior assault committed against his brother.” The assault on his brother, it is noted, resulted in Mr. Farthing’s earlier NCR finding in 2008. The panel is of the view that the index offences were part of a pattern that demonstrates, in the absence of forensic oversight, a real likelihood of the commission of a further criminal offence that would result in serious physical or psychological harm upon members of the community, whether family, acquaintances or total strangers.
Turning to the matter of Disposition, the panel accepts the parties’ joint position that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Detention Order largely containing the terms and conditions of the Disposition dated December 6, 2024, with the modifications set out earlier at para. 8 of these Reasons. In our consideration of the factors in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code and in pursuit of the twin goals of Part XX.1 (protecting public safety while maximizing the liberty of the accused person), the panel finds that Mr. Farthing should have the opportunity, over the next reporting year, to live in the community, at the discretion of the Hospital in approved accommodation. The panel also finds that it is appropriate to expand the duration of Mr. Farthing’s accompanied and indirectly supervised community privileges. On the evidence, he is now ready to move into transitional accommodation. He also enjoys strong family support. In addition, and notably, the psychological risk assessment makes the following significant observation: “Indeed, Mr. Farthing expressed a strong commitment to rehabilitation with an ultimate goal of being able to spend more time with his son, and by relation, was highly motivated to continue adhering to treatment and accessing the supports available to him through the Forensic Program, even as an outpatient.”
The frequency of Mr. Farthing’s reporting to his outpatient treatment team, upon his transition to community living, was not expressly addressed at the hearing. However, the evidence reveals several indicators that satisfy the panel that a standard reporting frequency (based on the Board’s experience with such matters when an individual is first discharged to community living) of no less than twice per month should be imposed at this juncture. Those indicators are:
Mr. Farthing’s significant substance use disorders and his vulnerability to return to such use once he returns to the community;
Mr. Farthing’s self-report that his knowledge of other cocaine users during the period preceding the index offences, was such that he was able to obtain the substance at a discounted price;
a cautionary note in the Hospital Report, observing that while Mr. Farthing socialized with select co-patients, those associations included, “those that tended to be more antisocial and struggled with substance use and/or gambling problems” (p. 21); and
the observation in the psychological risk assessment that Mr. Farthing’s limited insight into his illness translates into “difficulties detecting early warning signs of mental deterioration and/or effectively communicating with his team, thereby impeding his access to timely supports” (p. 24).
This evidence satisfies the panel that Mr. Farthing will require significant support from his treatment team when he transitions to community living, including frequent appointments with members of the forensic outpatient service. They will likely be more than twice a month in frequency, but they must not be less.
The panel agrees that a term requiring Mr. Farthing to refrain from communicating with or otherwise contacting the victims of the index offence is appropriate, particularly with his contemplated transition to community living in the coming year. However, in the panel’s judgment, naming them in the Disposition is not necessary. On the evidence, Mr. Farthing and the victims were unknown to one another prior to the index offences. It is difficult to see how bringing their names to his attention through the Disposition would currently reduce the risk to public safety.
In approaching this matter, the panel has considered the evidence through the lens of the factors in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code. We commend Mr. Farthing on his cooperation with the treatment team and his high degree of motivation for his successful treatment.
DATED this 20^th^ day of January 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Eric Siebenmorgen
Legal Member
____________________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board