Ontario Review Board
Re: I. (N.)
ORB File No: 7698
Hearing held on: April 10, 2026
Place of hearing: Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences 700 Gordon Street, Whitby, Ontario
Pursuant to: Section 672.81 (1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J Weinstein Members: Dr. K. Hand Dr. M. Kalia Hon. A. Sosna Mr. J. Cyr
Parties Appearing:
Accused: I. (N.) Counsel: Ms. J. Boissonneault
The Person in charge of Hospital: Counsel: Mr. K. Dow
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. N. MacDonald
*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 February 20, 2020 Mr. I. (N.)was found not criminally responsible on account of a mental disorder (NCR) on charges of aggravated assault, assaulting a peace officer, assault with intent to resist arrest (x2), possession of weapons dangerous, attempt to disarm a peace officer (x2), indecent act in a public place (x2), failure to comply with probation (x6), and failure to comply with recognizance, all under the Criminal Code of Canada ( “the Criminal Code”).
He is currently subject to an Ontario Review Board Disposition dated February 3, 2025, whereby he is detained at the Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences, 700 Gordon Street, Whitby, Ontario (“Ontario Shores”), with discretionary privileges.
A panel of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”) convened an annual meeting on April 10, 2026 at Ontario Shores to review the current Disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. I. (N.) was present at the hearing and was represented by counsel, Ms. J. Boissonneault.
Dr. Andrew Wang testified at the hearing. Introduced into evidence is Exhibit 1, the Hospital Report dated March 13, 2026. Dr. Wang adopted the contents of the report.
The issue at this hearing is whether Mr. I. (N.) is a significant threat to public safety, as defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code. If so, the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances must be determined, bearing in mind the factors enunciated in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
Initial Position of the Parties:
At the outset of the proceedings, all parties were canvassed as to their positions.
Counsel for the Hospital and counsel for the Attorney General submitted that Mr. I. (N.) continued to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. Both counsels sought a continuation of the present Detention Order.
Counsel for Mr. I. (N.) did not challenge the submission that Mr. I. (N.) continued to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public, but given the progress he has made in the last year, counsel submitted that Mr. I. (N.) be granted a Conditional Discharge.
Counsel for Mr. I. (N.) further sought the amendment of several terms in the present Detention Order to be detailed below, regardless of the panel’s finding whether the appropriate Disposition is a continuation of the Detention Order or a finding of a Conditional Discharge.
For the reasons that follow, the panel finds that Mr. I. (N.) continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public, and the necessary, least restrictive, and appropriate disposition in the present circumstances is a Conditional Discharge with terms to be detailed below.
Current Psychiatric Diagnoses:
- Schizophrenia Cannabis Use Disorder, Severe
Index Offences:
- The circumstances surrounding the index offences are summarized from last year’s Reasons:
Indecent Act, Breach of Probation (x2)
On August 5, 2017, Mr. I. (N.) exposed his genitals while in a Shoppers Drug Mart store and requested oral sex from a staff member. For approximately five minutes he fondled himself while standing near the pharmacy counter. He was on probation at the time of the offences.
Assault Resist Arrest, Assault Peace Officer, Take Weapon from Police Officer, Breach of Probation (x2)
On August 6, 2017, bystanders observed Mr. I. (N.) masturbating while on the front porch of his home. When police arrived, he resisted arrest striking one officer in the face, and reached around a second officer attempting to take his weapon. Mr. I. (N.) was on probation at the time.
Take Weapon from Police Officer, Assault Resist Arrest, Breach of Probation (x2)
On August 7, 2019, while in police custody in hospital on a Form 1, Mr. I. (N.) lunged at a police officer and grabbed his handgun as the officer was serving documents on him. Two police officers took control of the gun and were able to handcuff Mr. I. (N.). He was on probation at the time of the offences.
Aggravated Assault, Posession Weapons Dangerous, Fail to comply with Recognizance
On May 16, 2019, Mr. I. (N.) attacked a 70-year-old male with a garden hoe. The victim was unknown to him. Mr. I. (N.) hit the victim over the head several times until he was restrained by onlookers who were fearful that Mr. I. (N.) would kill him. The victim sustained a fractured skull and an intracranial hemorrhage.
At the time, Mr. I. (N.) was bound by a recognizance not to possess any weapons, not to be outside his residence unless in the company of his surety, or for medical reasons. The bail terms were breached by Mr. I. (N.).
Current Diagnosis:
- Schizophrenia Cannabis use Disorder Severe
Background:
Mr. I. (N.) is 36 years old. He was born in Toronto. His older brother was murdered in a stabbing when Mr. I. (N.) was 16 years old.
He attained a Bachelor of Arts in Justice and Criminology from the University of Ontario Institute of Technology. He subsequently attended Humber College to take post-graduate studies in research analysis. He was unable to complete his studies because of the onset of mental illness.
He was employed as a part-time Research Assistant at the Registrar’s Office. His employment ended in 2015 following his arrest for sexual assault. In 2016, he obtained a position at Bell Canada, but that employment ended when he was charged with domestic assault.
Mr. I. (N.) was married in March 2015. In September 2015 his spouse gave birth to a girl. After the domestic assault charge in April 2016, he and his wife separated. His wife has custody of the child. Mr. I. (N.) moved back with his parents. He resided with his parents at the time of the index offences.
Criminal Record:
- In October 2016, Mr. I. (N.) was placed on a one-year Peace Bond pursuant to s. 810 of the Criminal Code arising from a charge of assault. In 2017, he was convicted of Sexual Assault and received a suspended sentence in addition to serving 30 days of pre-trial custody. In the same year, he was convicted of two counts of Assault, two counts of Breach of Recognizance and two counts of Breach of Probation and received a suspended sentence in addition to serving 40 days of pre-trial custody.
Psychiatric History:
Mr. I. (N.) had no contact with the mental health system until the murder of his brother in 2015. Following that event, he sought help when he exhibited symptoms of anxiety and distractibility. Those symptoms were attributed to an attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and possible co-morbid anxiety.
In 2016 he was admitted to hospital with delirium after overdosing on Adderall in the context of a dispute with his estranged wife, facing charges of domestic assault, and the resulting limited contact with his daughter. He endorsed a depresses mood. He was admitted on an involuntary basis, briefly, on A Form 3. No psychosis wase described. The discharge diagnosis included an adjustment reaction with depressive features, Major Depressive Disorder, and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.
In 2017, Mr. I. (N.) was admitted to hospital experiencing psychotic symptoms, believing he would be closer to God if he killed himself. He was diagnosed with cannabis-use induced psychosis, Cannabis Use Disorder and possibly a Personality Disorder.
In the same year, 2017, Mr. I. (N.) was brought to the hospital by his parents after he stabbed himself in the neck claiming it would make him “in charge of the whole world”. He was discharged with a diagnosis of Schizophrenia.
When committing the criminal offences reviewed above in 2016 and 2017, Mr. I. (N.) was hospitalized on multiple occasions for increased paranoia and auditory hallucinations. He was suicidal, religiously preoccupied, and sexually disinhibited. His parents were concerned about the effectiveness of his medication and his adherence to oral antipsychotic medication.
On July 2, 2019, Mr. I. (N.) was admitted to Ontario Shores, pursuant to an assessment under the Criminal Code. At the time, his mental illness manifested itself in the belief that he needed to harm himself to bring about “the Rapture” with command hallucinations to kill himself. Despite treatment with antipsychotic medication, he was floridly psychotic and aggressive to co-patients and staff. He was sexually disinhibited and acted on hallucinations which commanded him to touch others sexually, expose himself and masturbate in public.
On February 20, 2020, Mr. I. (N.) was found NCR on the index offences. He was transferred to Ontario Shores on June 23, 2022.
Evidence at Hearing:
After arriving at Ontario Shores, Mr. I. (N.) remained on the general secure Forensic Community Reintegration Unit (FCRU) where over time he demonstrated consistent responsibility and proactive engagement with his treatment team. He was medication adherent, fostered a polite and cooperative rapport with staff and peers, while maintaining frequent contact with his family.
Mr. I. (N.) was discharged from FCRU to the Forensic Outpatient Services (FOS) in October 2025, where he was transitioned to residential housing at the CREATE Byron residence in Whitby Ontario. The residence provides a high degree of structure, maintains staff on-site presence for the majority of the day, with on-call support during after-hours. Mr. I. (N.) was compliant with all FOS reporting protocols, maintained consistent abstinence from illicit substances, and regularly attended all house meetings.
Mr. I. (N.) began a two-day community leave of absence (LOA) at his parents’ residence on November 1, 2025. Demonstrating stability, he was approved for two separate four-night LOAs over the holiday season and transitioned to weekly three-night stays in January 2026. Mr. I. (N.) demonstrated a high degree of accountability consistently returning to his residence at the scheduled time, and presenting his empty medication blister packs to staff for verification of medication adherence.
During his residency at CREATE, Mr. I. (N.) has consistently expressed a desire to relocate to his parents’ home permanently. Presently, he spends a significant portion of the week at his parents’ home, relaxing, sharing meals and watching television. The Hospital Report notes at pg. 28:
“While his daily schedule is less structured, these periods of community leave provide Mr. I. (N.) with essential support”.
- The FOS team met with Mr. I. (N.)’s parents in January 2026 to discuss the possibility of his returning to live with them. They were generally insightful, able to identify some of his early signs of illness, the benefit of medication, and the need to notify the team if there were any concerns. They were supportive of Mr. I. (N.) returning home, and expressed he was helpful around the house.
Risk Assessment:
A risk assessment was completed in 2026. The following are excerpts from the Hospital Report:
Hare Psychopathy Checklist - Revised (PCL-R). The PCL-R is a tool developed to assess for the construct of psychopathy… In June 2020 Mr. I. (N.) was scored on the PCL-R... He received a total score of 5 out of 40, which corresponds to the 1st percentile relative to other male forensic psychiatric patients. This score suggests that Mr. I. (N.) possesses few traits and behaviours associated with the construct of psychopathy. As such, psychopathy is not considered a significant risk factor for future violence for Mr. I. (N.). (Hospital Report p. 30)
Historical, Clinical, Risk Management (HCR-20V3). The HCR-20V3 is a tool developed to structure the assessment of violence risk and to guide treatment planning. Mr. I. (N.)’s history of violence (aggravated assaults, domestic assault, sexual violence, possession of a weapon), mental illness (Schizophrenia), substance use (cannabis use), and difficulties adhering to treatment and supervision were rated to be of the highest relevance for future violence risk…Despite access to psychiatric services and legal oversight in the community, poor adherence has been noted throughout his history. To his credit, Mr. I. (N.) has remained adherent with medication since approximately November 2020, and has not demonstrated any violent or aggressive behaviour…since February 2021...There was no evidence of historical difficulties with Violent Attitudes or Personality Disorder. (Hospital Report pg. 31)
Sexual Violence Risk-20 (SVR-20V2). The SVR-20V2 is a structured professional judgment tool designed to guide consideration of factors that confer risk of committing sexual violence…Mr. I. (N.)’s substance abuse difficulties have exacerbated his psychotic symptoms, including auditory command hallucinations (e.g., to masturbate in public) and inappropriate sexual thoughts (e.g., to touch unsuspecting women), which in turn escalated to sexual violence. However, there has been no reported sexual violence since February 2021 (Hospital Report pg. 32)
Mr. I. (N.)’s risk for sexual violence was assessed as low using the SVR-20-V2. It is a structured professional judgement tool that does not provide a calibrated estimate risk. The assessment did not include an actuarial measurement to establish a baseline level of risk for comparison. Dr. Wang agreed that the use of such a Static-99R would assist in contextualizing the overall risk should be included when updating the assessment.
Summary and Risk Management Plan
Mr. I. (N.)’s risk for general violence is opined to be low-moderate when considering risk factors of the HCR-20V3 in the context of a Conditional Discharge. His risk for sexual violence, when considering the SVR-20V2 is opined to be low. Mr. I. (N.)’s risk for general and sexual violence stems primarily from his mental illness, in combination with substance use and psychosocial stress...However, he has maintained mental stability over the last several years, especially in the last reporting year. To this end, Mr. I. (N.) successfully transitioned to community living in October 2025 and has managed various stressors, including…beginning the legal process to seek custody of his daughter, and applying for jobs/school.
- Clinical assessment of Risk
Mr. I. (N.)’s risk for violence flows primarily from his major mental illness, namely treatment-resistant Schizophrenia. He has a history of decompensating rapidly when non-adherent with treatment and when unwell, he has experienced paranoid and religious delusions, and auditory hallucinations, which have led to acts of violence or sexually inappropriate behaviour. To his credit, he has been quite stable for several years now, with no evidence of active symptoms or problematic behaviours while he has been adherent with medication. He transitioned into the community in October 2025 without much difficulty and has remained stable in this setting. His insight into his need for treatment remains somewhat underdeveloped, as he has inquired on several occasions whether he needs to be on medication in perpetuity, but also to his credit, he has been compliant with all appointments and medication in the community.
Since living in the community, Mr. I. (N.) has spent the majority of his time at his family’s home. He will spend most weekdays there and return to the group home to sleep, though now spends four nights per week (Wednesday to Sunday) at his family’s home. No concerns have been raised by his family regarding these LOAs and his goal is to ultimately return to living with them full-time. (Hospital Report p. 34).
Analysis:
Mr. I. (N.) has a criminal record for crimes of violence, weapons-related offences, and breaches of court orders. It is consistent with the index offences, which are equally serious, involving numerous incidents of violence and breaches of court orders.
Between August 2017 and May 2019, Mr. I. (N.) was charged with 17 Criminal Code offences for which he was found Not Criminally Responsible. Those counts include a vicious aggravated assault victimizing a senior citizen, striking him with a hoe, and fracturing his skull. The assaults involved assaulting police officers, resisting arrest, and attempting to take control of police officers’ firearms during the execution of their duties. These incidents are compounded by multiple breaches of probation and bail terms.
At the time, Mr. I. (N.) was seriously ill, paranoid and delusional. Such is not the present state of affairs.
After being found NCR in February 2020, Mr. I. (N.) was transferred to Ontario Shores in June 2022. He has made steady progress in addressing and coming to terms with his illness. In the Reasons for Disposition dated March 6, 2025, it was noted that Mr. I. (N.) had been compliant with his medication regime, had no symptoms of his illness, had adhered to all the rules, there were no episodes of violence or aggression, and that his cannabis-use disorder was in sustained remission.
Recognizing the progress that Mr. I. (N.) had made, the last year’s panel found that a transfer to supported and supervised accommodation was the appropriate Disposition. In order to address the risk that Mr. I. (N.) could relapse because of medication non- compliance or substance use, and pose a significant threat to the safety of the community, that panel further found that the Hospital needed the ability to bring Mr. I. (N.) back quickly without resorting to the Mental Health Act, which would not be sufficient to manage his risk.
At this years review, although counsel for the Attorney General and the Hospital acknowledged Mr. I. (N.)’s compliance and progress the past year while resident at CREATE housing, the Conditional Discharge sought by him is opposed on three grounds:
Mr. I. (N.) transitioned into the community in October 2025. Only seven months have elapsed since that transition. That period is too short to properly monitor and evaluate whether he would relapse and pose a significant threat to the safety of the public if granted a Conditional Discharge. That assessment is best made in next year’s annual review.
If granted a Conditional Discharge, Mr. I. (N.) would live at his parents’ home. Although well-intentioned, his parents lack the experience and training to monitor his mental state, medication compliance, and substance use which is better assessed in a structured setting as presently at CREATE housing.
Any delay identifying the symptoms of relapse, medication non-adherence, and/or substance use would, as found in last year’s Reasons for Disposition, impair the Hospital’s ability to bring Mr. I. (N.) back quickly without resorting to the Mental Health Act, which would not be sufficient to manage his risk.
In her submission, counsel for Mr. I. (N.) cited Ramos ONCA 2025. She argued that given the significant progress Mr. I. (N.) has made particularly in the last year, a Conditional Discharge is the least onerous and least restrictive disposition that would protect the safety of the public while allowing Mr. I. (N.) a gradual return living in the community.
Findings and Conclusion:
The Supreme Court of Canada in Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625 (“Winko”), held that a significant threat to the safety of the public must be: more than speculative in nature and supportive by the evidence; significant, in the sense of being a “real risk of physical or psychological harm to members of the public that is serious in the sense of being beyond the merely trivial or annoying”; and the conduct giving rise to the harm must be criminal in nature. Further, the Court stated that there must be a positive finding of significant threat to the safety of the public in order to support restrictions on an accused’s liberty. Anything else, for example, uncertainty cannot suffice.
The Court further stated that in coming to a conclusion on the issue of significant threat, 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 accused’s mental condition, the accused’s own plans for the future, the support services existing for the accused in the community, and the recommendations provided by experts who have examined the accused.
Mr. I. (N.) has had a good year. He has maintained stability, has been compliant with his medication regimen, has not used substances for over five years, and there have been no signs of aggression or violence. He has gained insight into his illness and the need for treatment, which he has accepted will be lifelong.
In October 2025, he smoothly transitioned into community living at CREATE housing. As previously reviewed, while resident there, he has been compliant with all FOS reporting protocols, has maintained consistent abstinence from illicit substances and demonstrated a high degree of accountability, consistently returning to his residence at the scheduled time.
Mr. I. (N.) began a two-day community leave of absence (LOA) at his parents’ residence on November 1, 2025. Demonstrating stability, he was approved for two separate four-night LOAs over the holiday season and transitioned to weekly three-night stays in January 2026.
In response to questions put to him by counsel for Mr. I. (N.), Dr. Wang testified that the treatment team had attended the family home and interviewed Mr. I. (N.)’s parents. The home was found to be a suitable environment to which Mr. I. (N.) could return to and reside in. When asked by counsel how insightful Mr. I. (N.)’s parents were in identifying medication non-adherence and/or decompensation by their son, the parents responded they are supportive of him taking his medication and ensured he would continue to so while living with them. They reiterated that if they observed any signs of decompensation, they would contact Ontario Shores immediately.
Dr. Wang agreed with proposition put to him by counsel for Mr. I. (N.) that in accordance the Hospital Report, Mr. I. (N.) presently spends six days a week at his parents’ home and sleeps there four times a week. Out of the seven days, he spends only one day at CREATE to attend meetings, to assist in cooking and to attend to chores.
The panel found, during the days and evenings that Mr. I. (N.) spent at the family home, there was no evidence concerning breaches of the present Disposition, no evidence of medication non-adherence, no evidence of use of illicit substances, and no evidence of signs of decompensation.
The panel carefully considered the submissions of counsel for the Hospital, and those of counsel for the Attorney General, that despite Mr. I. (N.)’s progress, more time was required to ensure his stability in a structured environment such as CREATE and monitor his risk pursuant to the terms of the present Disposition and not by way of a Conditional Discharge.
The panel also factored as previously noted in the Summary and Risk Management Plan that:
Mr. I. (N.)’s risk for general violence is opined to be low-moderate when considering risk factors of the HCR-20V3 in the context of a Conditional Discharge. His risk for sexual violence, when considering the SVR-20V2 is opined to be low.
- On all the evidence set out in the Hospital Report, the testimony of Dr. Wang, the submissions of counsel, and guided by the instructions in Winko, the panel unanimously found that Mr. I. (N.)’s risk factors can be appropriately managed pursuant to a Conditional Discharge with terms set out in the February2025 Disposition except for the following:
Clauses (d), (e) and (f) are amended to read; “All travel both domestically and internationally only permitted with the prior approval of his itinerary by the person in charge”.
- In order to address the Hospital’s concern of delay in returning Mr. I. (N.) quickly, should he relapse because of medication non- compliance or substance use and pose a significant threat to the safety of the public, the following terms are ordered pursuant to the Consent to Treatment clause in s. 672.55 (1) of the Criminal Code:
Upon notice by the person in charge of the Hospital or their designate, the accused shall immediately attend the Hospital for psychiatric assessment or admission;
Upon the request of the Hospital, the accused will attend for psychiatric assessment and upon notice of the person in charge, attend for admission to the Hospital; and
The accused to attend for psychiatric assessment at the request of the Hospital if his mental state deteriorates and upon notice by the person in charge to attend for admission to the Hospital to assess and treat any destabilization.
- It is further ordered that if the accused is arrested pursuant to s. 672.91 of the Criminal Code for a breach or anticipated breach of the terms of this Disposition,
he may under s. 672.91(b) and s. 672.93(2) of the Criminal Code, be delivered to Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences, Whitby Ontario.
DATED this 15th day of May 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Alexander Sosna
Legal Member
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board