Ontario Review Board
Re: Emile Deguire
ORB File No: 6335
Hearing Held On: Tuesday, March 24, 2026
Place of Hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
Pursuant To: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. L. Banks Members: Dr. S. Lessard Dr. J. Cheston Ms. A. La Viola Mr. J. Cyr
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Emile Deguire Counsel: Mr. T. Whillier
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. M. Warner
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. J. Graham
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated May 12, 2026)
OVERVIEW
- Emile Deguire was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on April 18, 2013, for the offences of mischief, cause disturbance, and fail to comply with probation (x2), contrary to the Criminal Code. He is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated March 27, 2025, detaining him at the General Forensic Unit of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto (“CAMH”). The disposition includes privileges up to and including the ability to live in the community, in supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge.
ISSUES
On March 24, 2026, the Board convened at CAMH for a hearing further to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code to review the disposition. The Board was asked to determine whether Mr. Deguire represented a significant threat to the safety of the public at the time of the hearing, and further, what the necessary and appropriate disposition is in the circumstances according to the factors set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
At the outset of the hearing, all parties jointly recommended that Mr. Deguire continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public, and the necessary and appropriate disposition is a continuation of the current detention order, under the same conditions and privileges, with no change at this time. At the conclusion of the hearing, all parties maintained their initial joint recommendation to the Board.
FINDINGS
- After hearing the evidence, the Board found that Mr. Deguire continues to pose a significant threat to public safety. While he has shown clinical stability and improvement in a structured setting, this stability remains dependent on supervision for medication compliance and abstinence from substance use. Accordingly, the Board determined that the existing detention order remains the least onerous and least restrictive disposition capable of managing risk, protecting public safety, and supporting continued rehabilitation, with no change to the current conditions warranted at this time.
BACKGROUND
The Hospital Report dated March 12, 2026, was entered as an exhibit at the hearing. The following information, including the events surrounding the index offences has been taken from the Hospital Report, summarized here as follows.
On April 30, 2012, Mr. Deguire was in a TD Bank in Toronto. A staff member observed him loitering inside the entranceway and directed him to leave the premises. Mr. Deguire refused to comply, prompting the staff member to contact security. During this interaction, he began yelling and swearing at both staff and customers, causing a disturbance within the bank. His conduct interfered with the ordinary use of the premises by staff and customers. Mr. Deguire was subject to probation orders at the time of the index offences.
Mr. Deguire is currently 60 years old. He was born on September 3, 1965, in Ontario. He grew up with three siblings. His childhood was marked by family instability, including early behavioural difficulties, placement in a group home, and the deaths of both his parents by the time he was 22. Mr. Deguire attended high school for grade nine, but records indicate that he did not progress beyond grade nine. His work history is very limited. Records also indicate that he began using alcohol and cannabis at the age of 12, eventually accelerating substance use to other illicit drugs.
A check of the Canadian Police Information Centre database indicates that Mr. Deguire has an extensive criminal history. His convictions include numerous offences related to theft, break and enter, possession of stolen property, mischief, indecent acts, assault, assault with a weapon, and assaulting police, among others. His criminal behaviour appears to be linked with substance use, homelessness, and psychiatric decompensation.
Mr. Deguire has a long psychiatric history marked by schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, complicated by chronic stimulant, alcohol, and cannabis use. Since 2002, he has had numerous psychiatric admissions, often precipitated by psychosis, aggression, disorganization, or inability to care for himself. His admissions involved seclusion and restraints. He has a pattern of medication nonadherence, poor insight, and rapid decompensation. His illness has been further complicated by antisocial personality traits and persistent substance dependence, particularly crack cocaine.
Mr. Deguire’s current diagnoses are Schizophrenia, Stimulant, Alcohol and Cannabis Disorders (in remission, in a controlled environment), and Antisocial Personality Disorder. Mr. Deguire is currently incapable of making decisions about his psychiatric treatment, and his sister is his substitute decision maker. He has also been found incapable of managing his financial affairs and the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee serves as his substitute decision maker. He receives financial support through the Ontario Disability Support Program.
Mr. Deguire continues his placement in the community as an outpatient of the CAMH Forensic Service. Overall, Mr. Deguire has demonstrated ongoing stability, and he did not need to return to hospital over the year in review. He continued to show symptoms, such as limited insight, concrete thinking, and reduced emotional expression. However, he did not show aggressive, threatening, or disorganized behaviour. He attended his appointments, accepted his long-acting antipsychotic medication, and did not use substances while living in a structured setting.
Over the year, Mr. Deguire needed ongoing help with daily activities and benefited from the structure of his residence. Staff described him as generally cooperative but socially withdrawn and noted that he needed reminders for hygiene and daily routines. There were no concerns about him following rules, and he did not engage in behaviour that increased his risk to public safety. His mental health remained consistent, and the treatment team did not see any need to change his current privileges or placement in the community.
EVIDENCE AT THE HEARING
The evidence at the hearing included comprehensive testimony from Dr. A. Igoumenou regarding Mr. Deguire’s current mental health status, behaviour, and community placement. She advised that there were no material updates or changes to the report. Dr. Igoumenou described Mr. Deguire as having remained at his clinical baseline throughout the reporting period.
Dr. Igoumenou confirmed that Mr. Deguire has continued to reside at John Gibson House during the past year. She addressed substance use concerns and testified that there had been positive urine drug screens on in March, April and June 2025.
Dr. Igoumenou explained that John Gibson House provides a highly structured and supportive living environment that is essential to managing Mr. Deguire’s risk in the community. Mr. Deguire remains compliant with all aspects of his treatment. He continues to take his medications under staff supervision, attends regularly for required urine drug screens and blood tests, and has been punctual and reliable in attending his medical appointments. While his insight has not significantly improved over the past year, his adherence to treatment has remained consistent and reliable.
With respect to housing stability, Dr. Igoumenou testified that John Gibson House is considered permanent accommodation and is suitable for long term residence. Mr. Deguire has lived at this 24/7 supervised residence since 2021. She acknowledged that Mr. Deguire occasionally expresses a desire for greater independence or for alternative housing, sometimes arising from conflicts – perceived or actual – with other residents. However, she stated that these expressions are transient and that Mr. Deguire consistently returns to the position that John Gibson House is appropriate and that he is satisfied living there.
Dr. Igoumenou was asked whether the current detention order, which permits community living with hospital approval, remains necessary and appropriate. She unequivocally confirmed that it does. She explained that the existing disposition reduces Mr. Deguire’s risk of further violence to low to moderate levels and allows for essential oversight of his housing, medication, and clinical care. In her opinion, a conditional discharge would result in an unacceptably high level of risk to public safety.
She further testified that the Mental Health Act alone would be insufficient to manage the risk should Mr. Deguire decompensate in the community. She expressed the view that Mr. Deguire would not be likely to agree to voluntary readmission if required, and the detention order remains necessary to ensure timely intervention and continuity of care.
Dr. Igoumenou also addressed behavioural concerns, including occasional issues involving money or interactions with co-residents. She testified that such incidents had occurred only on a limited number of occasions during the past year and represented an improvement compared to prior years. Overall, Mr. Deguire has done very well in the accommodation, he remains at his baseline, and he is functioning positively in the community. She noted that he had held a part time job at the residence during the year, which represented a very meaningful improvement in functioning, even though the employment later ended.
Dr. Igoumenou concluded her evidence by confirming that the treatment team was recommending no change to the current disposition. She stated that the detention order continues to provide the necessary legal framework to support Mr. Deguire’s stability, ensure effective communication between the residence and clinical services, and protect public safety while allowing him to live successfully in the community.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
(a) Significant Threat
The Board must first determine whether Mr. Deguire continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public as that term is defined in Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625. Based on the totality of the evidence, including the testimony of Dr. Igoumenou, the contents of the Hospital Report, and the evidence concerning Mr. Deguire’s current functioning in the community, the Board is satisfied that Mr. Deguire continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.
Mr. Deguire’s index offences occurred in the context of untreated psychosis, substance use, and behavioural dysregulation, resulting in disruptive and aggressive conduct in a public setting while he was subject to court orders. He has a lengthy psychiatric and criminal history marked by repeated admissions, medication nonadherence, substance dependence, and behavioural instability when not in a structured environment. This history remains a relevant and ongoing risk factor in the assessment of public safety.
The Board understands that Mr. Deguire suffers from schizophrenia, along with substance related disorders, and anti-social disorder. His stability is dependent on supervision, medication compliance, and a structured living environment. The evidence establishes that when untreated or noncompliant, Mr. Deguire is likely to decompensate, with a corresponding increase in risk-related behaviour.
While Mr. Deguire has demonstrated clinical stability during the review period, this stability has been achieved within a highly structured and supportive setting. His continued compliance with treatment, and his ability to function safely in the community remains dependent on close supervision.
(b) Necessary and Appropriate
The Board must next determine the disposition that is necessary and appropriate in the circumstances. The disposition must reflect the principle of the least onerous and least restrictive alternative, while giving due consideration to the paramount concern for public safety, Mr. Deguire’s liberty interests, his mental condition, and his reintegration into society, as required by s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
The Board accepts that Mr. Deguire has demonstrated stability over the review period while residing in approved, supervised accommodation. He has remained at his clinical baseline, has not engaged in aggressive or disorganized behaviour, has complied with medication under supervision, and has abstained from substance use since June 2025, within the structured setting. These are positive indicators of progress.
However, the evidence also establishes that significant risk factors remain. Mr. Deguire requires ongoing assistance with activities of daily living, continues to demonstrate limited insight, and remains reliant on supervision to ensure medication adherence and abstinence from substances. The treatment team emphasized that this level of structure is essential to maintaining both Mr. Deguire’s stability and public safety.
The Board finds that a conditional discharge would not provide a sufficient legal or clinical framework to manage the risk should Mr. Deguire decompensate in the community. His stability in the community remains dependent on intensive supervision, structured accommodation, and enforced treatment compliance. Further, the Mental Health Act would be insufficient to ensure timely intervention should Mr. Deguire decompensate, and a conditional discharge would not provide an adequate framework to manage the ongoing risk to public safety.
In these circumstances, the Board finds that a detention order remains the least onerous and least restrictive disposition capable of adequately managing the risk posed by Mr. Deguire, while supporting his continued rehabilitation and community living in a supervised setting. The current disposition appropriately balances public safety with Mr. Deguire’s treatment needs and liberty interests. The Board concludes that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a continuation of the existing detention order, with no change at this time.
DATED this 12th day of May, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. A. La Viola
Legal Member
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board