Ontario Review Board
Re: Tyler Gipson
ORB File No: 7998
Hearing held on: Wednesday, April 1, 2026
Place of Hearing: Brockville Mental Health Centre
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. C. Flanagan
Members: Dr. Y. Alatishe Dr. W. Loza Ms. M. Chamberlain Mr. S. Duffy
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Tyler Gipson Counsel: Ms. E. Jeoffroy
The person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. R. Linthorst
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. K. Schultz
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated May 14, 2026)
Introduction
On December 21, 2021, Tyler Gipson, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on charges of criminal harassment, and being unlawfully in a dwelling house, both contrary to the Criminal Code.
Mr. Gipson is currently subject to the terms of a Disposition dated April 24, 2025 which detains him at the Forensic Unit of the Brockville Mental Health Centre - Member of the Royal Ottawa Health Care Group (“the hospital” or “BMHC”) with privileges up to and including to live in the community within Leeds and Grenville County in Eastern Ontario, in supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge.
On April 1, 2026, a panel of the Board convened to review the Disposition in accordance with the requirements of s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Ms. Jeoffroy, counsel for Mr. Gipson, attended the hearing, as did Mr. Gipson. A Hospital Report dated March 10, 2026, and a CPIC Response Report were filed as Exhibits 1 and 2, respectively at the hearing. In addition to the documentary evidence, Dr. R. Linthorst, the attending psychiatrist, gave evidence at the hearing.
The issues to be determined are whether Mr. Gipson continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public, as defined in section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code, and if so, the necessary and appropriate Disposition to manage that risk, having regard to the criteria set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
For the reasons set out below, this Board concluded that Mr. Gipson continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is the continuation of the existing Detention Disposition with the addition of a condition allowing passes for up to 7 days to enter the community of Ontario within a 350km radius of the Brockville Mental Health Centre - Member of the Royal Ottawa Health Care Group, indirectly supervised (emphasis added) and an amendment to condition 2(h) of the Disposition to read “to live in the community within a 150km radius of the Brockville Mental Health Centre in approved accommodation approved by the person in charge.”
Initial Position of the Parties
At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as to their recommendations to the Board.
Dr. Linthorst, on behalf of the Hospital, recommended the continuation of the existing Detention Disposition with the addition of a condition allowing passes for up to 7 days to enter the community of Ontario within a 350km radius of the Brockville Mental Health Centre - Member of the Royal Ottawa Health Care Group indirectly supervised and an amendment to condition 2(h) of the Disposition to read “to live in the community within a 150km radius of the Brockville Mental Health Centre in accommodation approved by the person in charge”.
Mr. Schultz, on behalf of the Attorney General of Ontario, supported the recommendation of the Hospital.
Ms. Jeoffroy, on behalf of Mr. Gipson, advised that his risk could be mitigated and requested a Conditional Discharge Disposition.
Index Offence
- The circumstances giving rise to the index offences are taken from police reports detailed in the Hospital Report, as follows:
“On the 11th of July 2021 at 1306 hours, the Gananoque Police Service received an emergency line call to attend [victim’s address]. Caller [victim] advised that she woke up to find a male in her bedroom standing over her while she slept. [Victim] advised she recognized the male as Tyler Gipson and called police and could hear Gipson who was now walking around downstairs before exiting the back door and sitting on the deck. Police arrived on scene at 1311 hours and had immediately took custody of Gipson and placed him under arrest for Break and Enter. Gipson advised that he is supposed to be there and that the "voices" told him he should be there.
The [victim] advised that Gipson entered through an unlocked lower rear door which is normally locked. Officers attended the rear and located a number of other items that Heikamp advised didn't belong to her or her family and must belong to Gipson. Officers seized items and when later searched located .3g's of suspected methamphetamine. Gipson was returned to GPS where he continued to maintain that he was supposed to be at Heikamp's residence and that the "voices" told him to go there.
Officers obtained a cautioned statement from Gipson in which he stated that he believes that him and the [victim] are in a relationship, he believes that the [victim’s] voice is speaking to him, at times the voice is sexual in nature, and that he had been wearing a rope around his testicles for a sexual purpose and did so while entering the residence. Gipson stated that his purpose for entering the residence was not of a sexual nature and only wished to hang out.
A statement was taken from [victim] regarding the incident that took place and the previous history between the two parties. During this statement the [victim] indicated that she is fearful of Gipson. Gipson made many mentions of previous incidents in which Gipson attended her residence while she was not home. As well a statement was taken from [victim’s mother] who stated numerous occurrences in which Gipson had attended her residence. She stated that she had a Trespass Order issued against Gipson and then presented the Trespass Order to the officer.”
Personal Background/Psychiatric History
Mr. Gipson’s personal background and psychiatric history are set out in the Hospital Report, filed as an exhibit at the hearing and need not be repeated in detail in these Reasons.
Briefly, Mr. Gipson is a 29-year-old single man with no children. He has three sisters, three stepsisters and one stepbrother. His parents separated when he was child. His father passed away a few years ago. Mr. Gipson’s aunt reported that his father abused alcohol and his mother, and a sister used drugs.
Mr. Gipson’s aunt was his main support and caregiver over the years. He lived with her from grade 8 until he graduated from grade 12. As part of a school Apprenticeship Program, Mr. Gipson completed several hours at a local auto service. Mr. Gipson reported having worked for a mechanic for approximately one year before working full-time for his father doing landscaping, construction, general labour and personal support work for him once his father fell ill.
According to his aunt, Mr. Gipson started hanging out with "the wrong crowd" and became involved in drugs. Mr. Gipson reported drinking alcohol at the age of 15-16 years old. Mr. Gipson reported that his issues with substance use began at approximately the age of 22 when he began using crystal methamphetamine, at which point he felt he became addicted. At that time, he began daily use of crystal meth, which made it difficult for him to be employed.
Mr. Gipson has a criminal record.1 On February 8, 2019, he was convicted of unlawfully in a dwelling house, mischief and failing to comply with a recognizance. He received a suspended sentence (35 days pre-sentence custody) and was placed on probation for one year. On August 16, 2019, Mr. Gipson was convicted of failing to comply with probation and sentenced to one year’s probation (14 days pre-sentence custody). On July 16, 2020, he was convicted of two counts of failing to attend court and a breach of probation. Mr. Gipson received a suspended sentence with one day probation. On June 25, 2021, he was convicted of utter threats, unlawfully in a dwelling house, breach of probation and failing to comply with an undertaking. Mr. Gipson received probation for two years (40 days pre-sentence custody) and a weapons prohibition for five years. An assault charge was withdrawn in 2019.
It is reported that Mr. Gipson attended the Brockville General Hospital (“BGH”) and Kingston General Hospital (“KGH”). He was assessed by at BGH after he presented there following an argument with his sister trying to obtain cannabis and becoming angry and taking one or two tablets of Metoprolol that belonged to his father. Emergency Room records from KGH from 2019 disclose a visit in April for a substance use evaluation (brought in by paramedics). In March 2020, he attended KGH, looking for a place to stay due to feeling unsafe at home.
Mr. Gipson’s index offences occurred on July 11, 2021. Following his NCR finding by the court, he was transferred to the BMHC under the jurisdiction of the BMHC. At the time of his hearing, Mr. Gipson was living in supervised accommodation in Brockville. He is currently capable of consenting to treatment and managing his finances. He receives funding from Developmental Services Ontario (“DSO”) through the passport program.
Current Diagnosis
- Mr. Gipson’s diagnoses consist of Schizophrenia, Intellectual Developmental Disorder-mild, Methamphetamine Use Disorder-Severe (in sustained remission) and Cannabis Use Disorder-moderate (in sustained remission).
Evidence at the Hearing
The Hospital’s evidence was presented through the oral testimony of Dr. R. Linthorst to supplement the Hospital Report, filed as an exhibit at the hearing. Dr. Linthorst took over Mr. Gipson’s care from Dr. Carefoot in October 2025.
In April 2025, Mr. Gipson was transitioned to the Forensic Intensive Treatment Team (“FITT”) house with 24-hour supervision, located on the BMHC campus. On November 4, 2025, Mr. Gipson moved into Murray Street House (another transitional home with 8-hour supervision) in Brockville. He maintains employment at the cemetery.
Dr. Linthorst advised that Mr. Gipson had a good reporting year with no concern regarding decompensation of his mental health or positive urine drug screens. The doctor advised that Mr. Gipson has found a family doctor in Gananoque and is anticipating moving into unsupervised accommodation within the next year.
Dr. Linthorst advised that Mr. Gipson has a significant history of substance use, particularly methamphetamine, including at the time of the index offences, the last use being in 2023 while in hospital under the jurisdiction of the Review Board. The doctor highlighted that just prior to Mr. Gipson’s last Review Board hearing, he was snorting his Bupropion medication on the advice of another patient. According to paragraph 21 of last year’s Reasons for Disposition:
“On March 26, 2025, staff at FITT House noticed a white substance on Mr. Gipson’s nose. When confronted, he admitted that he had crushed and inhaled his prescription Wellbutrin. Staff are supposed to supervise patients taking their medication to ensure compliance, but Mr. Gipson stated that he had been misusing the Wellbutrin for about a month and a half, though not every day.”
The doctor advised that “snorting” this medication can cause a euphoric effect with the potential, although less than with illicit stimulant use, of inducing psychosis. The doctor highlighted that given Mr. Gipson’s unique presentation with substance use disorder and mild intellectual development disorder, this incident highlights the impact of peers or people in the community on his risk for substance use. He explained that in a supervised and secure environment, such as his accommodation at Murray Street House, the risk is well mitigated, however, should he be living in unsupervised accommodation, this becomes less certain.
When asked by Mr. Schultz whether a stalking assessment for risk management purposes, recommended by Mr. Gipson’s previous psychiatrist, has been completed,2 Dr. Linthorst advised that this assessment has not yet been done. Asked further about a sexual behaviour assessment, given the sexual content of the index offences, Dr. Linthorst advised that such an assessment has been completed by Dr. Brad Booth, which recommended no psychiatric follow-up. The doctor believed the sexual component was the result of active psychotic state.
Dr. Linthorst advised that although there may be some concern with medication adherence, the primary risk for Mr. Gipson is substance use. He has a history of methamphetamine use, including at the time of the index offences and in hospital. His “snorting” of his medication took place for a month and a half about a year ago. The doctor advised that substance use, particularly methamphetamine, could lead to rapid decompensation from days to weeks. Dr. Linthorst advised that although Mr. Gipson has the potential to live independently, there remains concern in his ability to refrain from substance use around peers that use or in the face of certain stressors.
Dr. Linthorst was asked about the hospital’s recommendation to remove “supervised” from the living out condition in the existing Disposition. Dr. Linthorst stated that Mr. Gipson has the potential to move towards more independent living, but there remains concern is his ability to refrain from substance use around peers that use or in the face of certain stressors in an unsupervised setting. The doctor highlighted that Mr. Gipson’s misuse of prescribed medication was motivated by his interactions with a co-patient. Despite no positive tests for substances in the reporting year, Dr. Linthorst advised that Mr. Gipson remains untested, vulnerable and at high risk of substance use under a less structured environment. The doctor advised that removing “supervised” permits flexibility and allows the hospital to conduct an assessment with explore an appropriate approved environment which mitigates any substance use risk.
Dr. Linthorst was also asked about Mr. Gipson’s insight regarding need for treatment. In this regard, he was referred to page 44 of the Hospital Report which states:
“Tyler noted he did not plan to take his IM injection if he was to get an absolute discharge. He noted he believed he did not need a family doctor as he was not planning on being on medications.”
The doctor advised that this was Mr. Gipson’s initial position. He stated that following a subsequent discussion where he explained the ORB process and that an absolute discharge flows from having a community doctor and taking medication, Mr. Gipson became more accepting. When asked, Dr. Linthorst agreed that the improvement in insight was externally motivated.
Dr. Linthorst did not support a Conditional Discharge Disposition at this juncture. He advised that there remained concerns about peer influence and potential stressors contributing to substance use with rapid decompensation, perhaps similar to the index offence. He highlighted that the hospital requires the ability to approve of Mr. Gipson’s accommodation in the community. He advised that although Mr. Gipson is ready to move on from “supervised” accommodation, it was important that any new environment be sufficiently supported to manage the risk, given Mr. Gipson’s vulnerabilities. In this regard, the treatment team needs to conduct an assessment to explore appropriate alternative accommodation. Given the parameters of the MHA and the potential time for mental deterioration from stimulant use, such as methamphetamines, the doctor expressed concerns about whether the MHA would suffice to manage the risk. He opined that given the context of his index offence, if Mr. Gipson’s symptoms progressed it would be unlikely that he would return voluntarily to hospital.
Dr. Linthorst advised that the proposed additional condition to the Disposition, allowing passes up to 7 days, indirectly supervised, would allow Mr. Gipson to visit family in Gananoque area. Should Mr. Gipson maintain adherence to his medication regimen, improve his insight and refrain from substance use, the team would support such passes. Dr. Linthorst stated that in the interim, he will be conducting a detailed assessment regarding stalking behaviour, and whether there should be a related risk assessment.
No further evidence was presented at the hearing.
Final Submissions of the Parties
Dr. Linthorst, on behalf of the Hospital, maintained his initial position of a Detention Disposition together with the proposed amendments to the Disposition.
Mr. Schultz, on behalf of the Attorney General of Ontario, maintained his initial position supporting the Hospital. He submitted that the hospital requires the ability to approve accommodation to maintain Mr. Gipson’s ongoing mental state and ensure his risk is properly managed through a supported environment. He submitted that making it a condition for Mr. Gipson to reside at his accommodation at the Murray Street House does not serve his rehabilitation needs given his progress at this supervised residence. Having no specified accommodation is not appropriate from a public safety perspective. Mr. Schultz submitted that the primary risk factor is substance use, particularly stimulants, with a concern of his interaction in this regard with other individuals. Further, with the use of stimulants and potential rapid decompensation, the legislative requirements of the MHA would not operate to return Mr. Gipson to hospital in a timely fashion. He further submitted there was no evidence that Mr. Gipson would voluntarily return to hospital, should he begin to show signs of decompensation from such use.
Ms. Jeoffroy, on behalf of Mr. Gipson, maintained her initial position of a Conditional Discharge Disposition. She submitted that Mr. Gipson has had an exceptional year and is a model resident at his Murray Street accommodation. There has been no substance use maintained his medication regime and can function independently. There was a concern that he may not continue medication, but he is willing to educate himself and work with his treatment team to continue medication and has obtained a family doctor. Relying on the Wall decision3, Ms. Jeoffroy submitted that it is speculation that Mr. Gipson will use illicit substances.
Analysis, Conclusion, and Disposition
Having considered all the evidence presented at the hearing, this Board finds that Mr. Gipson continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public as set out in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code. We make this finding based on the oral evidence of Dr. Linthorst and the evidence contained in the Hospital Report filed as an exhibit at the hearing.
Mr. Gipson’s index offences are serious. They occurred during a psychotic episode and involved the unauthorized entry into the home of a woman while wearing a rope around his testicles and standing over her while she laid upstairs in bed. At the time, Mr. Gipson was in possession of methamphetamines and had a history of unwanted contact with both the victim and her mother, including a previous trespass order.
Mr. Gipson is diagnosed with schizophrenia, intellectual developmental disorder-mild, methamphetamine use disorder-severe (in sustained remission), and cannabis use disorder-moderate (in sustained remission). His criminal history includes uttering threats, and unlawfully in a dwelling house and a number of court order breaches. He has a history of substance use, most notably methamphetamine, that played a role in the index offences which he continued to use on occasion under the jurisdiction of the Review Board. His snorting of his Bupropion medication occurred within a week of his last hearing which he admitted to doing for about a month and a half. Although improved, his insight continues to develop and for the most part appears to be externally motivated. This Board accepts the risk factors as laid out on pages 45-6 of the Hospital Report and the evidence of Dr. Linthorst and finds that Mr. Gipson remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.
This Board is of the view that Conditional Discharge is premature. At this point, the hospital needs the ability to approve Mr. Gipson’s accommodation in the community. Mr. Gipson has a history of substance use, particularly methamphetamines, including while under the jurisdiction of the Review Board. Substance use remains his primary risk factor and is not speculative. Although he has remained substance free within the last reporting year, he has been in the community in supervised accommodation and remains untested in an unsupervised environment. Given Mr. Gipson’s major mental illness and mild development disorder and with his substance use history, he is vulnerable to ongoing stressors and peer pressure (as evidenced by his medication misuse prior to his last hearing) in a less supported and secure environment. There needs to be a gradual and measured transition to move towards independent living. In this regard, the hospital will need to conduct an assessment to properly identify a supportive environment to properly manage the risk.
Further, this Board notes that at last year’s hearing, Mr. Gipson’s previous psychiatrist was of the opinion a stalking assessment needed to be completed. Given the history of unwanted contact with the victim (and mother) and the circumstances surrounding the index offences, this Board agrees. In this regard, Dr. Linthorst stated that he will be conducting a detailed assessment regarding stalking behaviour, and whether there should be a related risk assessment. Given the above, a Conditional Discharge Disposition is at this point in time not appropriate. Further, given the potential rapid decompensation from use of methamphetamines and the fact that Mr. Gipson is subject to the “Box A criteria”, the MHA may not suffice to return Mr. Gipson in a timely fashion to manage the risk. As stated by Dr. Linthorst, if Mr. Gipson’s symptoms progressed it would be unlikely that he would return voluntarily to hospital should he begin to show signs of decompensation from such use.
To his credit, Mr. Gipson had a good reporting year. He remained adherent to his medication regimen, had no positive urine drug screens, no untoward behaviour and did not require readmission to hospital. He is seen as a model resident in his supervised accommodation and has secured employment. He appears ready to transition to unsupervised approved accommodation. Should this happen and Mr. Gipson continues on a positive trajectory, it may be that he becomes ready to live independently in the community. In this regard, an early Board hearing may be requested to revisit Mr. Gipson’s Disposition.
Removal of “supervised” accommodation
- This Board agrees to amend condition 2(h) of the current Disposition to read “to live in the community within a 150km radius of the Brockville Mental Health Centre in approved accommodation approved by the person in charge” This gives the hospital the flexibility in approving Mr. Gipson’s community accommodation and to transition him to unsupervised approved accommodation.
Indirect Passes into the Community
This Board agrees with the addition of a condition to allow “passes for up to 7 days to enter the community of Ontario within a 350km radius of the Brockville Mental Health Centre - Member of the Royal Ottawa Health Care Group, indirectly supervised.” This allows Mr. Gipson to visit family in the Gananoque area. In this regard, the Board is mindful of the location of the index offences and Dr. Linthorst’s intended stalking assessment.
For all these reasons, the Board finds the necessary and appropriate, and least onerous and least restrictive Disposition is the continuation of the existing Detention Disposition with the above proposed amendments.
In reaching our decision, this Board has considered the safety of the public, Mr. Gipson’s mental condition, his reintegration into society, and his other needs.
DATED this 14th day of May, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. C. Flanagan
Alternate Chairperson
__________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board
Footnotes
- The Hospital Report states that according to the Offence Detail Report from the Gananoque Police Service, Mr. Gipson has a Possession of a Schedule I Substance – Methamphetamine in September 2020 which does not appear on the CPIC Response Report filed as an exhibit.
- Reasons for Disposition dated May 20, 2025, wherein Dr. Carefoot stated that she would refer Mr. Gipson for a stalking assessment for risk management purposes (e.g. the Stalking Assessment and Management structured professional judgment tool).
- Wall (Re), 2017 ONCA 713