Re Tyler Lawes, 2026 CanLII 4242

Re: Tyler Lawes

ORB File No: 7619

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: Tyler Lawes 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

1On October 23, 2019, Tyler Lawes was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on a charge of assault, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. He was most recently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB” or “the Board”) dated December 23, 2024, detaining him at the General Forensic Service of Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (“Ontario Shores” or “the Hospital”) with privileges up to and including to live in the community in approved accommodation.

2On Friday, December 19, 2025, a panel of the Board convened in person at the Hospital to conduct the annual review of Mr. Lawes’ Disposition and to determine: (a) whether Mr. Lawes 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, the necessary and appropriate Disposition that is also the least onerous and least restrictive, having regard to the factors in s. 672.54. Mr. Lawes was present for his hearing and was represented by his counsel, Ms. Boissonneault.

3The evidence at the hearing consisted of the Hospital Report dated November 21, 2025 and the oral evidence of Dr. L. Wong, who had been Mr. Lawes’ psychiatrist on the Hospital’s general forensic unit since December of 2022. The Record for the hearing included, in addition to the standard documents, a Campbell¹ letter from the Hospital to the Board dated November 11, 2025.

Positions of the Parties

4At the start of the hearing, counsel for the Hospital confirmed its position as set out in its Report that there should be no change to Mr. Lawes’ Disposition. Counsel for the Attorney General agreed generally with the Hospital but took the position that Mr. Lawes’ level of risk required that he be detained at the Hospital’s Secure Forensic Service. Counsel for Mr. Lawes agreed with the Hospital’s position but sought a removal from the Disposition of the prohibition on Mr. Lawes’ use of cannabis. She confirmed that “significant threat” was not a live issue.

5The parties essentially maintained their respective positions at the conclusion of the evidence, except that counsel for the Attorney General ultimately sought a “hybrid” Disposition to permit the Hospital to return Mr. Lawes from a secure to a general forensic unit if his mental condition justified such a transfer. Counsel for the Hospital and for the Attorney General opposed the removal of the cannabis prohibition from the Disposition. Counsel for Mr. Lawes opposed a hybrid Detention Order, submitting that Mr. Lawes could be managed on a general forensic unit.

Findings

6For the following Reasons, the panel found that Mr. Lawes represents a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Detention Order with no changes from the previous Disposition. In particular, the panel found that Mr. Lawes can currently continue to be managed safely while remaining on a general forensic unit in the Hospital. The panel also found that Mr. Lawes’ ongoing use of cannabis would increase his risk and accordingly declined to grant him a “cannabis use exemption” from the general abstinence clause in his Disposition.

Index Offence

7The circumstances surrounding the index offence are reproduced in the Hospital Report. They are described as follows in last year’s Reasons for Disposition (dated January 28, 2025):

“On Sunday June 30th 2019 the accused before the court was observed by witnesses and CCTV in Union Station. The accused approached an elderly female while she was exiting a bus with her 6 year old grandson. Completely unprovoked the accused lashed out at the victim and struck her in the head, causing her to hit the ground. The victim suffered injury to her head and her 6 year old grandson was inconsolable after the attack.”

8Throughout his course under the Board, Mr. Lawes has maintained the belief that he was justified in his conduct during the index offence because the victim was sexually abusing her child. Notably, during individual Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Psychosis (CBT-p) during the 2020-2021 reporting year, he was described as smiling and laughing when discussing his justification while recounting the index offence, including how he positioned his body and took off his sandals to maximize the force of his assault.

Personal and Family Background

9The Hospital Report contains details of Mr. Lawes background, including his family, educational and employment history, as well as his criminal record, psychiatric history, and earlier course since coming under the Board’s jurisdiction. As the Hospital Report is in evidence at the hearing, this information need not be reviewed to any extent in these Reasons. Those portions that provide necessary context for the issues at this hearing are highlighted below.

10Mr. Lawes is 44 years old. He is single and has no dependents. He was born in Alberta to parents who divorced when he was 20 years old. Mr. Lawes has two half-brothers and a half-sister. He reportedly became estranged from his family when he moved from Alberta to Toronto as a teenager and has no contact with them. He has a very limited educational and employment history. His criminal record spans some 17 years, from 2002 through 2019 (just prior to the commission of the index offence), and includes over 80 convictions. Most of his convictions are for theft and failing to comply with probation orders, although there is also a conviction for robbery (resulting in a penitentiary sentence), two convictions for assaulting a peace officer, and a conviction for uttering threats.

11Mr. Lawes’ documented psychiatric history prior to his NCR finding begins in 2013 and continues to 2019, when he was in a detention centre following the index offence. This history reveals several occasions when, while exhibiting symptoms of his mental illness, he has accosted and threatened total strangers on the street, sometimes grabbing them, while accusing them of sexually assaulting him. It also describes occasions when he was segregated in custodial facilities for the safety of others, while acutely psychotic and untreated. On occasion during his hospital admissions, he admitted having consumed alcohol, marijuana, cocaine and other drugs. While in the custody of correctional services, he openly expressed plans to use alcohol and other substances upon his release. Following his arrest for the index offence, he admitted having used marijuana, crack cocaine (daily), and heroin in the community.

Evidence for the Current Hearing

12Since December 12, 2022, Mr. Lawes has been supervised on the FPRU (a general forensic unit) at the Hospital.

13Over the past reporting year, Mr. Lawes continued to experience active symptoms of his treatment resistant schizophrenia, though he remained adherent to his prescribed medication.

14Overall, Mr. Lawes’ reporting year may be viewed as a challenging one, for both him and his treatment team. Mr. Lawes tested positive for cannabis on at least 11occasions, stimulants (e.g., cocaine, crystal methamphetamine, and MDMA) on at least four occasions, and providing contaminated urine samples on approximately two to three occasions. He also reported using opioid products on an unknown number of occasions, occasionally on the unit whilst his privileges were held. Consequently, given the rate and frequency of his relapses, his privileges were likely held and/or cancelled for a greater duration of time compared to him actually utilizing his privileges.

15In 2024, the treatment team had attempted to employ a “harm reduction” approach to Mr. Lawes” cannabis use by enrolling him in a “Contingency Management Group” but this was unsuccessful, as he started to test positive for cannabis on every toxicology screen and boasted that he was given a “license to smoke up”. According to the Hospital Report (p. 26), “When intoxicated, he was clearly prone to becoming more psychotic, irritable, agitated, and verbally aggressive.”

16Mr. Lawes had been found incapable of consenting to his psychiatric treatment in 2019, and he has remained incapable since. His treatment is overseen by the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) (Public Guardian Trustee). He is considered capable of making financial decisions. His current diagnoses are:

• schizophrenia;
• substance use disorder (mainly alcohol, cannabis, and stimulants (cocaine, crystal methamphetamine, MDMA), though also heroin and psilocybin; moderate-to-severe severity); and
• antisocial personality disorder.

17The Hospital Report includes findings from a psychological risk assessment, completed by Dr. A. Gibas on November 21, 2025. Many of those findings were the subject of comment during Dr. Wong’s testimony, summarized in the next section of these Reasons. In addition, the report included the following noteworthy features:

• during his interview for the assessment, Mr. Lawes provided a description of his plans to offset violence risk in hospital (e.g., avoidance, talking to staff) and the community (e.g., if he is concerned - to reach out to police, to not perform a citizen’s arrest);
• he maintained that he would remain on medication in perpetuity, despite disagreeing that he has a major mental illness;
• he expressed pride in having eliminated his opioid addiction in the current reporting year, via weaning off Suboxone entirely;
• he highlighted having been abstinent from all substances for two months; and
• he recognized that his abstinence is solely dependent on the moment-to-moment choices that he makes.

Evidence at the Hearing

18Dr. Wong adopted the Hospital Report at the outset of his evidence and updated it by advising the panel that Mr. Lawes regained his privileges during the week prior to the hearing, following his most recent relapse into cannabis use.

19Dr. Wong testified that his opinion that Mr. Lawes’ consumption of cannabis was, for him, a risk-enhancing factor had not changed over the course of the reporting year. He specifically adopted as currently applicable the Board’s finding, expressed at para. 25 of last year’s Reasons, that the use of cannabis increases Mr. Lawes’ risk to the safety of the public. He later clarified, in response to a panel member’s question, that the risk to the public includes his risk to staff at the Hospital.

20Dr. Wong was asked about the impact of Mr. Lawes’ cannabis use on the effectiveness of his antipsychotic medication. The doctor opined that the medication affords some protective effect but is insufficient to provide complete protection if his use of cannabis is ongoing.

21Dr. Wong stated that if Mr. Lawes were to use cannabis on a “one-off” basis, this would not be concerning on its own. Rather, with repeated and regular use of cannabis, he demonstrated more hostility, verbal aggression, and threats. As an example of this, Dr. Wong cited incidents that occurred in May of 2025, described at p. 26 of the Hospital Report as follows:

In May 2025, a forensic staff from another unit reported 3 recent incidents of Mr. Lawes approaching them in a hostile manner and expressing grievances towards prior interactions when both of them were at Waypoint Mental Health Centre (e.g., “you fucking jumped me at Waypoint…cause I wouldn’t take my fucking meds!”). The staff reported feeling unsafe in these interactions. Security staff were notified for safety planning purposes and Mr. Lawes was warned about his behaviours, and there was no further escalation in this matter.

22Dr. Wong pointed out that the occurrence of such incidents is not “an everyday thing” but when he has used cannabis more, Mr. Lawes’ behavioural issues have “gone up”. His risk is contained if he limits his cannabis use to one-time occasions or small amounts, but as previously stated, when his use increased in frequency or quantity, he has experienced breakthrough psychosis. To curb his cannabis use, the treatment team has used the “blunt instrument” of withholding Mr. Lawes’ hospital grounds privileges.

23In response to questions from counsel for Mr. Lawes, Dr. Wong confirmed the information in Dr. Gibas’ psychological risk assessment that during the last reporting year, there have in fact been no documented incidents of physical aggression by Mr. Lawes. Referring to the incidents quoted in para. 21 above, Dr. Wong agreed that there were no specific verbal threats expressed; rather, staff felt unsafe due to the situation. Dr. Wong also agreed that during that period in May of 2025, Mr. Lawes was using other substances in addition to cannabis.

24Counsel for Mr. Lawes also referred Dr. Wong to the recorded incident, in August of 2025, involving Mr. Lawes, in the context of likely breakthrough psychosis from substance use, threatening to punch Dr. Wong. The doctor confirmed that the threat was not expressed to him directly and that he did not suffer serious psychological harm from the threat. Mr. Lawes immediately approached Dr. Wong and apologized. The doctor also confirmed that at that time, Mr. Lawes was using other substances in addition to cannabis.

25Dr. Wong testified that Mr. Lawes’ ongoing cannabis use operates as a major barrier to his discharge to the community. The housing services that provide the level of supervision that Mr. Lawes requires for community living all have strict policies regarding the use of substances, and most such organizations require three to four months of sobriety to even accept a candidate onto a wait list.

26Dr. Wong was aware of one housing option that could accommodate Mr. Lawes if his cannabis prohibition were removed; however, it did not provide the level of supervision that he would require, and it was unrealistic for the Hospital’s outpatient team to make up for this by increasing the frequency of their visits to virtually around-the-clock. Such a housing arrangement could only work if Mr. Lawes were able to demonstrate more independent living skills than were currently apparent.

27Turning to the Hospital’s recommendation that the Disposition maintain Mr. Lawes’ detention on a general forensic unit, Dr. Wong stated that Mr. Lawes has in the past demonstrated that he has the capacity to abstain from the use of substances. However, he has not shown that in the last number of years, likely due to a lack of motivation or impulse control.

28Dr. Wong noted that adding structure to Mr. Lawes’ time, in the form of vocational pursuits (specifically, employment), would likely assist him in mitigating his risk, including pursuing abstinence from substances. While Mr. Lawes made several proposals in this regard, they tended to involve the “gig” economy, making it very difficult if not impossible for the Hospital to verify what Mr. Lawes was doing with his time. The treatment team would be in favour of him doing more conventional work involving predictable “9:00 to 5:00” jobs. Dr. Wong later stated, in response to a panel member, that there was a time, in the 2021/2022 reporting year, when Mr. Lawes had been able to work a steady job at a local tire shop and was close to “go time” (discharge to the community) when he unfortunately relapsed.

29Dr. Wong stated that on a day-to-day basis, Mr. Lawes manages on the general unit. He generally gets along with staff and other patients and is not disruptive in the way that some other patients are. Dr. Wong characterized his own therapeutic relationship with Mr. Lawes as “okay”, stating that while they have had their disagreements, they have also known one another for some years. Mr. Lawes had an opportunity to transfer to another unit (created by an unrelated issue); yet he elected to remain on Dr. Wong’s unit.

30Dr. Wong commented briefly on Mr. Lawes’ current medication situation, confirming that he remains adherent to clozapine with no compliance issues, despite his substance use, and has discontinued the anti-craving medication, suboxone, also without issues. Dr. Wong agreed, in response to a question from Mr. Lawes’ counsel, that there is no current evidence of his substance use resulting in medication non-adherence.

31Dr. Wong stated that he adopted the Clinical Assessment of Risk found at pp. 32-33 of the Hospital Report. In response to a question from counsel for the Attorney General, Dr. Wong elaborated on Mr. Lawes’ level of insight, stating that insight is not present in relation to the index offence and that in relation to his illness, Mr. Lawes and Dr. Wong have “agreed to disagree”.

32On behalf of the Attorney General, Ms. MacDonald questioned Dr. Wong concerning the public safety risk associated with maintaining Mr. Lawes on a general forensic unit as compared to moving him to a secure unit, noting the conclusion of the psychological risk assessment that if maintained under his current Disposition, his risk is assessed as in the low-moderate range while with a transfer to a secure unit, his risk is assessed as in the low range. Dr. Wong agreed that in the past, Mr. Lawes had continued to test positive for substances despite the numerous occasions when his privileges had been held, and that his physical and verbal aggression associated with his substance use had caused staff to become fearful. Counsel then referred Dr. Wong to the following summary of Mr. Lawes’ symptoms (Hospital Report, p. 25):

On the unit, Mr. Lawes typically interacted in a superficial, duplicitous, and oppositional manner. At his baseline, despite high dosages of Clozapine, he evidenced residual psychosis manifested as responding to internal stimuli (i.e., laughing, yelling, etc.), and spontaneously expressing delusional thought content (i.e., particularly around matters related to his index offence and “soul mate”, but also grandiose beliefs of wealth). When intoxicated from substances, however, his psychosis would become more prominent, and was often associated with increased agitation, hostility, and bizarre behaviours.

33Referring to the extract above, counsel for the Attorney General asked Dr. Wong where in the Hospital Mr. Lawes would need to go in order to have less or no access to substances. Dr. Wong acknowledged that to accomplish this, Mr. Lawes would need to go to a secure unit.

34Asked whether a period of time in a secure unit would give Mr. Lawes an opportunity to increase his level of internal motivation to become abstinent, Dr. Wong stated that Mr. Lawes’ history over the years does not suggest that this would be a likely outcome. Dr. Wong stated that if the belief is that the way forward for Mr. Lawes is best accomplished through structured vocational activities in the community, then this is best achieved through maintaining him on a general unit even though this increases his current risk. In response to questions from Ms. Boissonneault, Dr. Wong confirmed that the unanimous recommendation of the treatment team is that Mr. Lawes’ risk could be managed on a general forensic unit. He confirmed that a move to a secure unit would inhibit both vocational opportunities and discharge planning. Both are expressed goals of Mr. Lawes and Dr. Wong agreed that these are laudable. He said that there are services in the community that can help Mr. Lawes apply for employment, but he would need to be in a general unit to be able to access these services.

35In response to Ms. Boissonneault’s questions, Dr. Wong confirmed that Mr. Lawes had been engaged in one-to-one substance abuse counselling and that, although the counsellor suspended this during the summer of 2025, it was begun again at Mr. Lawes’ request. In addition, Dr. Wong confirmed that in the last three months prior to the hearing, Mr. Lawes has been making efforts to abstain from substances, with only one relapse (to cannabis) in that period, with the proviso that for one of those months, his privileges had been held. Dr. Wong agreed with the suggestion that medically, substance addiction is considered an illness, and relapses are typically part of addiction.

36Dr. Wong acknowledged that the treatment team had not observed much in the way of positive results from Mr. Lawes’ voluntary involvement in substance use counselling. Asked what approaches or model is used by the counsellor, Dr. Wong said that from his understanding, it is a typical approach to addictions counselling, employing mindfulness and motivational interviewing. He could check with the counsellor to see whether alternative approaches could be attempted that involve work toward impulse control and work on his antisocial traits. By way of a follow-up question from Ms. Boissonneault, Dr. Wong stated that an earlier recommendation for a referral to a behavioural therapist has not yet been acted upon. Dr. Wong expressed openness to considering this again.

37In response to questions from various panel members, Dr. Wong confirmed that the antisocial traits that form part of Mr. Lawes’ diagnoses, which are present at his baseline, become more prominent when his substance use is more severe. In view of his personality traits, it is very difficult to employ external approaches for the purpose of encouraging change. The treatment team settled on the “blunt approach” of holding his passes, initially for two-week periods, and more recently for four weeks. Dr. Wong saw this approach as “straddling a fine line” but ultimately opined that this approach is less restrictive for Mr. Lawes than moving him to a secure unit. He explained his “fine line” comment by stating that if the treatment team had to hold Mr. Lawes’ privileges for longer than four weeks at a time, such a situation would be very close to one requiring a move to a secure unit. He further clarified the differences between the two levels of security, explaining that a secure unit had double-locked doors, a higher staff-to-patient ratio, and afforded less time per day for patients to have off-unit privileges.

38A panel member questioned Dr. Wong about Mr. Lawes’ smoking of cigarettes on the unit which, along with the possession of a lighter, is not permitted. Asked whether he viewed this behaviour as either an expression of Mr. Lawes’ oppositional attitude or a response to a craving, Dr. Wong believed that both factors were likely operative here.

39Near the end of his testimony, and in response to a panel member’s questions, Dr. Wong emphasized that there has been a noticeable change in Mr. Lawes’ behaviour since earlier in the reporting year and that he has shown an ability to refrain from obtaining substances on occasions when he has had the opportunity to both obtain and use them. Dr. Wong had earlier pointed out that the grounds of the Hospital are, unfortunately, a “target” for drug traffickers, due to the patient population’s vulnerability. In recognition of this, Dr. Wong stated that Mr. Lawes has recently taken a first step in the right direction and that the treatment team will work with him in building on any small steps of progress that he takes.

40No further evidence was led following Dr. Wong’s testimony.

Analysis and Conclusions

Significant Threat

41This issue was not in dispute at the hearing. The panel unanimously found that Mr. Lawes represents a significant threat to the safety of the public. He suffers from a major mental illness and experiences ongoing symptoms despite adherence to prescribed antipsychotic medication. Notably, Mr. Lawes persists in his delusional beliefs regarding the victim of the index offence and the appropriateness of his response at the time. His documented psychiatric history reveals several occasions when, while symptomatic, he has accosted and threatened total strangers on the street, accusing them of sexually assaulting him, as well as occasions when he was segregated in custodial facilities for the safety of others, while acutely psychotic and untreated.

42Furthermore, Mr. Lawes suffers from a serious substance use disorder that aggravates his mental condition. While he remains adherent to antipsychotic treatment, he experiences a protective effect to a certain extent. However, particularly as shown by his course in the Hospital over the last two reporting periods, he has experienced breakthrough psychotic symptoms and increased agitation when consuming substances more regularly, as distinct from occasional or isolated relapses. To his credit, in the last reporting year he has stated that he will remain on medication in perpetuity, despite disagreeing that he has a major mental illness. However, he has also previously stated that if he were to receive an Absolute Discharge, he would likely resume a transient, homeless, and substance-abusing lifestyle.

43Accordingly, the panel is satisfied that absent forensic oversight, Mr. Lawes would rapidly return to uncontrolled substance use and as a result experience significant deterioration of his mental state, even if still taking his antipsychotic medication. There is a substantial likelihood that he would, in such a state of deterioration, engage in conduct of a criminal nature, including threats and physical assaults, that is likely to result in serious physical injury and/or serious psychological harm to other persons, including complete strangers, who randomly encounter him in the community. If he were to also discontinue taking his antipsychotic medication, which is a likely eventuality if he were to become transient and consume substances, the likelihood of such harm would only increase.

Necessary and Appropriate Disposition

44The panel concluded that the necessary and appropriate Disposition for Mr. Lawes, which is also the least onerous and least restrictive, is a Detention Order with no changes to the previous Disposition dated December 23, 2024. With respect to the two specific matters in dispute among the parties, the panel found, first, that having regard to the factors set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, the evidence as at the hearing date supports Mr. Lawes’ continued detention on a general forensic unit. Second, the panel found that it remains necessary to continue the existing prohibition against the consumption of all intoxicating substances.

45Dealing first with the specification of Mr. Lawes’ security level, the panel returns to the general observation that the past reporting year has been a challenging one for both Mr. Lawes and his treatment team. It is the most recent of several years during which the treatment team has sought to work with him towards his reintegration into the community, while he has resided on the FPRU (a general forensic unit). His ability to move forward was characterized in the Hospital Report as at something of an impasse due to his continued use of substances in breach of a series of his Dispositions despite various attempts by his treatment team to address his serious substance use disorder. Mr. Lawes’ apparent inability to maintain a sufficient period of abstinence prevented him from moving toward discharge to a supervised community residence that was thought appropriate for his needs.

46The treatment team attempted unsuccessfully, during the final months of the 2024 reporting year, to employ a “harm reduction approach” to get Mr. Lawes to reduce the frequency and quantity of his use of substances, particularly cannabis. The treatment team, as described in the Hospital Report and the evidence of Dr. Wong, decided upon an approach that involved holding Mr. Lawes’s privileges for a four-week period if he were to relapse. This was implemented in September of 2025. Once his indirectly supervised hospital grounds privileges were restored, Mr. Lawes abstained from substances, including from the use of cannabis, for approximately two months prior to the date of his ORB hearing. Whatever his motivation, Mr. Lawes demonstrated his ability to abstain, despite having the opportunity to both obtain and use substances.

47The panel accepts Dr. Wong’s evidence that Mr. Lawes’ risk to public safety, which includes the risk to staff at the Hospital, can be managed on a general forensic unit. Furthermore, even with the employment of four-week “holds” on his passes in the event of a substance use relapse, maintaining Mr. Lawes on a general unit is the least onerous and least restrictive option for safely managing his risk, based upon the evidence as of the hearing date. This was the opinion evidence of Dr. Wong. The panel finds that this opinion is well-grounded in the evidence.

48Mr. Lawes has been on a theoretical wait list for accommodation at Ballantyne House since early in 2024. Dr. Wong testified that almost all housing programs require a showing of three to four months of sobriety to be accepted for placement. As of the hearing date, Mr. Lawes had reached the halfway point for this threshold, and on Dr. Wong’s evidence, moving Mr. Lawes to a more secure forensic unit would inhibit planning for his discharge, as well as inhibit his opportunities to pursue gainful employment. The panel is satisfied that engaging in a structured activity such as steady employment would be a protective factor in mitigating Mr. Lawes’ risk and would also assist in his reintegration into the community.

49While Mr. Lawes’ period of abstinence is quite recent, it is nevertheless potentially significant. Dr. Wong testified that he maintains an acceptable therapeutic relationship with Mr. Lawes and is prepared to help him build on even small steps taken in the right direction. He described the recent change in Mr. Lawes’ behaviour as “noticeable”.

50As long as Mr. Lawes abstains from substances, including cannabis, he can manage well on a general unit. He has shown this in the past, from his arrival at Ontario Shores until the early part of 2022. Therefore, having considered the evidence in its entirety, the panel determined that there was no necessity, at the time of the hearing, to require Mr. Lawes’ transfer to a secure forensic unit.

51Turning to Mr. Lawes’ request to be permitted to use cannabis as part of his Disposition, the panel is satisfied that the prohibition on such use must be maintained. The evidence satisfies us that his use of cannabis, particularly if that use becomes frequent and/or large in quantity, would elevate his risk to public safety.

52The panel has had the advantage of considering the decision of the Court of Appeal in Re Davies, 2022 ONCA 716 in the context of Ms. Boissonneault’s submissions, particularly in relation to whether cannabis alone, as distinct from “substances” generally, increases Mr. Lawes’ public safety risk. A careful review of the Hospital Report reveals several references to the generic term “substances” in reference to Mr. Lawes’ consumption of intoxicating items, without specifying their precise nature. There are other occasions a combination of substances is mentioned, such as, for example, Mr. Lawes’ self-report of having consumed marijuana, crack cocaine, and heroin prior to his arrest for the index offences. From those specific references, which include the notable incidents in 2025 (the threatening behaviour in relation to former staff from Waypoint and the threat to punch Dr. Wong), it is difficult to conclude that cannabis consumption itself elevated Mr. Lawes’ risk. Accordingly, the panel has not relied on those references.

53More compelling, however, is Dr. Wong’s evidence from his longitudinal knowledge of Mr. Lawes’ consumption of cannabis and how it has affected him. Notably, he adopted his evidence from the 2024 hearing where the role of cannabis as a risk factor was also raised. He stated that his opinion as then expressed remains unchanged. He said that historically, cannabis has been a destabilizing factor for Mr. Lawes and that it has in the past led to some breakthrough psychosis, verbal aggression and hostility. He added his opinion that moderate to heavy use of cannabis would likely increase Mr. Lawes’ risk of physical violence and criminal activity.

54The Hospital Report also includes a specific example (at p. 17) of a toxicology screen in June of 2022 that tested positive for cannabis. On that specific occasion, Mr. Lawes is reported as experiencing breakthrough psychosis with irritability.

55Perhaps of greatest significance on this issue is Dr. Wong’s evidence as to the likely impact of Mr. Lawes’ cannabis use on the protective benefit provided by his mainstay antipsychotic medication, clozapine. His clozapine dose was increased in 2024 to its current level due to Mr. Lawes having become increasingly delusional. In the same year, when he tested positive for cannabis on 13 occasions, it is reported that: “he would become more overtly psychotic when intoxicated, though given the frequency of his passes being held, the team was able to prevent heavy and frequent use, which in the past have led to incidents of aggression.”

56In his testimony at the current hearing, Dr. Wong stated that Mr. Lawes’ current dose of clozapine, though still leaving Mr. Lawes with residual symptoms, likely affords some protective effect against cannabis use. However, it would not provide sufficient protection if that use became ongoing. This is significant, in that the effectiveness of Mr. Lawes’ medication for the treatment of his schizophrenia, which is clearly very resistant to treatment, is essential for the maintenance of his stability to mitigate his risk to the community.

57It is therefore necessary that Mr. Lawes be prohibited from consuming cannabis.

58Before leaving this matter, the panel wishes to comment on its decision to maintain Mr. Lawes on a general forensic unit. We wish to commend Mr. Lawes on his efforts, over the last two months prior to the hearing, to remain abstinent of all intoxicating substances, including cannabis, and his recognition, as expressed to Dr. Gibas, that his abstinence depends upon the moment-by-moment choices that he makes. We encourage him to turn to his treatment team for support in continuing to make wise choices in this regard over the next year.

59At the same time, Mr. Lawes needs to know that his opportunities to move forward in his reintegration to the community are not inexhaustible. His treatment team struggled this past year with whether he could truly be successfully maintained in a general unit. The tools at his team’s disposal have their limits. Mr. Lawes must be aware that should the Hospital conclude, at any time during the next reporting period, that the current Disposition does not adequately protect the public, it may seek an early review of the Board’s Disposition.

60In approaching the issues before it, the panel has considered the evidence through the lens of the factors in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

Footnotes

1. 1This is a reference to the decision in Re Campbell, 2018 ONCA 140.