Re: S. (M.)
ORB File No: 8308/8427
Hearing held on: Wednesday, April 8, 2026
Place of hearing: Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre
Pursuant to: Section 672.48(1) and 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. M. Segal
Members: Dr. H. Bloom Dr. P. Wright Mr. J. Goldenberg Ms. R. Chopra
Parties Appearing:
Accused: S. (M.) Counsel: Mr. J. Szajewski
Person in charge of Hospital: Representative: Mr. J. Cooper
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. R. Derouard
*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 12, 2026)
Introduction:
1S. (M.), age 22, was on October 28, 2021, found unfit to stand trial on charges or repeatedly communicating directly or indirectly with a person, counselling or aiding suicide, and making explicit material available to a child, all contrary to the Criminal Code. On November 8, 2023, he was found unfit to stand trial on charges of false reporting that an offence had been committed and failure to comply with a release order other than attend court, contrary to the Criminal Code.
2S. (M.), who is the subject of a Conditional Discharge on conditions dated December 20, 2023, appeared before the Ontario Review Board (the Board) from the Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre (the Hospital) for an annual hearing and a determination of fitness on April 8, 2026.
3S. (M.) appeared before the Board by audio-visual technology from Weagamow Lake along with his adopted mother, Nancy. Mr. Paul Forsyth, case manager, also attended the hearing remotely.
4The Board had before it as Exhibit 1 the hospital report dated March 24, 2026.
Position of the Parties:
5In preliminary positions, the Hospital indicated that S. (M.) no longer posed a significant threat to the safety of public and that the matter should be remitted to the court for consideration of a stay of proceedings. The Crown counsel had questions, but by the end of the proceedings supported the Hospital. S. (M.)’ counsel, Mr. Szajewski, agreed.
6By the end of the hearing, the Board agreed that significant threat to the safety of the public was no longer present and that the matter should be returned to court for the court to consider whether a stay was appropriate.
Psychiatric History:
7S. (M.)’