Re Simon Peachey, 2026 CanLII 45663

Re: Simon Peachey

ORB File No: 8701

Hearing held on: Friday, April 17, 2026

Place of Hearing: Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care

Pursuant to: Section 672.81(2.1) 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: Simon Peachey Counsel: Mr. W. Glover

The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Zamprogna

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. J. Huber

REASONS FOR DECISION

(Dated May 12, 2026)

Introduction

1On September 4, 2024, Simon Peachey was found unfit to stand trial on charges of failing to comply with probation order, failing to comply with a SOIRA (Sex Offender Information Registry Act) order, and failing to comply with release order (x3), contrary to the Criminal Code. He is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the Board) dated February 19, 2026, finding that he continued to be unfit to stand trial and ordering that he be detained at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care (the Hospital or Southwest) with privileges up to and including residence in the community of Southwestern Ontario in accommodation approved by the person in charge.

2By way of letter dated March 18, 2026, the Board was notified by the Hospital that Mr. Peachey had experienced a reduction in his privilege levels, beginning on February 9, 2026, and ending on March 26, 2026. The Hospital took the position that this constituted a significant restriction of Mr. Peachey’s liberty (the “ROL”). As the ROL had lasted more than seven days, it triggered the notice provisions under s. 672.56(2) of the Criminal Code.

3On Friday, April 17, 2026, the Board convened a hearing to review Mr. Peachey’s ROL pursuant to section 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Peachey attended the hearing and was assisted by counsel, Mr. W. Glover.

Initial Positions of the Parties

4At 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 submitted that the ROL was necessary and appropriate both at its outset and throughout the period during which it continued. The Hospital did not seek to change the terms of the Disposition.

5Counsel for the Attorney General supported the Hospital’s position.

6Mr. Glover, counsel for Mr. Peachey, indicated that he could not take an initial position on the ROL. Mr. Glover had met with Mr. Peachey and had been unable to obtain meaningful instructions from him with respect to the issues before the panel. Mr. Glover stated that Mr. Peachey’s position with respect to his detention in the Hospital is expressed in the Hospital Report. This position is rooted in the delusion that he is in the Hospital because of a charge of loitering and that all restrictions of his liberty are inappropriate. Mr. Peachey would like to be returned to his home in London.

7The only issue before the panel was the review of the ROL.

Evidence

8The panel had before it the following documents marked as exhibits: an ROL letter from the Hospital dated March 18, 2026 (Exhibit 1); an ROL Report dated March 30, 2026 (Exhibit 2); and a Hospital Report dated November 27, 2025 (Exhibit 3). Dr. Ardani, Mr. Peachey’s attending physician, adopted the contents of the exhibits and gave oral evidence on behalf of the Hospital.

Background

9Mr. Peachey has been diagnosed with Huntington’s disease (HD) and as a result has developed cognitive deficits and frontal lobe dysfunction.

10Mr. Peachey’s current diagnoses are:

• Psychotic Disorder Due to Huntington’s Disease

• Major Neurocognitive Disorder Due to Huntington’s Disease with Behavioural Disturbance

• Rule Out Cannabis Use Disorder

11As the only issue before the panel for this hearing is to review the ROL, the details of the index offences as well as Mr. Peachey’s background history, which are set out in the Reasons for Disposition dated February 19, 2026, shall not be repeated in these Reasons for Decision.

Evidence of Dr. Ardani

12Dr. Ardani indicated that:

• Prior to February 9, 2026, Mr. Peachey was exercising privileges up to Level 3 with unlimited, in-hospital access, indirectly supervised.

• On February 8, 2026, Mr. Peachey began to show signs of decompensation, including persecutory delusions, verbal aggression, and intimidating body language. Due to the severity of these symptoms, he required placement in locked seclusion. Mr. Peachey was in seclusion from February 9 to February 14, 2026, after which he was returned to the unit, with constant nursing supervision until February 27, 2026. During this time Mr. Peachey gradually re-stabilized with medication adjustments.

• As a result of his decompensation and subsequent seclusion, Mr. Peachey’s privileges were reduced to Level 0 (no independent off-unit privileges), representing a restriction of his liberties.

• With a change to his treatment, Mr. Peachey eventually demonstrated increased stability in his mental state. He is now compliant with medications and meals and is no longer referring to male staff or physicians as rapists.

• Mr. Peachey states that he does not recall the recent period during which he was unstable and making allegations toward male staff. He expresses appreciation for the support he receives on the unit and stated that he is grateful to have “a roof over his head” while in hospital.

• Mr. Peachey’s level 3 privileges (unlimited in-hospital access indirectly supervised) were reinstated on March 26, 2026, ending the ROL.

• Mr. Peachey’s decompensation likely resulted from a combination of changes to medications and the progression of Huntington’s disease. There is no established medication protocol for this disease and there is currently no known cure. Medications are used to treat Mr. Peachey’s symptoms of psychosis and involuntary movements.

• Dr. Ardani discontinued clozapine on January 26, 2026 to manage side effects. A low dose of tetrabenazine was started on February 3, 2026, to treat an increase of abnormal involuntary movements. The result was an increase in psychotic symptoms, which led to the ROL to manage Mr. Peachey’s increasing risk.

• Clozapine was reinstated and tetrabenazine was discontinued, eventually leading to the stabilization of Mr. Peachey’s mental state and the discontinuation of the ROL.

• Mr. Peachey continues to be unfit to stand trial.

• No changes are required with respect to Mr. Peachey’s Disposition.

Analysis and Conclusion:

13Regarding the law applicable to restriction of liberty hearings, the analytical framework established by Campbell (Re), 2018 ONCA 140, requires the Board to consider the liberty norm and the liberty status of an accused at the time of the restriction. The liberty norm and liberty status for each restriction must be examined to determine the significance of the increase (if any) in the restriction of an accused’s liberty caused by the restriction. In determining the liberty norm of an accused at the outset of each period of restriction, the Board must “take a contextual approach – one that considers the individual’s pattern of liberty in the recent past.” (Campbell, para. 66). The liberty they were actually experiencing (rather than what they were entitled to) at the time of the increase is what the Board is to consider, and that “liberty must be of sufficient duration to have become, objectively speaking, the NCR accused’s norm.” (Campbell, para 65).

14The Board finds that the Hospital’s decision to place Mr. Peachey in seclusion from February 9, 2026, to February 14, 2026, and to reduce his privilege level to “0” until March 26, 2026, amounted to a significant increase in the restrictions on his liberty.

15The Board finds that this restriction was reasonable, warranted and represented the least onerous and least restrictive course of action available to the Hospital both on February 9, 2026, and throughout the period of restriction until Mr. Peachey’s liberty norm was restored on March 26, 2026.

16Mr. Peachey became destabilized, probably because of medication changes. Despite multiple attempts by the team to de-escalate the situation using verbal de-escalation techniques and offering PRN medication, Mr. Peachey was unable to self-regulate and posed a risk to other patients on the unit. When placed in seclusion, he remained floridly psychotic, expressing beliefs that staff were attempting to kill or poison him.

17Since Mr. Peachey’s instability was likely caused by medication changes, and not by any volitional act on the part of Mr. Peachey, the only path back to stability for Mr. Peachey was further changes to Mr. Peachey’s medications.

18While in seclusion, Mr. Peachey had opportunities to leave seclusion for personal care and supervised time in the day room, but he was initially unable to tolerate this. Following discontinuation of seclusion, Mr. Peachey required intensive nursing care to facilitate his return to stability. (See Exhibit 2) In the circumstances, the nature of the restriction was the least onerous available to the Hospital.

19The Board agrees with the submissions of counsel for the Hospital that the ROL was warranted in the circumstances. Mr. Peachey experienced decompensation secondary to medication changes and the progression of Huntington’s disease. He was responsive to medications changes which were made expeditiously while he was in seclusion for five days and then managed for a time under constant observation. He remained on the unit with ongoing medication adjustments until he stabilized, and regained level 3 privileges on March 26, 2026.

20Accordingly, the Board finds that Mr. Peachey’s ROL was necessary and appropriate when it was initiated and that it remained necessary and appropriate throughout its duration.

21As noted above, the terms of the Disposition were not reviewed at this hearing.