Re: Alexander Venneman
ORB File No: 6417
Hearing held on: Friday March 6, 2026
Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. C. Flanagan
Members: Dr. B. Sheppard Dr. G. Nexhipi Mr. D. Sandor Mr. W. Apted
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Alexander Venneman Counsel: Mr. A. Rai
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. M. Warner
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. S. Malik
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated May 12, 2026)
Introduction
On October 4, 2013, Alexander Venneman was found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder on a charge of attempting to commit murder, contrary to the provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada. He is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, dated February 27, 2025, discharging him subject to certain conditions including provisions that specify his address in Toronto, Ontario, require him to abstain absolutely from the non-medical use of alcohol, drugs or any other intoxicant, and that of submitting samples for the purpose of monitoring his compliance with the abstention condition. The administration of that Disposition is overseen by the Centre for Addictions and Mental Health (hereinafter referred to as “CAMH” or “the Hospital”).
On March 6, 2026, a panel of the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing to review that disposition pursuant to the provisions of 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Venneman was present and was represented by counsel.
The record for the hearing included the Notice of Hearing, the mentioned Disposition and its associated Reasons for Disposition. On the consent of all parties, a Hospital Report, dated February 13, 2026, was entered into evidence as an exhibit.
The parties were canvassed for initial positions. All agreed that the evidence would support a finding that Mr. Venneman continued to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public as that term is defined in section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and as it has been explained by the Supreme Court of Canada in Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625. All parties also agreed that a continuation of Mr. Venneman’s reigning conditional discharge was necessary and appropriate having regard to the objectives set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
For the reasons that follow, the Board has accepted that joint submission, found that Mr. Venneman continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and has concluded that a conditional discharge continues to be necessary and appropriate having regard to the Board’s primary objective of assuring the safety of the public, and the other objectives of ensuring that Mr. Venneman’s mental health and other needs are met, including the ultimate objective of reintegration into the community.
Evidence at the Hearing
The evidence for the hearing came primarily from the Hospital Report mentioned above and the viva voce testimony offered by Dr. Meng, Mr. Venneman’s treating psychiatrist.
Turning first to the Hospital Report, it is cumulative in nature and provides ample context for the disposition jointly sought in this hearing. It details the index offence of attempted murder that took place on July 15, 2013. On that date, Mr. Venneman jumped out of a hiding spot as his mother returned home, saying “die bitch die.” He proceeded to stab her several times. When she had ceased struggling, Mr. Venneman called 911 and reported that he had killed his mother. He was calm and cooperative and was taken into custody on police arrival without incident. He told the police that he stabbed his mother because she was “gang stalking him.” He said that she had been planning to kill him, so he killed her. He believed his whole family was “gang stalking” him and planning his murder. His mother had multiple stab wounds to her face, head and upper torso. She had surgeries to remove what was thought to be the tip of the knife from her head and to repair tendons in her hand.
Outside of this, Mr. Venneman has a limited history of criminality. He reports that he was caught shoplifting at age 18 and that this was addressed by way of an adult diversion.
The Hospital Report explains that Mr. Venneman began using substances in his early teens – primarily marijuana which he smoked daily. The Hospital Report indicates that Mr. Venneman also used other substances including opioids, MDMA and cocaine when in the presence of others. He began drinking at age 15 and binge-drank until the age of 17. Mr. Venneman has indicated that his normal state was to be “high all the time.” He has explained that he did decrease his marijuana use in the period preceding the commission of the index offence. The Hospital Report states that Mr. Venneman nonetheless has expressed an understanding that cannabis could exacerbate schizophrenia and that smoking it would increase his chance of relapse. This has led to his expressing a desire to never smoke cannabis again so as to avoid future symptoms of psychosis. The Hospital Report indicates that when Mr. Venneman was smoking cannabis daily, he began experiencing command auditory hallucinations.
It is unclear from the Hospital Report when Mr. Venneman first began manifesting the symptoms of major mental illness. It is clear that prior to the index offence, he did not see a psychiatrist, nor did he receive psychiatric treatment. His mother had meanwhile attempted repeatedly to have him assessed psychiatrically in the months leading up to the index offence as Mr. Venneman expressed increasing paranoia in addition to the auditory hallucinations that accompanied his marijuana use. Around this time, Mr. Venneman was also experiencing recurrent suicidal ideation, depressed mood and a desire to withdraw from social interactions.
Initially following the index offence, Mr. Venneman was found incapable of knowing the wrongfulness of his actions due to psychosis. On October 4, 2013, he was found not to be criminally responsible as a result of mental defect. Since that time, Mr. Venneman has been under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board. When initially housed at Waypoint, he maintained his contact with his mother with her consent and expressed understanding of the nature of her son’s major mental illness and the role it played in the commission of the index offence. He was administered anti-psychotic medication, remained cooperative and compliant with management and expressed an intention to continue taking medications so as to alleviate the symptoms of his mental disorder.
Over the course of his time at Waypoint, Mr. Venneman attended five of six sessions of the Anger Management Group, as well as a Solutions for Wellness Nutrition Group. He maintained positive family relations with sisters in addition to his mother and was transferred to CAMH on December 24, 2014, being placed in the secure forensic unit there until being transferred to a general forensic unit on January 2, 2016.
While at CAMH, Mr. Venneman continued to be cooperative with unit rules and expectations and continued to develop his insight into his mental illness, the risk it poses to the public, the role it played in the commission of the index offence, and the risk of decompensation posed by any use of substances. In October 2017, he was discharged to transitional housing and reporting was decreased. Mr. Venneman displayed ongoing stability and good global insight. By Fall of 2018, he had transitioned to independent living and obtained full-time employment.
From 2019 to 2021, Mr. Venneman experienced a resurgence of symptoms while living in the community. He recognized these and disclosed them with some minimization but generally cooperated with recommended readmissions to the Hospital. He complied with medication changes and optimization that helped bring symptoms under control and worked regularly with groups and programs available at the Hospital. He participated well in weekly sessions on Illness Management and Recovery, Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, Stress and Coping, MoneyWise and cooking groups. He met one-on-one with the Forensic Consultation and Assessment Team psychologist, Dr. Pauls for individual CBT for anxiety.
In 2022, Mr. Venneman engaged with the Step-Up program at Regeneration House located close to the Hospital and benefitted from the daily presence of supportive staff at that location. Throughout this though, Mr. Venneman continued to experience periods of intense anxiety that incorporated some paranoia. He required support in remembering appointments and required the ongoing support offered by the Hospital under the auspices of a conditional discharge. This continued to be the case through 2023 and 2024 leading up to last year’s annual review.
The Hospital Report’s update for the purposes of this hearing begins at page 46. It explains that while Mr. Venneman has largely been stable, he continues to experience anxiety and negative intrusive thoughts. Initial efforts to move him towards independence in the administration of his medications were put on hold in January 2026 because of his lack of follow-through in following a plan designed to move him towards that objective. There were occasions of missed, or “late” medications and Mr. Venneman tested positive for cannabis on four occasions in September and October 2025.He continued to endorse anxiety, panic attacks, intrusive thoughts that he described at times as “voices,” and vague paranoia. He has been attending the clinic three times weekly since October 2025 given the concerns of cannabis use and lack of structure. Overall, he has needed high levels of support from his treatment teams and has made only minimal progress, some of which may be deliberate on his part, the Hospital Report indicating that he has stated that he “does not want to move forward.”
Mr. Venneman is currently diagnosed with:
Schizophrenia (with residual cognitive and negative symptoms);
Cannabis use disorder (updated from what was indicated in the Hospital Report following the viva voce testimony offered to the Board by Dr. H. Meng).
The Hospital Report goes on to indicate that Mr. Venneman demonstrates superficial insight and engages in positive impression management, some of which may be associated with tendencies that are entrenched and informed by underlying deficits in insight into his difficulties and over-estimation of his own coping abilities. At this point, there is insufficient data to conclude that Mr. Venneman also struggles with antisocial personality traits.
Risk Assessment
The Hospital Report includes a Risk Assessment undertaken utilizing the HCR-20 v3 and several other instruments commonly accepted as appropriate for the measuring of risk in the forensic system. The propriety and suitability of method of use of these instruments was not challenged over the course of this hearing. The Risk Assessment concludes that Mr. Venneman continues to pose a low-moderate risk of violence in the context of a premature Absolute Discharge, and a low risk of violence in the context of a continuation of the reigning Conditional Discharge. It comes to this conclusion based on Mr. Venneman’s history as outlined in the foregoing, on the continuation of his symptoms and relapse into the use of cannabis over the course of this review period. It notes that during periods where external oversight was transiently reduced, Mr. Venneman’s ability to respond to treatment recommendations deteriorated.
Mr. Venneman’s re-offence scenario is included in the Risk Assessment’s consideration of clinical risk factors and flows from the symptoms of his active psychotic illness. Mr. Venneman continues to experience anxiety and paranoia similar to that which underlay and preceded the command auditory hallucinations and severe paranoia that informed his commission of the index offences. He has struggled with support-free compliance with treatment. He relapsed into use of cannabis on four occasions. On his own, Mr. Venneman has difficulty appraising potential stressors and he struggles with coping through effective means. Absent external enforcers, the Risk Assessment concludes that he would become noncompliant with treatment, use substances and experience a deterioration of symptoms that drive the commission of further violent offences.
Dr. H. Meng’s Update to the Panel
While psychiatrist Dr. Ali authored the Hospital Report, Dr. H. Meng, Mr. Venneman’s current treating psychiatrist testified to provide the Board with a valuable update on Mr. Venneman’s progress. He confirmed Mr. Venneman’s diagnosis as noted above and provided detailed descriptions of the panic attacks Mr. Venneman experienced in January 2026. Dr. Meng explained that, to his credit, Mr. Venneman identified the symptoms of the panic attack and attended at emergency for assistance.
Dr. Meng testified that for Mr. Venneman there is a psychological correlation between the emergency department of a hospital and his feelings of safety. This has led to some need to provide him with support so as to not attend at the emergency department needlessly as a coping strategy. To this end, Mr. Venneman’s next treatment steps include supportive instruction for dealing with panic attacks and engagement in CBT for psychosis. These assists are already in place but have been insufficiently accessed by Mr. Venneman.
Dr. Meng explained that Mr. Venneman has been pushing for more frequent visits to the Hospital as he finds them comforting, though not constructive. His attendance at the Hospital is being leveraged to encourage his attendance with his therapist. This, together with an increase of structured activities and monitoring of any further relapse into the use of substances informs the direction of the treatment team for the next review period.
Submissions
- At the end of the hearing, the parties renewed their submissions as set out in the foregoing. All agreed that Mr. Venneman continued to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. All also agreed that a continuation of the reigning detention disposition satisfied the primary objective of assuring the safety of the public, as well as the other objectives set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, namely ensuring that Mr. Venneman’s mental health and other needs are met, including the ultimate objective of reintegration into the community.
Analysis and Conclusion
As stated, the Board agrees with these submissions. Turning firstly to the threshold issue of significant threat, a significant threat must be real and not speculative. It must be more likely than not to happen absent a disposition in order for the Board’s jurisdiction to be triggered. It must be informed by more than the fact that an individual has committed a serious index offence, no matter how egregious, and by more than the fact that an individual suffers from a major mental illness. There must be a logical lis between the individual’s major mental illness, symptoms, insight, circumstances and supports (or lack thereof) and the serious criminality driving significant physical or psychological harm described in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code.
In the case of Mr. Venneman, those ties are apparent. Mr. Venneman continues to experience the same symptoms and has relapsed into the use of cannabis similar to his patterns preceding the commission of a serious index offence that targeted a member of his family, who remains a key support person today. He struggles with independent treatment compliance and when being placed in an environment that reduced external pressures on his compliance with a Board disposition and Hospital recommendations, he experienced an increase of symptoms and relapse in use of cannabis. He has not engaged proactively with important therapies that have been set up by the treatment team. Under the circumstances, the re-offence scenario described in the Hospital Report is realistic. Mr. Venneman continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public.
Turning to the issue of disposition, the Board agrees that a continuation of the conditional discharge satisfies the objectives set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code. Risk to the public is mitigated by the fact that Mr. Venneman actively seeks the perceived safety of the emergency room and the Hospital when experiencing symptoms of paranoia. While this may be an inappropriate usage of resources from a strictly medical perspective and is certainly a coping mechanism that should be improved upon over the course of the next review period, it does serve to mitigate the heightened risk occasioned by what appears to be a limited relapse into the use of cannabis and the continuation of symptoms of anxiety and paranoia. Mr. Venneman is able to continue receiving support for his treatment under the auspices of a conditional discharge, noting that lapses and inconsistency in that regard do not seem to arise from any lack of insight on his part, but rather due to lack of attention and planning.
Mr. Venneman has not acted out aggressively over the course of this review period and has a good therapeutic alliance with his treatment team. The team’s plan and methods of encouraging him to engage in psychotherapy are helpful and consistent with the objective of ensuring that Mr. Venneman’s mental health and other needs are met. Noting the impact of boredom on Mr. Venneman’s symptoms and cannabis use, assistance with the enhancement of skills to further employment, develop new talents and explore further interests are all appropriate and mentioned in the treatment plan apparent in the Hospital Report. Mr. Venneman would be well-encouraged to engage with the recommended Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Psychosis and with the other groups recommended by the Hospital over the course of the next review period. All of this satisfies the continuing ultimate objective of seeking Mr. Venneman’s reintegration into the community.
As a result, it is our conclusion that Mr. Venneman continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public as that term is defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and as it has been explained by the Supreme Court of Canada in Winko. It is also our conclusion that a conditional discharge with terms identical to those in the most recent disposition is necessary and appropriate having regard to the objectives set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code. An order will issue accordingly.
The panel thanks all who participated in this hearing for all their assistance.
DATED this 12th day of May, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. D. Sandor
Legal Member
__________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board