Re Ridwaan Bacchus, 2026 CanLII 45670

Re: Ridwaan Bacchus

ORB File No: 6617

Hearing held on: Wednesday, April 1, 2026

Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health

Pursuant to: Sections 672.81(1) and 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Weinstein

Members: Dr. S. Lessard, Dr. M. Green, Mr. J. Cyr

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Ridwaan Bacchus Counsel: Ms. J. Boissonneault

The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Mr. L. Crowell

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. M. Feindel

REASONS FOR DECISION AND DISPOSITION

(Dated May 11, 2026)

Introduction

1. On September 26, 2014, Mr. Ridwaan Bacchus was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on a charge of assault, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”).

2. Mr. Bacchus is subject to the terms of a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”) dated January 24, 2025, which ordered that he be detained at the Forensic Service of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto (“CAMH”). This Disposition provides, in paragraph 2(h), that he live in the community in supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge.

3. Pursuant to s. 672.56(2) of the Criminal Code, CAMH notified the Board, by letter dated March 18, 2026, that Mr. Bacchus’ liberty had been restricted. He had been residing on a General Forensic Unit (“FGUD”) at CAMH. On March 10, 2026, he was transferred to the Structured Observation and Treatment Unit (“SOTU”) at CAMH.

4. On April 1, 2026, the Board convened a hearing at CAMH to conduct the annual review of the current Disposition and to conduct a Restriction of Liberty (“ROL”) hearing.

5. Mr. Bacchus was present at the hearing and was represented by his counsel, Ms. J. Boissonneault.

6. A combined Hospital Report and Restriction of Liberty Report, dated March 11, 2026 (the “Hospital Report”), was entered as Exhibit 1.

7. When a hospital significantly restricts the liberty of an accused for more than seven days, it has an obligation, under s. 672.56(2)(b) of the Criminal Code, to provide notice to the Board as soon as possible. Under s. 672.81(2.1), the Board is then required to convene an ROL hearing to review the hospital’s decision, also as soon as is practical. Since Mr. Bacchus’ annual hearing was scheduled for April 1, 2026, it was agreed that his annual review and the ROL would happen concurrently.

8. For the ROL, the issues at this hearing were:

a) whether the decision made by the person in charge to significantly increase the restriction of Mr. Bacchus’ liberty was warranted and necessary, and was it the least onerous, and least restrictive, option in the circumstances, at the time of its onset, on March 10, 2026; and

b) whether it continues to be so.

9. For the annual review, the issues at this hearing were:

a) whether Mr. Bacchus continues to post a significant threat to public safety, as defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code; and

b) 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.

10. For the reasons set out below and based on the expert evidence and opinions before it, the Board concluded that the initial Restriction of Liberty was warranted, necessary and appropriate, as is the ongoing Restriction of Liberty. The Board found that these restrictions were necessary for public safety, and they represented the least onerous, and least restrictive, interventions available.

11. For the reasons set out below and based on the evidence before us, the Board concluded that Mr. Bacchus continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public. It found that the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances is a continuation of the Detention Order, with the removal of the condition that he abstain absolutely from the non-medical use of alcohol or drugs or any other intoxicant. The Board found that the condition was neither necessary nor appropriate.

Current Psychiatric Diagnoses

12. Schizophrenia, in remission;

Autism Spectrum Disorder;

Mild Intellectual Disability;

Antisocial Personality Disorder.

Index Offences

13. The circumstances giving rise to the Index Offences are extracted from last year’s Board Reasons as follows:

“On November 29, 2013, Mr. Bacchus attacked a woman who was talking on the phone outside a residence on Sheppard Avenue in Toronto. He pushed her down, punched her face multiple times, and after leaving her there, he came back and kicked her. His social worker restrained him until police arrived.”

Reasons for Restriction of Liberty

14. The Hospital Report sets out the reasons for Mr. Bacchus’ transfer from FGUD to SOTU on March 10, 2026, as follows:

“On March 7, 2026, Mr. Bacchus was placed in mechanical restraints after assaulting two staff members. At evening snack, Mr. Bacchus had requested a second carton of milk, which staff could not provide due to a shortage. Mr. Bacchus was taken to the unit kitchen to warm a sandwich. As Mr. Bacchus was exiting the kitchen, a male nurse opened the nutrition fridge to retrieve items, Mr. Bacchus approached the nurse and attempted to snatch a carton of milk. The nurse instructed him to cease but Mr. Bacchus grabbed the milk and threw both the carton and his sandwich at the nurse. A code white was called. Mr. Bacchus chased the nurse back to the nursing station and pushed past a second nurse, pinning her on a table near the door to the nursing station, then reaching out and punching the initial nurse in the back of the head. When being transferred to the seclusion room Mr. Bacchus was aggressive and combative with security and multiple staff members, prompting the need to initiate mechanical restraints. Chemical restraint was administered as per order by the duty doctor. Mr. Bacchus was released from mechanical restraints over the course of the night and remained in locked seclusion until his transfer to the Structured Observation and Treatment Unit (SOTU, 3-1) on March 10, 2026.

There is no evidence that his behaviour is informed by symptoms of psychosis. He has also expressed an awareness of the wrongfulness of his actions, although he has limited insight into the negative impact his actions have on others. Many of the episodes of behavioural dyscontrol related to accessing food or minimal interpersonal conflict.”

Personal and Psychiatric Background

15. Mr. Bacchus’ personal and psychiatric background is set out in detail in the Hospital Report. The relevant portions are accurately summarized in last year’s Reasons for Disposition:

“Mr. Bacchus is unmarried and has no dependents. Mr. Bacchus was diagnosed with a learning disability when he was in the third grade and placed in a special education classroom. He attended a private Muslim school for kindergarten before transitioning to public school, where he remained in smaller class settings throughout high school. In tenth grade, he struggled with anxiety and depression. At that time, he was assessed for Autism Spectrum Disorder, but a later evaluation attributed his difficulties to anxiety and depression. He completed part of the tenth grade but was expelled for fighting and attempts to enroll him in another school were unsuccessful.

Mr. Bacchus has no employment history. There is no indication of alcohol or drug abuse, and no reporting of psychiatric history in his family.

A records check of the Canadian Police Information Centre database showed that Mr. Bacchus has a history of assaults before the index offence occurred. Mr. Bacchus showed no history of aggression until age 16 when he began destroying household property, including punching walls and breaking electronics. His aggression escalated toward his mother, involving hitting, pushing, and, on one occasion, breaking her cheekbone. He also struck her with a spoon, threw hot pepper sauce on her, and once smashed her car windshield while she was driving. Fearing for her safety, she would lock herself in her bedroom or closet overnight. His outbursts were often triggered by not getting his way, but no charges were ever filed.

The psychiatric background information is contained in the Hospital Report, and it is extensive. Mr. Bacchus' documented mental health difficulties appear to have surfaced in 2009, when he was 15 years old, characterized as longstanding aggressive behavioural issues, anxiety, and difficulties with his mood. Psychiatric assessments while he was in correctional facilities are also documented, along with admissions to various hospitals in Ontario up to the index offence in 2013, which are also notable. Some of the information after the finding of ‘not criminally responsible’ is summarized here for ease of reference.

Initially, Mr. Bacchus was admitted to Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences in June 2014, to assess his criminal responsibility. Sometime afterwards, he was admitted to CAMH. However, in 2018, Mr. Bacchus was transferred to Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care by way of the Board’s decision. In 2020, he was transferred back to CAMH.

Over the last several years, the Hospital Report indicates that Mr. Bacchus engaged in many incidents of violence and verbal aggression, often requiring intervention and periods in locked seclusion. His behaviour is described as displaying physical aggression, such as punching, kicking, scratching, spitting, or choking others (or attempting to) combined with verbal threats towards staff, with demonstrated violent environmental aggression. Eventually, he was transferred to a general forensic unit in 2023 but was moved back to the Structured Observation and Treatment Unit in 2024, under the care of a new treatment team, due to escalating behavioural issues.”

Position of the Parties

16. With respect to the Restriction of Liberty, counsel for the hospital submitted that the initial restriction of liberty was warranted, necessary and appropriate, as is the ongoing restriction of liberty. With respect to the annual Disposition, counsel recommended no change to the existing Detention Order.

17. Counsel for the Attorney General agreed with the hospital’s recommendations and submissions with respect to both the restriction of liberty and the continuation of the existing Detention Order.

18. Counsel for Mr. Bacchus advised that significant threat is not in dispute for the purpose of this hearing. Counsel agreed that the continuation of the existing Detention Order is the necessary and appropriate Disposition; however, she advised that Mr. Bacchus was requesting that paragraph 2(h) be amended to remove the word “supervised,” to allow him to live in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge. She submitted that this change would serve as a motivating factor.

19. At the conclusion of the hearing, counsel for the Attorney General submitted that he would oppose the privilege of living in the community if the term “supervised” were to be removed. He further submitted that this issue was too important to be left to CAMH’s discretion.

20. With respect to the Restriction of Liberty, counsel for Mr. Bacchus adopted the position that both the initial restriction of liberty, and the ongoing restriction of liberty, were not warranted, necessary and appropriate and that her client wished to be transferred back to the FGUD.

21. During the hearing, the issue was raised about the appropriateness of requiring Mr. Bacchus to abstain absolutely from the non-medical use of alcohol or drugs or any other intoxicant. At the conclusion of the hearing, all parties took no position regarding this provision and left it up to the discretion of the Board.

22. All parties maintained their position at the end of the hearing.

Course Since Last Disposition

23. Mr. Bacchus’ course since his last Disposition is set out in detail in the Hospital Report. The following extracted paragraphs are relevant to this hearing:

“Mr. Bacchus has had a difficult clinical year. He began the year on the Forensic General Unit D (FGUD, Unit 1-5) until recent transfer on March 10, 2026, to the Structured Observation and Treatment Unit (SOTU, 3-1) following an assault on FGUD staff.

Mr. Bacchus has been a fluctuating behavioural and management difficulty over the past year. He has engaged in ongoing verbal aggression, sexually disinhibited behaviours and profanity amongst others. He has engaged in brief, unanticipated episodes of frank physical violence. He has required placement in locked seclusion on three occasions.

Mr. Bacchus has had many behavioural plan violations over the year. He has engaged in verbal and physical aggression, sexually disinhibited behaviours and profanity amongst others. He frequently had DASA scores of 1 or 2. He has required placement in locked seclusion on three occasions (one occasion included mechanical restraints).

On May 25, 2025, Mr. Bacchus was chased and assaulted by a co-patient. Mr. Bacchus chased this co-patient back to their room. Mr. Bacchus stated that this occurred after he confronted copatient staring at him. Three weeks later, on June 17, 2025, Mr. Bacchus went to the co-patient’s room (same patient from previous incident on May 25, 2025). The co-patient was in bed sleeping. Mr. Bacchus knocked on the bedroom door of the co-patient, and when the co-patient opened the door Mr. Bacchus punched him in the face, and scratched him. A Code White was called, resulting in Mr. Bacchus’ placement into seclusion until June 20, 2025, due to his risk of harm to others. The co-patient was transferred to another unit.

On February 5, 2026, Mr. Bacchus was observed punching a co-patient with a closed fist on the face, head, and neck. He then threw a food tray at the same co-patient. He was not directable. A code white was initiated and Mr. Bacchus was placed in locked seclusion. He stated; "[copatient] was getting under my skin…I just had enough and thought it’s not fair and decided to punch him. He is not supposed to be on this unit, because he is staring and following people. I had arguments with him before in tower 3". After a debriefing with staff and both patients, Mr. Bacchus was tried the following day on a release from seclusion. He was cooperative and settled. Seclusion was discontinued. Mr. Bacchus was placed on close observation and his privileges held until next team review.

On March 7, 2026, Mr. Bacchus was placed in mechanical restraints after assaulting two staff members. At evening snack, Mr. Bacchus had requested a second carton of milk, which staff could not provide due to a shortage. Mr. Bacchus was taken to the unit kitchen to warm a sandwich. As Mr. Bacchus was exiting the kitchen, a male nurse opened the nutrition fridge to retrieve items, Mr. Bacchus approached the nurse and attempted to snatch a carton of milk. The nurse instructed him to cease but Mr. Bacchus grabbed the milk and threw both the carton and his sandwich at the nurse. A code white was called. Mr. Bacchus chased the nurse back to the nursing station and pushed past a second nurse, pinning her on a table near the door to the nursing station, then reaching out and punching the initial nurse in the back of the head. When being transferred to the seclusion room Mr. Bacchus was aggressive and combative with security and multiple staff members, prompting the need to initiate mechanical restraints. Chemical restraint was administered as per order by the duty doctor. Mr. Bacchus was released from mechanical restraints over the course of the night and remained in locked seclusion until his transfer to the Structured Observation and Treatment Unit (SOTU, 3-1) on March 10, 2026.

There is no evidence that his behaviour is informed by symptoms of psychosis. He has also expressed an awareness of the wrongfulness of his actions, although he has limited insight into the negative impact his actions have on others. Many of the episodes of behavioural dyscontrol related to accessing food or minimal interpersonal conflict.

Mr. Bacchus continues to demonstrate a limited understanding of social norms/cues/boundaries. Throughout the treatment year, there have been incidents where he has been grossly intrusive with staff. These incidents occur with sufficient frequency and predictability it has made moving to indirectly supervised privileges untenable.

The inpatient unit behavioural therapist developed a comprehensive plan of care to address Mr. Colaco’s problematic behaviours and advance his rehabilitation. A multi-dimensional approach was instituted which includes social skills training, coping skills, and behavioural contingency plans using positive and negative reinforcers.

Mr. Bacchus has engaged in limited programming, his level of engagement at times somewhat superficial.”

Evidence at the Hearing

24. The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence from Dr. Swayze. Dr. Swayze co-authored the Hospital Report and testified as follows:

a) He was Mr. Bacchus’ treating forensic psychiatrist while Mr. Bacchus was on the FGUD, until his transfer to SOTU on March 10, 2026.

b) He had established a therapeutic relationship with Mr. Bacchus while he was on FGUD and was familiar with his clinical presentation, risk, and housing needs.

c) Mr. Bacchus engaged in a serious, unprovoked assault on another patient approximately one month before his transfer to SOTU. This assault was significant enough that police were contacted, although charges were not laid because of evidentiary issues. As set out in the Hospital Report, Mr. Bacchus engaged in another assault involving staff members.

d) Mr. Bacchus’ assaults in the current reporting year were characterized by poor impulse control, low frustration tolerance, and rapid escalation over trivial triggers, such as access to sandwiches or milk.

e) After the first assault, he deliberately chose not to transfer Mr. Bacchus to SOTU, despite concerns from some staff, and attempted to manage Mr. Bacchus’ risk on the FGUD. Attempts were made to help Mr. Bacchus understand the consequences of his actions and better manage his behaviour. Despite these efforts, another assault occurred, demonstrating that the least restrictive measure, leaving him on FGUD, was ineffective.

f) During the most recent incident in March, Mr. Bacchus chased staff into the nursing station and entered a staff-only area. He assaulted a nurse inside the nursing station. At that point, there was really “no option but to move Mr. Bacchus to a more secure environment.”

g) The FGUD is a large open area with blind spots, hallways and corners and is not designed to manage sudden, impulsive violence such as that exhibited by Mr. Bacchus. In contrast, SOTU offers a smaller footprint, better sightlines, fewer patients, and faster, more effective staff intervention. None of Mr. Bacchus’ core risk factors has changed as a result of this transfer.

h) Mr. Bacchus was still engaging in continued conflicts and verbal altercations over trivial matters with co-patients, confirming ongoing impulsivity issues and concerns.

i) Supervised accommodations are clinically necessary and not merely a label. Mr. Bacchus requires supervision at a level higher than simply “supervised.” 24/7 supervised housing is clearly required for risk management.

j) Mr. Bacchus has a unique and complex diagnostic profile. He has been declined by multiple housing providers, including structured, supervised placements.

k) If Mr. Bacchus were in anything less than supervised housing, he would experience frequent conflict with community members. These conflicts would escalate quickly to violence, more often and more severely than they have while he has been in hospital. Mr. Bacchus misinterprets the actions of others. He experiences anxiety, externalizes blame, and is unable to interface safely with unfamiliar people.

l) Mr. Bacchus requires that supervision be physically close, not merely available. He needs staff who are familiar with his individual triggers and impulsivity. Mr. Bacchus requires close supervision both inside and outside any accommodations.

m) Even if “supervised” were removed from the Disposition, Mr. Bacchus would still only be placed in supervised housing, because of his clinical picture. However, removing the term “supervised” from his current Disposition risks creating unrealistic expectations in Mr. Bacchus that he could live independently or with family, neither of which is feasible.

25. In response to questions from counsel for the Attorney General, Dr. Swayze testified:

a) SOTU is a more secure unit than what is known as a “Secure Forensic Unit” (“SFU”). While the decision is not his (Dr. Swayze’s) decision, most likely Mr. Bacchus would be transferred from SOTU to a SFU before they would consider moving Mr. Bacchus back to a General Forensic Unit.

b) Mr. Bacchus does not have any privileges while on SOTU. He is able to access fresh air in the secure yard.

26. In response to questions from counsel for Mr. Bacchus, Dr. Swayze testified:

a) Mr. Bacchus is medication compliant, including taking his clozapine and submitting to the required blood work.

b) After assaultive incidents, Mr. Bacchus often returns to his baseline quickly and appears calm and settled, often within days.

c) Mr. Bacchus was designated Alternate Level of Care (“ALC”) on August 26, 2025. While occupational therapy assessments are generally used to determine functional capacity, an OT assessment would not change his need for 24/7 supervised housing. Mr. Bacchus’ ADLs, such as dressing and hygiene, are intact. His designated housing needs are driven by risk, rather than by functional deficits.

d) Mr. Bacchus has been on Developmental Services Ontario (“DSO”) housing waitlists since 2012, as the type of supervised housing that he needs is especially difficult to secure. He has been referred to a specialized treatment bed at Luminous, but no time frame for when such a bed may be available has been provided. Programs such as Luminous might decline Mr. Bacchus because of his recent acts of violence.

e) Rather than being motivating, removing the term “supervised” from the Disposition would be counterproductive for Mr. Bacchus. He would interpret the removal as permission to live independently or with family. This belief is not realistic, and it would cause increased frustration and conflict with the treatment team.

f) While on the FGUD, Mr. Bacchus participated meaningfully in 1:1 behavioural therapy. There was a prolonged period, from May 2025 to February 2026, during which Mr. Bacchus did not engage in any violent incidents, suggesting that the program benefited him in some way. However, he has not had access to the same program since his transfer to SOTU. Ongoing behavioural therapy would be important for Mr. Bacchus, given his diagnostic profile.

g) Mr. Bacchus did express remorse shortly after the March 2026 incident, but he apologizes after every assault. Remorse after the fact does not meaningfully mitigate Mr. Bacchus’ risk. His core problem is impulsivity before the action, not his insight afterwards.

h) Mr. Bacchus is motivated to return to a General Forensic Unit. In Dr. Swayze’s experience, a stepwise process from the SOTU to an SFU would be more likely than a direct return to a General Forensic Unit.

27. In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Swayze testified:

a) There was no evidence that alcohol or substance use plays any role in Mr. Bacchus’ behaviour.

b) Substance use does not form part of his diagnosis or risk formulation. The prohibition to abstain is not necessary.

c) Mr. Bacchus’ behaviour is not driven by psychosis; it is driven by his impulsivity, personality traits, autism-related deficits, limited cognition, and extremely low frustration tolerance. There has been no evidence of hallucinations, delusions, paranoia, or psychotic misinterpretation. Mr. Bacchus’ acts of violence are not symptom-driven; they are a behavioural response to minor stressors. If Mr. Bacchus’ behaviour were psychosis-driven, treatment would be more straightforward. Unfortunately, that is not the case here.

d) Mr. Bacchus can go months without incidents. His violent episodes occur without reliable warning. This unpredictability is an essential risk issue, making staff safety difficult to manage on a General Forensic Unit. Staff are afraid of Mr. Bacchus, especially since the second assault on FGUD. Dr. Swayze personally reassured the support staff in his recommendation to allow Mr. Bacchus to remain on FGUD, which he now regrets doing.

e) Mr. Bacchus’ behaviour does support staff’s concern about workplace safety and morale on the FGUD.

f) The Hospital Report statement: “There is a low risk of serious physical harm in the hospital” is not accurate.

g) When the Hospital Report stated (p. 78) that Mr. Bacchus “does not fit into a typical supported living arrangement”; this means that Mr. Bacchus has been declined from multiple placement applications because of his aggression and unpredictability. Even when he is calm, the risk of sudden violence remains, making placement extremely difficult.

h) Mr. Bacchus is capable of being pleasant and engaging, but this presentation is punctuated with episodes of serious aggression. Moreover, not all of his assaults are impulsive. There was at least one instance in which his behaviour appeared to be vindictive, involving delayed retaliation against another patient.

i) When asked whether Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care (Waypoint) might be a more appropriate placement for Mr. Bacchus, he replied that he could not recommend such a transfer without input from the current treatment team. He did acknowledge that Mr. Bacchus has been at Waypoint before and that Waypoint offers more structure, higher staffing, and greater freedom within a secure environment than is available on SOTU.

j) Removing the term “supervised” from Mr. Bacchus’ current accommodation would be counterproductive and would hinder his relationship with the treatment team. The fact that he is not currently frustrated by his current limited access to other privileges does not negate this assertion. Mr. Bacchus is focused on gaining the privilege of living independently or with his family. Without the term “supervised” in his community living clause, failure of the treatment team to allow his preferred living arrangements would elicit a much stronger, negative response.

28. No other evidence was called.

Analysis and Conclusions

29. Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence, as well as submissions from the parties, the Board agrees with the joint submission: Mr. Bacchus remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.

30. In Winko, the Supreme Court outlined that, in coming to the conclusion on the issue of significant risk, 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 NCR accused’s medical condition; the NCR accused’s own plans for the future; the support existing for the NCR accused in the community; and most importantly, the recommendations provided by experts who examined the NCR accused. In coming to our conclusion in this matter, the Board relies on the uncontroverted expert evidence of Dr. Swayze, in addition to the documentary evidence before us.

31. The most compelling and contemporary evidence of significant threat is the assault of staff on March 10, 2026, which resulted in an immediate transfer to a high secure unit (“SOTU”). The transfer to SOTU was a direct result of that act of violence, which represented an acute risk factor. Being moved from FGUD to SOTU is itself a major indicator of increased risk. Such transfers only occur when risk cannot be safely managed at a previous level. Although Mr. Bacchus’ schizophrenia is described as being in remission, he continues to display impulsivity, poor frustration tolerance, and difficulty with interpersonal boundaries, all of which heighten his risk of aggression. Mr. Bacchus has a long history of aggression towards caregivers and authority figures, and the recent assaults show that these patterns remain active. Mr. Bacchus has difficulty adapting to change, a low threshold to behavioural destabilization and limited coping strategies when under stress. These factors increase the likelihood of further aggression when his demands or frustrations arise. Mr. Bacchus shows an enduring pattern of aggression that is compounded by his neurodevelopmental, and personality factors. His limited coping capacity can lead to rapid behavioural escalation. These elements together demonstrate that he continues to pose a substantial risk of physical harm to others, requiring a high-secure and highly supervised environment.

32. In particular, the Board relies on the following extracted paragraphs from the Hospital Report:

“Mr. Bacchus was scored on the HCR-20 V3. Historical items of particular concern include problems with violence, antisocial behaviour, relationships, employment, major mental disorder, substance use, psychotic disorder, personality disorder, traumatic experiences, violent attitudes and with treatment and supervision response. Clinical items of particular concern included symptoms of major mental disorder, instability, insight, and with treatment and supervision response. Under a continuation of the present disposition, risk management items of particular concern include problems with professional services, stress or coping and exposure to stressors.

Overall, his future violence/case prioritization was rated as moderate within a hospital setting and moderate to high in a community setting. Risk of serious physical harm was rated as low within the hospital setting and moderate to high in a community setting. Risk of imminent violence was rated as moderate within the hospital setting and moderate to high in a community setting.

Mr. Bacchus has a long history of violent behaviours, similar to the index offence. Mr. Bacchus’ clinical and dynamic risk factors for violent re-offending include active symptoms of psychosis, cognitive deficits, lack of insight, impulsivity, interpersonal conflict, stressors, unstructured daytime routine and lack of supervision.

If Mr. Bacchus is to re-offend, this would likely occur in several scenarios. In the context of noncompliance with medication, he would experience the return of psychotic symptoms. This would lead to destabilization and disinhibition resulting in an increased risk of violence.

Further, even in the context of medication compliance, Mr. Bacchus does not understand the personality factors that contribute to his violent behaviors and fails to recognize the seriousness of his violent behaviors. He does not recognize his own triggers or the consequences of his actions (e.g. quick to blame others, poor frustration tolerance, and gives little forethought to decisions). He is unlikely to utilize coping strategies that would help him avoid stressors or minimize their consequences, and is likely to use inappropriate strategies, and difficulty coping with minor or common frustrations and problems, leading to violence. This scenario played out recently leading to the assault of staff.”

33. The Board had two issues to consider: 1) the requested removal of the requirement for “supervised” accommodation in his current Disposition, and 2) whether the initial, and the ongoing, restrictions of liberty were necessary and appropriate.

Issue #1 – Supervised Accommodation:

34. The Board has no difficulty in concluding that it is essential that there be no change to the requirement that Mr. Bacchus reside in supervised accommodation.

a) Dr. Swayze’s evidence is that supervised accommodation is clinically necessary, and not discretionary, because of Mr. Bacchus’ persistent impulsivity, his elevated risk of violence, and the absence of viable unsupervised placements. In particular, the Board relies on paragraphs 24 (k) and (l) and paragraph 27(j) of these Reasons as to why the term “supervised” must remain in his Disposition.

b) Counsel for Mr. Bacchus referred the panel to Kelly (Re) 2014 ONCA 269 in support of removing the term “supervised” accommodation. We note that Kelly did not address the same issue; it considered whether it was appropriate to insert a term allowing an NCR patient to have accommodation approved in the community because of the long waitlists, whether or not the patient was ready to move there. This is not the issue here. Mr. Bacchus already has this privilege in his Disposition. A more relevant and analogous decision would be Simonic (Re) 2024 ONCA 573. The issue at that hearing was whether a term permitting community living in approved accommodation could be included in a Detention Order if there is no reasonable prospect of the accused being ready for discharge in the coming year. The Court of Appeal held, in that case, that the necessary and appropriate Disposition may include community living, if the evidence establishes that including it would: (a) serve a therapeutic purpose or motivate an accused’s progress and/or (b) have a practical benefit, such as placement on housing waitlists. What motivates an accused is a matter of clinical expertise and must be supported by the evidence. (our emphasis)

c) Dr. Swayze was adamant in his position that removing the term “supervised” from his community living clause would not be a viable incentive; rather, it would cause Mr. Bacchus to become more frustrated and interfere with the therapeutic relationship with his team, as he is highly fixated on living independently or with his family. These are completely unrealistic goals. While the privilege in dispute in Simonic was community living, the same reasoning would apply to any privilege, including living in accommodation approved by the person in charge, or adding the term “supervised.” The evidence before us is that removing the term “supervised” is unrealistic and will not act as an incentive. In fact, the evidence before us demonstrates that it would be detrimental for Mr. Bacchus, as it would create unrealistic expectations, create a countertherapeutic situation, and cause tension with his treatment providers.

d) In particular, the Board relies on the following paragraph from the Hospital Report, under Proposed Amendments to Order:

“The clinical team is of the opinion that Mr. Bacchus continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public; as such, an absolute discharge is not warranted. The team is of the opinion his risk is not manageable under a conditional discharge.

In order to reintegrate into the community, Mr. Bacchus will require a supervised residence which will be the cornerstone of his risk management. Absent sufficient supervision both within his residence and when in the community, Mr. Bacchus will, unfortunately, be at substantive risk of medication noncompliance with the exacerbation of psychosis and reoffending.

The clinical team requires the ability to approve Ms. Bacchus’ accommodation. In addition, should Mr. Bacchus become variably or fully noncompliant with his psychiatric care or use substances, the clinical team requires rapid intervention.

As such, the clinical team is of the unanimous opinion that the continuation of the present custodial disposition, without amendment, would both protect the public and represent the necessary and appropriate disposition.”

e) Finally, the doctor’s evidence was that Mr. Bacchus needs close supervised monitoring. Staff need to be physically close to him.

Issue # 2 – The Initial, and Ongoing, Restrictions of Liberty

35. This Board has no difficulty in finding that the treatment team had no option but to transfer Mr. Bacchus to SOTU. The transfer was a last resort, driven by serious, repeated, unprovoked acts of violence and the inability of staff on the FGUD to manage Mr. Bacchus’ unpredictable risk.

a) Mr. Bacchus has engaged in multiple assaults in a brief period of time, including a significant, unprovoked assault on a co-patient. A second assault, four weeks later, was triggered by something trivial, escalating to the point that Mr. Bacchus assaulted a nurse inside a restricted area. These events showed rapid, unpredictable escalation, leaving the FGUD staff unable to manage him safely. Dr. Swayze emphasized that the FGUD layout and staffing made it unsafe, as it has large, open spaces and many corners and hallways, and staff are unable to intervene quickly enough to manage his kind of impulsivity.

b) Dr. Swayze further testified that, after the second assault, staff were frightened of Mr. Bacchus, making continued placement on the FGUD unsafe for staff and co-patients. The SOTU unit provides the necessary containment and supervision that Mr. Bacchus currently needs because of its higher staff-to-patient ratio, smaller footprint, clear sight lines and design for rapid intervention. Given his unpredictable aggression, SOTU is currently the least restrictive environment that can still manage Mr. Bacchus’ risk. Accordingly, the initial restriction of liberty was necessary and warranted for public safety.

c) Mr. Bacchus’ ongoing restriction of liberty also remains necessary and appropriate for public safety, as the causes of his recent transfer remain. The hospital notes reviewed by Dr. Swayze indicated that Mr. Bacchus continues to have verbal altercations and conflicts even while on SOTU. His impulse control, frustration tolerance, and misinterpretation of cues remain unchanged. As of the date of this hearing, there has been no meaningful reduction of risk that would justify lifting his current restriction of liberty.

d) Any return to a General Forensic Unit would be premature and unsafe until such time as Mr. Bacchus can demonstrate a sustained stability in his current situation.

36. The Board agrees that a Restriction of Liberty has taken place, pursuant to the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in R vs MLC (2010 ONCA 843), as well as in Regina vs Campbell (2018 ONCA 140).

37. It is clear that Mr. Bacchus does not have a substance use disorder and that the requirement that he abstain from drugs or alcohol is not necessary or appropriate to remain in his current Disposition.

38. The Board questioned Dr. Swayze about the appropriateness of a transfer to Waypoint, as Mr. Bacchus’ violence is not driven by psychosis, and is unpredictable, so his behaviour cannot be prevented through medication adjustments. His violence arises from his autism-related rigidity, limited cognitive inflexibility, personality-based impulsivity, and tendency to catastrophize minor frustrations. This combination of factors makes Mr. Bacchus’ behaviour hard to predict and harder to manage, increasing the need for a secure environment.

39. The evidence before us is inconclusive as to what programming may be available to Mr. Bacchus while he remains detained on SOTU. It is quite clear that he has limited privileges while residing on SOTU. Should his current treatment team feel that he must remain on SOTU for a prolonged period of time, we urge the hospital to request an early hearing for a transfer to Waypoint, where Mr. Bacchus will be able to enjoy more freedoms, privileges and access to appropriate programming. Similarly, should Mr. Bacchus feel that he is not receiving the programming he needs or having appropriate pass privileges available to him, we would suggest that his counsel request that the Board order an early hearing for a transfer to Waypoint.

40. In consideration of all the evidence, submissions of the parties and the criteria set forth in s. 672.54, the paramount consideration being the safety of the public, in addition to the mental condition of Mr. Bacchus, his reintegration into society and his other needs, the necessary and appropriate Disposition is to continue with a Detention Order with the removal of the requirement that he abstain from the use of alcohol or other drugs.

DATED this 11^th^ day of May, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.

Mr. J. Weinstein Alternate Chairperson

__________________

Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board