Re D. (P.), 2026 CanLII 45674

Ontario Review Board

Re: D. (P.)

ORB File No: 7684/7702

Hearing held on: April 9, 2026

Place of hearing: Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences 700 Gordon Street, Whitby, Ontario

Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Weinstein Members: Dr. K. Hand Dr. M. Kalia Hon. A. Sosna Mr. J. Cyr

Parties Appearing:

Accused: D. (P.) Counsel: Mr. M. Schloss

The Person in charge of Hospital: Counsel: Ms. J Szabo

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. N. MacDonald

*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.

AMENDED REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated: May 12, 2026)

Please see the underlined change to original reasons made May 12, 2026, at paragraph 4.

Introduction:

1. On January 24, 2020, D. (P.) was found not criminally responsible on account of a mental disorder (NCR) on a charge of sexual assault, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. (“Criminal Code”) On March 25, 2020, he was additionally found not criminally responsible on charges of sexual assault and theft under $5,000, contrary to the Criminal Code.

2. Mr. D. (P.) is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (ORB), dated April 22, 2025, detaining him within a General Forensic Unit at the Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (Ontario Shores), with discretionary privileges including the ability to reside in the community in approved accommodation.

3. On April 9, 2026, a panel of the ORB convened the annual review of Mr. D. (P.)’s Disposition pursuant to s. 672.81 (1) of the Criminal Code. The issue at this hearing was whether Mr. D. (P.) is a significant threat to public safety, as defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code. 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.

4. Mr. D. (P.) was present at the hearing and was represented by counsel Mr. M. Schloss.

5. Dr. D. Bhullar, Mr. D. (P.)’s psychiatrist, testified at the hearing. Introduced into evidence was the Hospital Report (Exhibit 1), dated March 9, 2026. Dr. Bhullar adopted the contents of the report.

Position of the Parties:

6. At the commencement of the hearing, the parties were asked for their initial without prejudice positions. Counsel for the hospital submitted that Mr. D. (P.) continues to present a significant threat to the safety of the public, and the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a continuation of the current Disposition.

7. Counsel for the Attorney General adopted the hospital’s position as did counsel for Mr. D. (P.).

8. A joint recommendation was put before the panel.

9. For the reasons set out below, the panel finds that Mr. D. (P.) continues to present a significant threat to the safety of the public. Accordingly, the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a continuation the current Detention Order with the same terms and conditions previously set out.

Current Psychiatric Diagnosis:

10. Schizophrenia Polysubstance use disorder Antisocial personality disorder

Index Offences:

11. The details surrounding the index offences are summarized from last year’s Reasons for Disposition:

On June 24, 2019, Mr. D. (P.) entered a grocery store and stole approximately $15.00 worth of food. Shortly thereafter, Mr. D. (P.) walked toward a woman who was standing on the street typing on her phone. He approached her from behind, grabbed her head and pulled her into him, kissing her head and stating, “I love you”. The victim yelled and Mr. D. (P.) quickly walked away.

On July 15, 2019 the complainant parked her vehicle in a parking garage and made her way up to the elevator. As the doors opened, the accused was standing inside. Mr. D. (P.) approached the complainant. He held his hands out in front of him and moved closer to her. The fearful complainant stated, “What are you doing?” Mr. D. (P.) replied, “I’m going to kiss you”. He then attempted to kiss the complainant. She was able to move away and fled the elevator once the door opened.

Background:

12. Mr. D. (P.) is 41 years old. He was born in Kitchener. He has three adult daughters. His parents struggled with alcohol and substance abuse.

13. During his youth, Mr. D. (P.) engaged in property damage and theft. He was expelled from school in grade 9 and left home at age 15. He began using cannabis in grade 6, and continued daily use thereafter. He has a long history of using crystal methamphetamine and heroin.

14. Mr. D. (P.) has a serious criminal record. From 2000 to 2019, he amassed 73 criminal convictions including convictions for assaults, threatening, robbery, theft, fraud, and multiple convictions for breaching court orders and failing to appear in court.

15. Mr. D. (P.) was last employed in approximately 2011 when he worked in construction and in a restaurant.

16. At the time of the index offences, Mr. D. (P.) reported being homeless and living in stairways for years. When incarcerated prior to the index offences he reported last having a place to live some eight years earlier. He is currently financially supported by the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP).

Psychiatric History:

17. Mr. D. (P.)’s first involvement with psychiatric care was in October 2016. He attended the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) requesting “help to stop the special mental powers and to help with being watched all the time”. He admitted to consuming crystal methamphetamine every few days. The hospital determined he was not certifiable pursuant to the Mental Health Act and discharged him to a shelter.

18. Much of Mr. D. (P.)’s subsequent psychiatric involvement was provided by the Forensic Early Intervention Service (FEIS) at the Toronto South Detention Centre when he was in custody. He reported auditory hallucinations. His speech was described as pressured and his thoughts derailed. He was noted to be highly tangential and grandiose.

19. Following the NCR finding, Mr. D. (P.) was admitted to Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care where he remained until his transfer to Ontario Shores in January 2022. He resided on a forensic unit until his transfer to the Forensic Psychiatric Rehabilitation Unit (FPRU), a general forensic unit, on December 6, 2023.

Evidence at Hearing:

20. The Hospital Report (Exhibit 1) and Dr. Bhullar’s evidence detail Mr. D. (P.)’s present status.

21. Following Mr. D. (P.)’s last annual review on April 16, 2025, he remained on the general Unit (FPRU), until his discharge to the Forensic Outpatient Service (FOS) on January 5, 2026. As an outpatient Mr. D. (P.) resides in an independent apartment. FOS staff meet with Mr. D. (P.) four days per week. Mr. D. (P.) meets with his FOS psychiatrist once monthly.

22. Since his discharge from Ontario Shores, Mr. D. (P.) has settled into living in the community. He has been able to independently use public transit to meet with friends, go grocery shopping and attend regularly scheduled appointments.

Use of Privileges:

23. While on FPRU, Mr. D. (P.) was permitted daily access to the community for up to eight hours while indirectly supervised. He utilized this privilege over 200 times. No problems have been reported. Mr. D. (P.) was permitted to move about the hospital and hospital grounds indirectly supervised six times a day for up to four hours. Again, no concerns had arisen.

Family and Approved Persons Visits:

24. Mr. D. (P.) has three adult children, ages 21, 20, and 19. He communicates with them. They have attended for family visits at Ontario Shores. Mr. D. (P.) reported that he is in a long-term relationship with a girlfriend, who resides in Toronto. He advised that she is aware of his involvement in the forensic system and visited him at his apartment in February 2026.

25. When questioned by the panel, Dr. Bhullar confirmed that when he discussed Mr. D. (P.)’s relationship with his girlfriend, Mr. D. (P.) was guarded and did not wish to provide any details. When asked whether he would provide the treatment team consent to speak to his girlfriend, Mr. D. (P.) declined. Dr. Bhullar testified that given the nature of the index offences and concerns about the risk of sexual violence, he advised Mr. D. (P.) that it would be helpful for the treatment team to have objective data and collateral information from the patient’s partner. Again, Mr. D. (P.) declined consent.

26. Dr. Bhullar testified he asked whether Mr. D. (P.)’s girlfriend was aware of the nature of the charges he was facing while in the forensic system. Mr. D. (P.) replied that she and her family were of the belief that the charges related to aggravated assault and not sexual assault, since that disclosure would demean him.

27. The Hospital Report notes that when interviewed, Mr. D. (P.) was calm and superficially cooperative. His affect was euthymic although superficial. There was no overt evidence of psychosis. With respect to historical substance abuse, Mr. D. (P.) denied that the use of alcohol or drugs was ever a problem.

Analysis and Findings:

28. A psychological risk assessment was completed on March 6, 2026, to assist in determining whether Mr. D. (P.) poses a significant threat to the safety of the public.

29. The Supreme Court of Canada in Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625 (“Winko), held that a significant threat to the safety of the public must be: more than speculative in nature and supported by the evidence; significant, in the sense of being a “real risk of physical or psychological harm to members of the public that is serious in the sense of being beyond the merely trivial or annoying”; and the conduct giving rise to the harm must be criminal in nature. Further, the Court stated that there must be a positive finding of significant threat to the safety of the public in order to support restrictions on an accused’s liberty. Anything else, for example uncertainty, cannot suffice.

30. The Court also stated that in coming to a conclusion on the issue of significant threat, 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 accused’s mental condition, and the accused’s own plans for the future, the support services existing for the accused in the community, and the recommendations provided by experts who have examined the accused.

31. The panel finds for the following reasons that Mr. D. (P.) lacks insight into his mental illness, lacks insight into his need for treatment, and lacks insight into the gravity of the index offences, which render him a significant threat to the safety of the public.

32. Mr. D. (P.)’s risk of violence arises from the diagnoses of Schizophrenia, Polysubstance Use Disorder, and Antisocial Personality Disorder. The Hospital Report provides a risk assessment. Using the Psychopathy Checklist Revised (PCL-R) Mr. D. (P.) received a score of 34 out of 40. As noted in the Hospital Report at pg. 29:

“...this score corresponds to the 99^th percentile compared to North American male forensic patients and falls in the Very High range. His score exceeded the cut-off score of 30 which is commonly used to identify psychopathy and indicated a significant presence of psychopathy personality features. These results suggest that psychopathic personality features contribute to Mr. D. (P.)’s risk of future violence.”

33. During his clinical assessment, Mr. D. (P.) exhibited little or no insight into the gravity of his mental health illness and categorically denied the same. At pg. 30, the Hospital Report notes:

“… there is clear evidence for problems with insight, and this is considered relevant to Mr. D. (P.)’s risk for violence. During the clinical interview, Mr. D. (P.) was transparent regarding his disagreement with the diagnosis of schizophrenia and antisocial personality disorder and disclosed that he ‘faked his symptoms’ to avoid criminal responsibility ” in the commission of the index offences.

34. The panel further finds that Mr. D. (P.) lacks insight into the need for treatment. As set out in the Hospital Report at pg. 33:

[Mr. D. (P.)’s] insight into the need of treatment is limited. Mr. D. (P.) disclosed he will not take medication unless he is mandated to do so as he does not believe he has a mental illness. He further denied a need for future programming to address risk factors stating he has everything he needs to manage himself in the community. In the recent past, Mr. D. (P.) has attended recommended programming; however, a review of his chart highlights that participation appeared superficial with limited engagement in interventions most relevant to his risk factors. (Hospital Report pg. 30)

35. Mr. D. (P.) also lacks insight into the gravity of the index offences. He has an extensive history of violence-related criminal convictions (i.e. assault, uttering threats). The two index sexual assault offences are opportunistic and directly related to violence. However, during the clinical interview Mr. D. (P.);

“...minimized the index offences and provided implausible explanations for his actions (i.e. referencing beliefs that the victim was sent by his Parole Officer thus increasing the likelihood she would want to be kissed), denying the victim’s fear, and denying involvement in the second offence altogether.” (Hospital Report pg.32).

36. Mr. D. (P.) also has

“… a significant history of relationship conflict, including reported intimate partner violence. Notably he denied this during the clinical interview and shared that the records are inaccurate” (Hospital Report pg. 30).

37. As previously reviewed, Mr. D. (P.) denied that the use of alcohol or drugs was ever a problem with him. This does not accord with the substance abuse history and its adverse effect as set out at pg. 30 of the Hospital Report:

“[Mr. D. (P.)] has a significant substance abuse history which has historically been related to disinhibition, impulsiveness, antagonism, and altered mental status. Moreover, when unwell, psychotic symptoms have been noted, particularly in the context of symptom exacerbation amidst substance abuse. Mr. D. (P.) is diagnosed with a major mental illness (i.e. Schizophrenia) and decompensation of his mental health has contributed to previous incidents of violence

38. The Hospital Report acknowledges that Mr. D. (P.)’s recent transition to community living in January 2026 has been reasonably successful and raised no major issues. However, the Report also notes that;

“Although [Mr. D. (P.) is] superficially pleasant, overt aggression may be suppressed in the current environment due to expected consequences (i.e., a return to hospital). Furthermore, Mr. D. (P.)’s personality traits and entrenched attitudes remain unaddressed and may have greater impact on his…

Risk for violence as supervision is reduced”. (Hospital Report pg. 31).

“Overall, absent the structure and supervision afforded by ORB Disposition, Mr. D. (P.) would likely discontinue his medication and lose contact with psychiatric care providers. He is also likely to resume substance abuse, such as crystal methamphetamine. Within a relatively short order, he would become psychotic and disinhibited. Thus, there remains a real risk of serious

physical and/or psychological harm to the members of the public, absent a Disposition. (Hospital Report pg. 34)

Conclusion:

39. Mr. D. (P.) has been diagnosed with Schizophrenia, Polysubstance use Disorder, and Antisocial Personality Disorder.

40. Having considered the entirety of the evidence and the applicable law, the panel unanimously agrees with the joint submission of counsel, and the recommendation of the hospital, that Mr. D. (P.) remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.

41. The panel further finds on all the evidence, the necessary and appropriate, least restrictive, and least onerous, Disposition in the circumstances, is a continuation of the present Detention Order, with the included term providing for community living.

DATED this 12^th day of May 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

Alexander Sosna Legal Member

Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board