Re: Allen B. Durette
ORB File No: 4630
Hearing held on: Wednesday, April 1, 2026
Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Weinstein
Members: Dr. S. Lessard
Dr. M. Green
Mr. J. Cyr
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Allen B. Durette
Counsel: Ms. C. Francis (via Zoom)
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Mr. L. Crowell
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. M. Feindel
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated May 11, 2026)
Introduction
On December 8, 2006, Mr. Allen B. Durette was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of assault, assaulting a police officer, utter threat to cause death or bodily harm, and mischief – not exceeding $5000, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”).
Mr. Durette is subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”), dated March 26, 2025, which ordered that he be detained at the Forensic Service of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto (“CAMH”).
On April 1, 2026, the Board convened a hearing at CAMH to conduct the annual review of the current Disposition.
Mr. Durette and his lawyer, Ms. C. Francis, attended the hearing by video conference.
A Hospital Report, dated March 11, 2026 (the "Hospital Report"), was entered as Exhibit 1.
The issues at this hearing were whether Mr. Durette is a significant threat to public safety, as defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code, and, if so, what is the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances, bearing in mind the factors enunciated in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
For the reasons set out below and based on the expert evidence and opinions before us, the Board concluded that Mr. Durette continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board found that the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances is a continuation of the existing Detention Order.
Current Psychiatric Diagnoses
- Schizophrenia, residual type;
Alcohol Use Disorder;
Antisocial Personality Disorder.
Position of the Parties
Counsel for the hospital and for the Attorney General took the position that Mr. Durette continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the appropriate Disposition is a continuation of the Detention Order.
Counsel for Mr. Durette advised that her client’s position was that he does not represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and should be granted an Absolute Discharge. In the alternative, if Mr. Durette were found to pose a significant threat, she agreed that the necessary and appropriate Disposition would be a continuation of the current Detention Order.
Index Offences
- The circumstances giving rise to the Index Offences are extracted from last year's Board Reasons, as follows:
“On June 19, 2006, Mr. Durette attended an LCBO store in downtown Toronto. He was seen by store security attempting to steal a bottle of liquor by concealing the bottle down the front of his pants. After being escorted outside, he threatened to kill the security guards and spat on one of them. When they tried to arrest him, he struggled, further assaulting one of the officers. While later being transported by police to the local division, he kicked the back passenger door of the car, completely smashing its window. He then spat directly towards an officer’s face, nearly hitting him.”
Background Information
- Mr. Durette’s personal history, psychiatric history, and history of difficulties with alcohol and drugs are outlined in the Hospital Report, and they are accurately summarized in last year's Reasons:
“The Hospital Report contains many details about Mr. Durette’s personal history, psychiatric history, and history of difficulties with alcohol and drugs. It also sets out the long history he has had under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board. Mr. Durette is now 65 years old. He has limited education and employment history. Prior to coming under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board, he experienced numerous admissions to hospitals for expressed suicidality, bizarre behaviours, and psychotic symptoms that could not be explained by personality or substance abuse factors alone. He began drinking at age 13 and has abused cannabis, cocaine, and heroin in the past. His drug use has figured prominently in his criminal history. That history includes both provincial and federal sentences dating back to 1975. He has a poor record of following through with probation and parole and over 100 convictions for offences that include assault, assault causing bodily harm, assault with a weapon, assault police, theft, robbery, threatening, breach of probation, break and enter and violating parole. The circumstances of his arrests are remarkably similar, involving aggressive, threatening or physically assaultive behaviour. While not always noted as a contributing factor, alcohol use has figured in several of those instances. His manifestations of rage and paranoid beliefs are also recurring themes in the commission of criminal acts targeting complete strangers.”
Course Since Last Disposition
- Mr. Durette’s course since his last Disposition is set in detail in the Hospital Report. The following extracted paragraphs are relevant to this hearing:
“Mr. Durette had another problematic year, on one occasion absconding from his residence to consume alcohol with a brief hospitalization. He continues to reside at the Pipe and Slipper home located in Keswick, Ontario, a 24-hour supervised facility residence under the administration of the Community Homes for Opportunity (CHO) program. He is provided significant support, including the supervised administration of medication, meals, and activities of daily living.
On August 15, 2025, Mr. Durette was noted to be missing; he did not attend for medications. Housing staff contacted the Forensic Outpatient Service and local police informing them of the elopement. Police were made aware of his detention under the ORB pursuant to a warrant of committal. The morning of August 16, 2025, a community member recognized Mr. Durette from a “Missing Persons” notification and contacted police. Police apprehended Mr. Durette, his presentation (intoxicated with face/head lacerations) warranting transport to the CAMH ED.”
Evidence at the Hearing
- The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence from Dr. Swayze. Dr. Swayze co-authored the Hospital Report, and he testified as follows:
a) He is Mr. Durette’s outpatient psychiatrist and has treated him since his discharge into the community.
b) He is recommending a continuation of the Detention Order because Mr. Durette remains a significant threat to the safety of the public. Mr. Durette’s risk pathway is predictable, well established, and not speculative.
c) Mr. Durette’s schizophrenia is controlled with medication, and he is not currently presenting with any psychotic symptoms. His central risk factor is his long-standing, severe alcohol use disorder.
d) His alcohol use results in behavioural disinhibition, which leads to Mr. Durette becoming aggressive and assaultive. When drinking, he has a documented history of assaults, uttering threats and committing weapon-related offences, often while panhandling; he tends to react aggressively when he is refused money.
e) Mr. Durette also has organic head injuries, which increases his impulsivity and aggression, particularly when he uses alcohol. His risk does not depend on any relapse into psychosis. Once alcohol is consumed, escalation can occur within hours, not days or weeks, because of the combination of acute intoxication and his head injury.
f) If Mr. Durette were granted an Absolute Discharge, he would return to Toronto and would likely live in a shelter, such as Seaton House. He would also resume alcohol use.
g) Mr. Durette admitted that he would use alcohol if absolutely discharged, but he described such use as “social.” In practice, he means that he would consume large quantities. He would become acutely intoxicated, behaviourally disinhibited, and aggressive, leading to assaultive conduct and police involvement in very short order.
h) Mr. Durette currently resides in a 24/7 supervised, all-male residence in a rural area, which is geographically distant from alcohol outlets. This rural setting is essential to his risk management; without it, Mr. Durette could not be maintained safely in the community.
i) Even while residing in this supervised accommodation, Mr. Durette has periodically absconded to obtain alcohol, resulting in police involvement and a brief rehospitalization, as happened in August.
j) Mr. Durette has made it clear that he would disengage with psychiatric care if he were granted an Absolute Discharge. He would not comply with required monitoring for his clozapine and would become medication non-adherent, which would further compound his risk.
k) As per page 5 of the Hospital Report, his CPIC indicates over 100 convictions for a variety of offences, including assault, assault causing bodily harm, and uttering threats.
l) Mr. Durette has not consumed alcohol for approximately seven months, and he is to be commended for this abstinence.
- In response to questions from counsel for Mr. Durette, Dr. Swayze testified:
a) Mr. Durette “is a good man,” and the assessment of significant threat is not based on his character, but on his alcohol abuse.
b) Mr. Durette’s schizophrenia has been stable for approximately seven years, while on medication.
c) It is true that Mr. Durette has used alcohol occasionally in the last several years without any instances of violence. However, while at his current residence, Mr. Durette has been able to hoard money to pay for alcohol before going into town. With sufficient funds to purchase alcohol, he has not needed to resort to panhandling, which has usually led to altercations in the past. The risk pathway previously described remains intact. The concern is not with Mr. Durette’s intoxication, but with the potential escalation associated with ongoing intoxication and panhandling, given his history, particularly in an urban setting. Mr. Durette’s stated plan is to return to Toronto to find housing, if absolutely discharged.
d) Despite a previous diagnosis, Mr. Durette no longer meets the criteria for a personality disorder. His personality has significantly changed because of substance use and his head injury. The assessment that Mr. Durette continues to pose a significant risk to public safety is based on those two factors, rather than on a personality disorder.
- In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Swayze testified as follows:
a) The following paragraph 14 from last year's Reasons is still true today.
“Mr. Durette has few protective factors outside of the confines of the Ontario Review Board’s disposition and the supports and services provided by the treatment team and staff at the Pipe and Slipper house. He is socially isolated. He has no peer groups or relationships and has maintained no contact with family. He continues to decline referrals for local mental health services like the ACTT program. The treatment team has expressed concern that community mental health services may not be adequate to manage Mr. Durette’s risk. Mr. Durette disputes his schizophrenia diagnosis. He denies that his illness has had any impact on his history of aggression and does not believe that he is at risk of any aggressive behaviour in the future. If granted an absolute discharge, he has indicated he would go to the Seaton House (a homeless shelter in Toronto) and then find a place of his own. He has said that he would drink “socially.” He has said that he would not be willing to see a psychiatrist and that he does not believe that he would need to take antipsychotic medication.”
b) Other than the number of abscondments listed in paragraph 18 of last year's Reasons for Disposition, that paragraph is still true today:
“After affirming the three mentioned abscondments Mr. Durette engaged in over this reporting period to obtain alcohol, Dr. Swayze said that, in the context of an absolute discharge, there is “very close to zero likelihood” Mr. Durette would take his prescribed antipsychotic medications. Dr. Swayze said that Mr. Durette does not believe that he has a major mental issue and does not believe that he has derived any benefit from his treatment. Dr. Swayze explained that there is no structure set up for Mr. Durette in the community for him to receive his Clozapine and that, even if there were, Mr. Durette is not interested in continuing with its use absent an ORB disposition. Dr. Swayze described the risk associated with Mr. Durette’s contemplated non-compliance with his antipsychotic medication. Dr. Swayze said that the efficacy of the Clozapine would wane quickly, and Mr. Durette would immediately use alcohol. He expressed concern of the effect of this on Mr. Durette’s mental stability, particularly when the alcohol abuse and schizophrenia are superimposed on significant neurological difficulties. Dr. Swayze predicted that there would be “immediate” involvement with the police and said that the risk would be “about as high as it could be.” He said that Mr. Durette has made it clear that he would not stay at the Pipe and Slipper house and that his cognitive impairments and psychiatric difficulties are so severe that Mr. Durette would not be able to access housing.”
c) He agrees with paragraphs 27 and 28 from last year's Reasons for Disposition:
“Looking firstly at the primary objective of assuring the safety of the public, Mr. Durette suffers from major mental illnesses that have led to the commission of serious criminal acts including the index offences. He has no insight into his mental illness, need for medications, the impact that use of substances has upon his symptoms, or the link between all of these factors and the risk he poses to members of the public. It is only by virtue of the detention disposition and his placement at the Pipe and Slipper house that public safety is maintained. In this setting, medication is regularly administered, he is supervised, and he is in a male-only residence that answers concerns that are apparent in the Hospital Report and on the evidence offered by Dr. Swayze.
The detention disposition is also necessary and appropriate when considering Mr. Durette’s mental health and other needs, including the ultimate objective of reintegration into the community. Were it not for his current placement under the confines of the detention order, Mr. Durette would leave his residence, become homeless, and lose the supports provided that ensure his mental stability. He has no family, few peer friendships, and no structure set up in the community to support his mental wellness and need to abstain from the use of substances and alcohol absolutely for the rest of his life. The evidence of risk of violence, including violence with the police, is concerning not just for the safety of the public but in terms of Mr. Durette’s own mental health and other needs. Meanwhile, under the reigning detention disposition, Mr. Durette has access to a community, programming, and supports for medication and daily needs.”
d) The potential risk of violence that he has described is a real, foreseeable risk if Mr. Durette were to be granted an Absolute Discharge. This risk would cause Mr. Durette to engage in conduct of a serious criminal nature. The threat is not speculative in nature and is supported by Mr. Durette’s history.
e) Mr. Durette has a long history of limited progress while under the auspices of the Board. Until he develops the motivation to discontinue alcohol use, it is difficult to be optimistic about his prospects for an Absolute Discharge.
Mr. Durette suffers from hepatitis C positive, with abnormal liver function, but he continues to decline treatment. As long as Mr. Durette is not receiving treatment for his hepatitis C, his liver will continue to be impacted, resulting in smaller amounts of alcohol causing greater intoxication. Therefore, the untreated hepatitis is also increasing his risk to public safety.
No other evidence was called.
Analysis and Conclusions
Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence, as well as submissions from the parties, the Board finds that Mr. Durette continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public.
In Winko, the Supreme Court outlined that, in coming to the conclusion on the issue of significant risk, a Review Board should closely examine a range of evidence, including: the circumstances of the original offence; the past and expected course of the accused’s treatment; the present state of the NCR accused’s medical condition; the NCR accused’s own plans for the future; the support existing for the NCR accused in the community; and most importantly, the recommendations provided by experts who examined the NCR accused. In coming to our conclusion in this matter, the Board relies on the uncontroverted expert evidence of Dr. Swayze, in addition to the documentary evidence before us.
The standard for finding significant threat to the safety of the public is an onerous one that is not met simply by virtue of a person's struggles with major mental illness. It requires the existence of a real likelihood that, absent a disposition, the individual would commit serious criminal offences that would cause serious physical, or psychological, harm to members of the public. There must be a link between the individual's major mental illness and the threat identified. That threat must be significant in both the likelihood of occurrence and the level of harm that would flow from the commission of serious criminal offences. Neither a high likelihood of criminally offensive conduct associated with a low likelihood of serious physical, or psychological, harm, nor a low likelihood of criminally offensive conduct associated with a high likelihood of serious physical, or psychological, harm is sufficient. Both the attended criminal conduct and its consequences must be "significant" for the threshold to be attained.
Mr. Durette’s mental status remains unchanged: he suffers from a treatment-resistant residual psychosis. His self-report fluctuates dramatically.
Mr. Durette disputes his diagnosis of schizophrenia and an alcohol use disorder and does not relate his treatment to the attenuation of symptoms. His insight remains nonexistent. He regards his history of substance misuse as of no relevance to his periods of aggression or to the exacerbation of his psychosis or his level of risk.
The doctor agreed that paragraphs 14 and 18 from last year’s Reasons for Disposition are still true today. The doctor also agreed with the analysis set out in paragraphs 27 and 28 of last year's Reasons for Disposition.
The doctor testified that the potential risk of violence that would occur should Mr. Durette receive an Absolute Discharge is a real, foreseeable risk that would cause him to engage in conduct of a serious criminal nature. The threat of harm is not speculative and is supported by Mr. Durette’s history.
In particular, the Board relies on the following extracted paragraphs from the Hospital Report:
“Based on his score on the Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide (SORAG), Mr. Durette’s category of risk for violent/sexual recidivism was in the seventh highest of nine categories. Among mentally disordered offenders, approximately 80% in that category re-offend violently/sexually within an average of 10 years of opportunity.
Mr. Durette has a history of rapid relapse in the community. He remains at high risk of having difficulties coping with stressors, giving little forethought to decisions and blaming others. If Mr. Durette is to re-offend, it will likely occur in the context of lack of support, supervision and structure. He does not have a reliable social network and remains at high risk of isolation. Isolation has been a major trigger for his return to alcohol and drug use. In the past, substance use has led to criminal behaviors, violating curfews, and violent behavior. Substance use has likely also compromised his compliance with medication. The latter has been associated with a relapse of his psychotic symptoms, increased risk of aggression and readmissions to hospital.
Alcohol use has been an ongoing challenge. He consistently indicated that his goal is an absolute discharge, so that he “can drink alcohol socially.” Over the past reporting year, he had an elopement from his residence, obtaining and consuming alcohol. His insight into alcohol use has remained non-existent.
Mr. Durette’s actuarial assessment of long-term static risk for violent and sexual recidivism is best described as high. Mr. Durette’s HCR-20 V3 profile is consistent with moderate risk. In addition, Mr. Durette has numerous, and significant, outstanding dynamic/clinical risk factors. Taken in totality, both actuarial and clinical assessments of risk support the opinion that Mr. Durette continues to remains a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in Section 672.5401.”
The Board wishes to commend Mr. Durette for his last seven months of abstinence from alcohol.
A Conditional Discharge is not appropriate as the hospital needs to retain the authority to approve Mr. Durette’s housing, as it is essential to monitor his medication adherence and to ensure his continued abstinence from substances, to protect public safety. Mr. Durette does not possess the skills or level of stability to enable him to function in accommodation that provides any less than a high level of supervision. The Mental Health Act would not be sufficient to protect public safety, as it would not allow the hospital treatment team to respond quickly enough, should Mr. Durette return to using alcohol.
The Board recognizes that Mr. Durette is a good, kind person, but he does suffer from a severe alcohol use disorder and a brain injury.
In consideration of all the evidence, submissions of the parties and criteria set forth in s. 672.54, the paramount consideration being the safety of the public, in addition to the mental condition of Mr. Durette, his reintegration into society and his other needs, the necessary and appropriate Disposition is to continue with a Detention Order.
DATED this 11th day of May, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Mr. J. Weinstein
Alternate Chairperson
__________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board