Ontario Review Board
Re: B. (B.)
ORB File No: 7266
Hearing held on: Tuesday, April 14, 2026
Place of hearing: Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care St. Thomas ON
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. S. Kert Members: Dr. S. Simpson Dr. S. Wiseman Ms. K. Tomaszewski Ms. C. Plyley
Parties Appearing:
Accused: B. (B.) Counsel: Mr. C. Dobson
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Zamprogna
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. J. Huber
*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 15, 2026)
Introduction
On November 29, 2017, B. (B.) was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCR) on charges of invitation to sexual touching and break and enter contrary to the Criminal Code. He is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the Board) dated April 14, 2025, ordering his detention at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care (the Hospital) with privileges up to and including residence in the community of Elgin or Middlesex County in supervised accommodations approved by the person in charge.
On Tuesday April 14, 2026, the Board convened a hearing to review Mr. B. (B.)’s disposition pursuant to section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. B. (B.) was present at the hearing and represented by counsel, Mr. Dobson. The issues to be determined at the hearing were whether Mr. B. (B.) continued to constitute a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and, if so, to determine the necessary and appropriate disposition that was also the least onerous and least restrictive taking into account the factors set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
At the commencement of the hearing the parties were requested to provide their initial without-prejudice positions with respect to the issues before the Board. Counsel for the Hospital indicated that it was the Hospital’s position that Mr. B. (B.) continued to represent a significant threat to the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a conditional discharge, with conditions including but not limited to: a specified address; abstain and submit samples; consent to treatment; no contact or attendance conditions; and a s.672.92(1)(b) clause. Counsel for the Hospital indicated that attendance and admission to hospital conditions were not necessary.
Counsel for the Attorney-General and for Mr. B. (B.) both supported the Hospital’s recommendations. All parties maintained these recommendations in their final submissions.
The evidence at the hearing consisted of a Campbell Letter dated February 18, 2026 (Exhibit 1); a Hospital Report dated February 24, 2026 (Exhibit 2); an Update to the Hospital Report dated April 1, 2026 (Exhibit 3); and the oral evidence of Dr. Arun Prakash, Mr. B. (B.)’s treating psychiatrist. Dr. Arun adopted the contents of the Hospital Report and the Update.
For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that Mr. B. (B.) continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a conditional discharge on the terms and conditions recommended by the parties.
Index Offences
- The circumstances surrounding the index offences as summarized in last year’s Reasons for Disposition are as follows:
Briefly stated the index offences occurred when on July 26, 2017, the 12-year-old female victim was in her bed when she heard a knock on her bedroom door. The door then opened and she observed the accused standing at her bedroom door. He was not wearing a shirt. The victim asked him if he knew her mother and he replied yes. He then sat down on her bed, rubbed her thigh and her left leg and asked her do you want to have sex with me. The victim immediately rose from her bed, ran past the accused out of her bedroom and into that of her mother. Police were called.
Police found the accused shortly thereafter in the area. He unsuccessfully attempted to enter the door of another building when approached by the police and was arrested for the index offences. When interviewed by the police Mr. B. (B.) admitted the offences and stated that he initially broke into the residence for lodging and to satisfy his fetish for women's underwear. He further advised he had taken a pair of grey underwear from the victim's laundry hamper but dropped them at the bottom of the stairs as he was fleeing.
Background
Mr. B. (B.) is currently 62 years old. He began using substances particularly PCP and methamphetamines at age 15. His substance use has had a significant impact on his life. He has been admitted to a number of treatment facilities over the years. He has also been admitted to hospital on numerous occasions where a significant contributing factor to the admission was substance use.
Mr. B. (B.) has a criminal record commencing in 1980 including convictions for break and enter, possession of narcotics for the purpose of trafficking, assault causing bodily harm, assault and being unlawfully in a dwelling house.
He has a history of involvement with community mental health clinics but had difficulty following through with treatment. He has also had several acute crisis psychiatric admissions to Bluewater Hospital in Sarnia.
Mr. B. (B.)’s current diagnoses are: Schizoaffective Disorder; Substance Use Disorder – in remission in a supervised setting; Intellectual Disability; and Paraphilia.
Evidence from the Hospital Report and Update
Over the course of the most recent clinical year, Mr. B. (B.) continued to reside in a group home operated by the Canadian Mental Health Association (CMHA) and managed through their Community Homes for Opportunity (CHO) housing program, located in St. Thomas, which offers 24-hour supportive care. Mr. B. (B.) initially moved to this group home on October 18, 2021. He had one readmission to the Hospital in January 2022 due to decompensation of his mental state, substance use relapse and non-compliance with his prescribed medications. Once stabilized, he returned to the group home on May 9, 2022. He lived in the community since then, until his most recent voluntary admission to the Hospital on February 16, 2026. This group home is a permanent placement.
Mr. B. (B.)’s reporting period was marked by stability until February 2026, when he had an increase of anxiety and stress which resulted in a readmission to hospital, as described below. There were no incidents of violence, and he did not express any violent/homicidal ideations or threats.
Mr. B. (B.) continued to experience developmental challenges related to memory and executive functioning. The former is consistent with previous cognitive testing that notes deficits in cognitive and adaptive functioning. Mr. B. (B.) was supported in planning and organizing his activities through group home staff. The group home also assisted Mr. B. (B.) with booking transportation and reminders about upcoming appointments. He did not use his monthly forensic outreach calendar, rather he relied on home staff to organize his day. His wellness in the community could be partly attributed to the high level of daily support he received in the highly supportive and supervised group home.
Mr. B. (B.) maintained excellent engagement and involvement in daily activities. He developed positive friendships with peers at the group home and engaged well with the forensic outreach team. Mr. B. (B.) recognized the need to maintain structured daily activities to sustain his wellness. He attended Talbot House daily in the morning for coffee, playing cards, and chatting with others. He spent his afternoon at the group home watching movies, drawing, listening to music, or spending time with peers. Mr. B. (B.) was independent in his activities of daily living.
A psychological Sexual Risk Assessment was conducted which concluded that Mr. B. (B.) did not reach diagnostic criteria for a paraphilia disorder. Mr. B. (B.)’s treating psychiatrist, Dr. Arun Prakash, concluded that Mr. B. (B.) meets the criteria of paraphilia-fetish.
In November/December 2025, Mr. B. (B.)’s group home welcomed a new female tenant. Group home staff initially reported that she and Mr. B. (B.) were developing a positive friendship with one another. In January 2026, Mr. B. (B.) informed the treating team that his friendship had turned into a consensual romantic and sexual relationship over the last month. He acknowledged some small stressors associated with the new relationship but initially felt that he was managing this well.
Group home staff began to discourage the relationship. Staff observed that Mr. B. (B.) was being negatively impacted, demonstrating lower mood and increased anxiety. The female co-tenant was experiencing explosive outbursts and memory issues related to cannabis use. Unfortunately, Mr. B. (B.) seemed to be taking the brunt of this with her attempting to control, manipulate, name call, and strike at him (twice). There were no incidents of violence, threats, or aggressive responses from Mr. B. (B.). In addition, Mr. B. (B.) reported that she would enter his room in the middle of the night. Mr. B. (B.) tested positive for opiates (on February 11 and 13) because he took her over-the-counter Tylenol with codeine for back pain.
Mr. B. (B.) requested to be admitted to Hospital due to increased stress and anxiety, and wanting space from the female co-tenant. On February 16, 2026, Mr. B. (B.) was voluntarily admitted to the Hospital. Mr. B. (B.) was not in jeopardy of losing his housing and group home staff stated that they were proud of Mr. B. (B.) for asking for help, requesting PRN’s when he was not coping well, recognizing the need to be readmitted, and prioritizing his mental health stability.
After his admission to the Hospital, Mr. B. (B.) worked with the treatment team to establish safety planning and boundary setting. He had many meetings with the group home homeowner, manager, and support staff of the female co-tenant. Mr. B. (B.) no longer wants to be in a romantic relationship with this person, and this was communicated to her.
A gradual return to the group home plan was implemented. Initially, Mr. B. (B.) attended the group home for periods of up to seven hours at a time and then moved to overnight passes successfully. Mr. B. (B.) was encouraged to use the lock on his bedroom door during the night to ensure that the female resident could not get into his room. Mr. B. (B.) will need to continuously set and keep boundaries as the female resident has significant memory and behavioural issues. The treatment team will continue to support him. The long-term plan is for Mr. B. (B.) to continue residing at the group home permanently and for the female resident to be moved to long-term care. On March 31, 2026, Mr. B. (B.) started a 30-day leave of absence at the group home.
Oral Evidence at the Hearing
- Dr. Prakash provided the following evidence:
- The situation at the group home with the female co-tenant seems to be resolved. It appears that she has accepted that Mr. B. (B.) only wants to be a friend. Mr. B. (B.) has received much education on how to cope with this situation and has developed more coping skills. The outreach team is confident that if problems develop, Mr. B. (B.) will reach out to the team and the group home staff for help. The group home staff has also developed more effective ways to manage the female co-tenant’s assertive/aggressive behaviour.
- Mr. B. (B.) is much more open with the outreach team than in the past. His paraphilia is not a risk factor.
- Substance use is a continued risk factor, but this can be managed under a conditional discharge. He has been abstinent since 2022 and is committed to abstinence as a lifestyle choice. He is exposed to substance use in the group home and has maintained abstinence.
- Schizophrenia is a risk factor. Mr. B. (B.) has remained stable. Medication compliance has not been a problem because the medications are administered by the group home staff.
- He voluntarily controls the number of cigarettes he smokes, and his smoking does not affect his clozapine levels.
- The outreach team is confident that Mr. B. (B.) would return voluntarily to the Hospital, if necessary. Mr. B. (B.) returned voluntarily to the Hospital in 2022, even though he was paranoid, delusional, and grandiose at the time, and in February 2026 he returned to the Hospital voluntarily (at his request) to deal with increased stress and anxiety around the issue with the female co-tenant.
- While Mr. B. (B.) has not displayed any positive symptoms of schizophrenia or thought disorders, he does need significant assistance with organization, which is consistent with his intellectual disability and negative symptoms of schizophrenia.
- He requires the structure and supervision of the group home to manage his risk to the safety of the public and to maintain his mental well-being.
- He really likes this group home. He likes the owner, and she provides him with a lot of support. He has no intention of moving.
- His Static 99 risk scores have decreased from 6 to 4. The lower risk score reflects the fact that he is now over 60, has spent more time living in the community without incident, had no readmissions at the time of the test, and had no substance use.
- The purpose of the consent to treatment clause is to ensure he will continue to take his medication and will continue to comply with instructions from the group home staff to take his medication.
- The outreach team hopes that during the upcoming reporting period, Mr. B. (B.) will be accepted by an ACT Team. Most ACT Teams require a consent to treatment clause in the disposition, and often a CTO as well, prior to accepting a forensic client.
- The upcoming year will be an opportunity to assess Mr. B. (B.)’s ability to remain stable. If all goes well, and community psychiatric support is in place, the hope is that the Hospital will be able to recommend an absolute discharge next year.
- Dr. Prakash agreed with counsel for Mr. B. (B.) that Mr. B. (B.)’s attitude is that the Hospital saved his life.
Counsel for Mr. B. (B.) confirmed that Mr. B. (B.) provided consent for the proposed treatment clause.
No other evidence was adduced by the parties.
Analysis and Conclusion
Although the issue of significant threat was not contested at the hearing, the Board nevertheless makes an independent finding that Mr. B. (B.) continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. He suffers from a major mental illness, schizoaffective disorder, and is also diagnosed with a substance use disorder, paraphilia and suffers from an intellectual disability. Without the continued supervision and support of the outreach team, and the supervision and support of the group home staff, Mr. B. (B.) would be unlikely to manage medications on his own resulting in noncompliance, decompensation, disinhibition, impulsivity and aggression.
The Board relies upon the clinical assessment of risk set out on pages 185-186 of the Hospital Report:
- Mr. B. (B.)’s positive symptoms have responded to medication and were not present this reporting period. However, he experienced stress and anxiety and requested hospitalization to cope further;
- Without direct medication supervision, it is unlikely that Mr. B. (B.) would prioritize his medications. His cognitive deficits would lead to non-compliance, relapse and violent deviation. His cognitive deficits limit his understanding of his need for treatment which also increases his risk and future non-compliance with medication;
- Mr. B. (B.) has a history of extensive substance use, which has been linked to past criminal and violent behaviours, including sexual violence, as well as decompensation of his illness. He has remained abstinent this reporting period, but this has been within a supervised and supportive living environment;
- Mr. B. (B.)'s ability to organize and follow through with psychiatric care is impacted by his cognitive deficits. He tends to become disorganized when faced with a complex task. Absent forensic supervision or parallel community supports his mental stability would likely be compromised; and
- Mr. B. (B.) has minimal personal supports and relies on consistent, and routine support while living in the community. Mr. B. (B.) does not have a community psychiatric team.
- The Board also relies upon the re-offence scenario on page 185 of the Hospital Report:
Absent forensic supervision and support, Mr. B. (B.) would experience several stressors, including a lack of professional and treatment support and likely medication nonadherence. He would likely manage his stress with significant substance use, as he has historically. In the context of medication nonadherence and substance use, his major mental illness symptoms would recur. In the context of his active symptoms of psychosis, he would become disinhibited, with enhanced impulsivity, aggression, and recklessness. His delusional beliefs and hallucinations would exacerbate his substance use disorder and sexual disorder, compromising his judgment regarding interpersonal interactions, leading to sexual violence, paraphiliac behaviours, or other forms of violence.
The Board adopts the joint recommendation of the parties that Mr. B. (B.)’s risk to the public can be safely managed under a conditional discharge, with the conditions recommended by the parties.
Mr. B. (B.) has had a very good year.
He dealt with a very stressful personal situation in his own home by reaching out to the group home staff and the outreach team, requesting voluntary admission to the Hospital, and very importantly, without resorting to substance use. He has remained abstinent; has been adherent to his medications; has voluntarily limited his cigarette consumption to maintain the effectiveness of his antipsychotic medication, clozapine; and has structured his days with pro-social activities. He has a strong open relationship with the group home staff and the outreach team. He has accepted education to develop coping skills. There have been no complaints about his behaviour, and he responded appropriately when a female co-tenant was very assertive towards him.
The conditions recommended by the parties are necessary and appropriate. The named address is necessary because the structure and supervision of the group home is essential for Mr. B. (B.)’s continued stability and well-being, for the reasons set out above. Continued abstention from alcohol and substances is essential, as are the means to test for any use of substances. The no-contact and no-attend clauses are necessary for the protection of the victims of the index offences during the upcoming reporting period. Mr. B. (B.) has the financial means to travel to Sarnia and will be free to do so under a conditional discharge.
The Board agrees with the parties that attendance and admission to hospital conditions are not necessary. Mr. B. (B.) voluntarily attended and remained in hospital on two occasions, once when exhibiting positive symptoms of schizophrenia (2022) and once when experiencing stress and anxiety in a personal relationship (2026).
Accordingly, taking into consideration public safety (which is paramount), as well as Mr. B. (B.)’s mental condition, reintegration into society and other needs, we find that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a conditional discharge with the terms and conditions recommended by the parties.
DATED this 15^th^ day of May 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Ms. K. Tomaszewski Legal Member
_________________________________
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board