Re: T. (J.)
ORB File No: 8961
Hearing held on: Thursday, April 9, 2026
Place of hearing: Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre
Pursuant to: Sections 672.47(1) and 672.48(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Goldenberg
Members: Dr. H. Bloom Dr. P. Wright Mr. M. Segal Ms. R. Chopra
Parties Appearing:
Accused: T. (J.) Counsel: Mr. U. Agostino
Person in charge of Hospital: Representative: Dr. R. Sheppard
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. T. Jukes
Pursuant to s. 672.501(1) of the Criminal Code, the Ontario Review Board prohibits the publication, broadcasting, or other transmission of any information that could identify a victim in this matter or a witness who is under 18 years of age.
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated May 5, 2026)
Introduction:
On December 19, 2025, T. (J.) was found unfit to stand trial on charges of sexual assault (x3), indecent act, and failure to comply with probation (x5).
The trial judge issued a Warrant of Committal directing T. (J.) to be detained at the Thunder Bay District Jail or at Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre (“the Hospital”). Subsequently, on February 19, 2026, the Warrant of Committal was amended to permit T. (J.) to be detained at any forensic institution in Ontario that has an available bed if no bed is available at the Secure Forensic Unit of the Hospital. The panel understands that there is a considerable waiting list for forensic beds at the Hospital.
On Thursday, April 9, 2026, the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing at the Hospital and conducted the initial disposition hearing for T. (J.).
Position of the Parties:
At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as to their recommendations to the Board.
Dr. Sheppard appeared as the Hospital’s representative as well as being T. (J.)’s most responsible physician. He advised of the Hospital position that T. (J.) remains unfit to stand trial, and if the Board so finds, the Hospital is recommending that T. (J.) be detained on the Secure Forensic Unit at the Hospital with certain limited privileges.
Mr. Jukes appeared for the Attorney General. He supported the Hospital’s recommendation.
Mr. Agostino appeared for T. (J.). The Alternate Chair noted that Mr. Agostino’s client was not present. Mr. Agostino advised that his client preferred not to attend the hearing. Mr. Agostino was able to speak with T. (J.) and received instructions to proceed with this hearing without T. (J.) being present. Under those circumstances, the Board exercised its discretion pursuant to s. 672.5(10)(a) and permitted T. (J.) to be absent from this hearing
Mr. Agostino advised that he does not dispute the Hospital’s position that T. (J.) is presently unfit to stand trial. Mr. Agostino went on to say that he has no instructions with respect to the necessary and appropriate disposition should the Board find his client to be unfit to stand trial.
Outstanding Charges:
- A summary of the allegations giving rise to the outstanding charges is set out in the hospital report as follows:
“On August 13, 2025, at approximately 0130 hours, officers were dispatched for a report of a registered nurse identified as D.V. who advised the Communications Centre that she was sexually assaulted on July 27, 2025, by the accused, T. (J.).
D.V. stated that while she was working on July 27, 2025, as a registered nurse, T. (J.) sexually assaulted her while being admitted to the Adult Mental Health (AMH) Unit at the Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre located at 980 Oliver Road.
D.V. described the offence as follows. T. (J.)was granted access to the General Unit from the Psychiatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU), where T. (J.) had been admitted for a lengthy period. D.V. opened the door with her key swipe and T. (J.) exited the secure area. D.V. turned her back towards T. (J.) to swipe herself back into the nursing station when T. (J.) smacked D.V.’s buttock with an open palm in a sexual nature and walked away.
According to D.V., she stated that T. (J.) intentionally touched her. D.V. also described T. (J.) as having no remorse when D.V. spoke to T. (J.) about his behaviour.
Constable Bobyk was charging T. (J.) with sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code of Canada for smacking D.V.’s buttock. Constable Bobyk conducted a CPIC query which indicated T. (J.) to be on a probation order issued on January 20, 2025, by the Honourable Justice F. Valente with the condition to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. T. (J.) was subsequently charged with fail to comply with probation order contrary to section 733.1(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada x 2 for breaching keep the peace and be of good behaviour.
Constable Bobyk was also charging T. (J.) for a separate sexual assault which occurred at TBRHSC during this same admission.
On August 17, 2025, at 0726 hours, Constable Akshay Santhosh while on uniform general patrol was dispatched to Edison Road for a report of a sexual assault. Call details indicated that the complainant, N. (I.), had contacted the police and reported that on August 8, 2025, she was sexually assaulted by an adult mental health unit patient identified as T. (J.). Nebesky alleged that T. (J.) grabbed her hops and buttocks and was observed masturbating while watching her perform her regular duties.
At 0739 hours, Constable Santhosh arrived at N. (I.) residence and obtained her account. N. (I.)was a registered nurse employed at the Adult Mental Health Unit of the Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre (TBRHSC) located at 980 Oliver Road. She advised that T. (J.) had been a patient since the beginning of July 2025.
N. (I.)stated that on August 8, 2025, while working the night shift, she observed T. (J.) pacing the hallway between person in custody (PIC) room 4 and room 6 at approximately 1800 hours. When she directed him to return to his room, T. (J.) grabbed her by the hips as he walked past. Approximately five minutes later, T. (J.) again exited his room and began pacing the hallway. When she again asked him to return, T. (J.) grabbed her hips, moved his hands towards her buttocks, and pressed them over her clothing before returning to his room.
Later that evening, while attending a patient located across from T. (J.)’s room, N. (I.)was alerted by the patient that T. (J.) was masturbating inside his room while watching her through the glass door. When she turned, she observed T. (J.) completely naked from the waist down, holding his penis and masturbating while looking directly at her through the glass door.
N. (I.)advised that although T. (J.) has been diagnosed with schizophrenia, he had been receiving medication and treatment, and she believed he was aware of his actions.
As a result of the information, T. (J.) was charged with sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code and indecent act contrary to section 173(1)(b) of the Criminal Code. A CPIC check confirmed that T. (J.) was on probation with conditions to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. He was therefore also charged with failure to comply with probation order contrary to section 733.1(1) of the Criminal Code.”
Evidence at the Hearing:
The Board admitted into evidence a number of documents including the Warrant of Committal as amended, a CPIC outlining a number of convictions incurred by T. (J.), a copy of the court information, a synopsis of the charges, the hospital report dated October 17, 2025, a transcript of the court hearing from November 25, 2025, a transcript of the trial judge’s ruling dated December 19, 2025, and a copy of the current hospital report dated April 1, 2026. As the hospital reports were made exhibits, it is not necessary to reproduce the information contained in the hospital reports in these reasons. We do note, however, the stated diagnosis of schizophrenia.
In addition to the documentary evidence, the Board heard from Dr. Sheppard. Dr. Sheppard first noted that T. (J.) was transferred to the Forensic Unit yesterday, April 8, 2026. Dr. Sheppard went on to note that he only had one opportunity to do an assessment for fitness that took place on April 1, 2026. Dr. Sheppard accepts that at the present time, T. (J.) remains unfit to stand trial.
Dr. Sheppard advised that T. (J.) suffers from schizophrenia. He has had many admissions to mental health facilities. Currently, Dr. Sheppard noted that T. (J.) is floridly psychotic.
Dr. Sheppard testified that when T. (J.) was being detained in the jail, the jail authorities transferred T. (J.) to the non-forensic units at the Hospital simply on the basis that they were unable to manage him in jail.
Dr. Sheppard reported that T. (J.) is being treated with Clozapine and the doctor has noted “some improvement” since the introduction of Clozapine, stating that T. (J.) is not so bizarre and not so aggressive. On the other hand, T. (J.) remains considerably disorganized.
We note the following from the current hospital report, page 8:
“Clearly, this man is severely ill and needs to be detained in a hospital setting. The diagnosis of schizophrenia seems to be clear, and it is perhaps hopeful that he has previously responded favourably to treatment with antipsychotic medication, although consistent stability in his mental state has been difficult to achieve. Nevertheless, there is some prospect, in my opinion, that with sustained treatment in a therapeutic hospital setting, probably over a course of many months, T. (J.) might improve to the point where he could become fit to stand trial.”
We note for the record that T. (J.) is currently 21 years old. Dr. Sheppard is asking for a Detention Order on the Secure Forensic Unit at the Hospital. Dr. Sheppard would be recommending escorted or accompanied privileges, including accompanied by an approved person, limited to hospital grounds. Dr. Sheppard is also recommending a number of prohibitions.
Mr. Agostino asked why the Hospital is not recommending indirectly supervised hospital and grounds privileges. Dr. Sheppard advised of his hope and expectation that T. (J.) will become fit to stand trial and will be sent back to court to deal with the outstanding charges. Dr. Sheppard is of the opinion that T. (J.) may become fit to stand trial before the Hospital would be in a position to recommend any indirectly supervised privileges.
No other evidence was heard at this hearing.
Final Submissions
Dr. Sheppard was relying on his evidence and the evidence contained in the hospital report.
Mr. Jukes accepts the doctor’s evidence and supports the doctor’s recommendations as to the limited privileges.
Mr. Agostino accepts that his client is currently unfit to stand trial. Mr. Agostino asked the Board to consider indirectly supervised privileges, noting that such privileges are always subject to the discretion of the person in charge.
Findings of the Board
The Board accepts the evidence of Dr. Sheppard and the evidence contained in the hospital report. We note that T. (J.) was found unfit by the trial judge on December 19, 2025. Accordingly, there is no longer a presumption of fitness. Quite apart from that, we have no hesitation in accepting Dr. Sheppard’s evidence that T. (J.) is unfit to stand trial
We also agree with Dr. Sheppard that privileges should be limited to escorted and/or accompanied passes on hospital grounds.
Accordingly, the Board will issue a disposition containing those findings.
In reaching our disposition, the Board has taken into consideration the safety of the public, T. (J.)’s mental condition, his other needs, and his potential reintegration into society.
DATED this 5th day of May 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. J. Goldenberg Alternate Chairperson
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board