Re: S. (D.)
ORB File No: 8125
Hearing held on: Thursday, March 5, 2026
Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction & Mental Health
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. C. Flanagan
Members: Dr. B. Sheppard
Dr. G. Nexhipi
Mr. D. Sandor
Mr. W. Apted
Parties Appearing:
Accused: S. (D.)
Counsel: Mr. M. Schloss
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. M. Warner
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. S. Malik
*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
On August 8, 2022, S. (D.) was found not criminally responsible by way of mental defect on charges of sexual assault, forcible confinement, and failure to comply with probation. He is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, dated March 14, 2025, detaining him at the Forensic Service of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, (hereinafter referred to as “the Hospital”) with privileges up to and including that of living in the community of the Greater Toronto Area in accommodation approved by the person in charge. That disposition also imposes several conditions on S. (D.), including that of abstaining from the non-medical use of alcohol, drugs, or any intoxicants and that of submitting samples for the purpose of monitoring his compliance with the abstention condition.
On March 5, 2026, the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing at the Hospital for the purpose of reviewing that disposition. S. (D.) was in attendance with his lawyer, Mr. M. Schloss. S. (D.)’s parents were in attendance, and Mr. Schloss was assisted by a Slovakian-language interpreter who provided consecutive translation for S. (D.) and his parents throughout the hearing.
The record for the hearing included the Notice of Hearing, dated June 19, 2025, the most recent Disposition, dated March 14, 2025, and the Reasons for that Disposition dated April 10, 2025. On the consent of all parties a Hospital Report, dated January 29, 2026, (though not served on counsel for S. (D.) until the week prior to the hearing) was entered into evidence as exhibit 1. Over the course of the hearing, an updated criminal record was admitted into evidence as exhibit 2.
The parties were canvassed for initial positions. Counsel for the Hospital expressed the position that S. (D.) continued to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public as that term is defined in section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and as it has been further explained by the Supreme Court of Canada in Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625. She also took the position that a detention order was necessary and appropriate having regard to the objectives set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code, the primary of which is the assurance of the safety of the public. The representative of the Attorney General was ad idem with the Hospital.
Counsel for S. (D.) conceded the threshold issue of significant threat but indicated the position that a conditional discharge and not a detention disposition was necessary and appropriate having regard to the s. 672.54 objectives.
For the following reasons, the panel agrees that S. (D.) continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and has concluded that it is necessary and appropriate to subject S. (D.) to a detention disposition at this time. In coming to this conclusion, the Board acknowledges that S. (D.) has made positive progress, particularly over the course of the last 7 months. It is our view nonetheless that a conditional discharge is premature. As will be explained below, S. (D.)’s progress has taken place in a unique, highly controlled all-male setting without opportunity to test his insight and coping mechanisms by way of progressive passes into the community. The assurance of the safety of the public being the Board’s primary objective, it is our conclusion that, at this time, a detention disposition is necessary to manage S. (D.)’s risk of decompensation and return to serious criminality that would cause significant physical and psychological harm to the public.
Evidence at the Hearing
The evidence for the hearing came from the exhibits mentioned and the viva voce evidence offered by Dr. S. Woodside, S. (D.)’s treating psychiatrist.
The Hospital Report (Exhibit 1) is cumulative in nature and includes significant details as to S. (D.)’s background and progress since coming under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board. It includes a summary of the index offences, as included in previous Reasons for Disposition.
Sexual Assault & Forcible Confinement Charges :
On Sunday July 18th, 2021, the victim arrived at T[…] Drive, in the City of Toronto. The accused was already loitering in the vestibule of the lobby. The victim and the accused entered the lobby and made their way into an elevator. The elevator arrived on the 7^th^ floor, and another tenant exited the elevator, leaving the accused and victim alone. As soon as the elevator door closed, the accused, who was standing facing the complainant, pulled out his un-erect penis above his waist band and began shaking it and stroking it closer to the complainant, who moved around the elevator in an attempt to gain distance. The complainant pointed out a security camera to the accused, which did not deter him.
The elevator door opened on the 17^th^ floor and the complainant attempted to exit, only to be prevented from doing so. It was at this point the accused forcibly pushed her against the wall and grabbed her left breast on top of her clothing. The complainant attempted to fight off the accused, who continually had his penis out and visible. As the elevator doors opened on the 18^th^ floor, the complainant was able to fight off the accused and exited the elevator. The accused stayed on the elevator and eventually made his way to the lobby and fled the building on foot, making good his escape.
By committing the above offence of Sexual Assault and Forcible Confinement, the accused is in willful noncompliance of his Order of Probation. The incident was captured on video surveillance. The accused was identified through Police who know the accused. An immediate search commenced for the accused. After fruitless efforts, a warrant was sought.
On Monday July 19^th^, 2021, uniform officers from the 53^rd^ Division attended the residence of the accused’s mother. The accused was located inside and arrested without incident. The accused is on conditions not to be found at the mother’s address. He was arrested and transported to No. 53 Division, where he was charged accordingly and held pending a show-cause hearing.
Failure to Comply charge:
On Monday July 19^th^, 2021, uniform officers from 53 Division, were detailed to search for and locate the accused, who was wanted in relation to a sexual assault. Occurrence (21-1348725), from the day before, July 18^th^, 2021. At approximately 11:00 AM, officers attended the home address of the accused’s mother, D[…] Road, Toronto. This is an address the accused is prohibited from attending, both from his Order of Probation and Release Order. Officers located the accused inside and he was arrested without incident. He was read his rights to counsel and transported to No. 53 Division, where he was charged accordingly and held pending a show-cause hearing. By being found at D[…] Road, the accused is in willful noncompliance with his Probation and Release Order.
- According to the Hospital Report, S. (D.) is now 30 years old. He is currently diagnosed with:
Schizophrenia, rule out Schizoaffective Disorder, bipolar type;
Polysubstance use disorder, severe (amphetamine-type, cannabis);
Intellectual Disability (Mild).
S. (D.) continues to be capable of managing his financial affairs and of making treatment decisions. He has been under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board for over 4 years.
S. (D.)’s first psychiatric admission took place in 2016 when he was assessed for fitness to stand trial on a sexual assault charge. In the period leading to the commission of the index offences associated with this hearing, he engaged in many incidents of sexually inappropriate behaviour including masturbating in public and loitering at pools where he would leer at young females. On the sexual assault charge for which he was assessed for fitness, he was eventually found fit to stand trial after being subject to a treatment order with antipsychotic medication. He incurred further criminal charges and was admitted to the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care in 2018. He has now been the subject of multiple treatment orders. His criminal record, including the update which filed as an exhibit in this hearing, includes several convictions for offences associated with the administration of justice and a conviction for an indecent act in 2020 and an assault in 2022. He has a history of sexually inappropriate behaviour, aggression, and damage to property.
S. (D.)’s history of struggle with substances when not in a highly secure forensic environment is concerning. He was using substances actively at the time of the commission of the index offences and substance use presents itself contextually throughout his history of struggles in and out of the forensic psychiatric system. S. (D.) used alcohol as a teenager and engaged in daily use of stimulant drugs, including cocaine and crystal methamphetamine from 2017 to 2021. He has reported that he used cannabis daily while in the community.
At the time of the last hearing, S. (D.) continued to manifest the symptoms of his major mental illness. He exhibited auditory hallucinations, behavioural instability and aggressivity that included assaultive behaviour. He was at level 4 privileges and needed to do significant work to satisfy the treatment team that even indirectly supervised passes into the community would be appropriate.
To his credit, the Hospital Report indicates that S. (D.) has made progress over the course of this most recent reporting period. He engaged in individual sessions of dialect behavioral therapy and attended a number of groups appropriately. He at times was able to identify his need to go into seclusion as a comfort measure when feeling upset. He engaged in one-on-one counselling regarding intimacy and healthy relationships. He engaged with English as a Second Language and agreed to increases in antipsychotic medications as recommended. He maintained close contact with his mother and father and received increases in his pass privileges leading up to this hearing. He became able to express some insight associated with the influence of substances on the commission of the index offences, admitting to the use of crystal methamphetamine at the time. He increased in his insight into the fact that he suffers from a major mental illness.
S. (D.) has been somewhat forthcoming when directly cued with regard to observed symptoms of his psychosis. He has acknowledged hearing the voice of an unknown woman 20 times per day. He has indicated that, compared to a year ago, he now hears this voice more frequently. His insight into his need for medications is continuing to develop. He has described a need for treatment not because without it he would pose a risk to the safety of the public, but because he needs it to “get a job and a girlfriend” and be “normal like other people.” These factors led Dr. Woodside, S. (D.)’s treating psychiatrist to testify that S. (D.)’s insight was “limited.”
Dr. Woodside expressed concern at the fact that S. (D.) does not associate his need for treatment with the mitigation of the significant risk his major mental illness poses to the safety of the public, including neighbours to his main supports, being his parents. Dr. Woodside noted that the index offences involved an individual that resided in S. (D.)’s mother’s apartment and agreed with a suggestion from the representative of the Attorney General that S. (D.)’s mother had failed to proactively contact the police when S. (D.) subsequently attended that building. While the mother may not have had a legal duty to do so, Dr. Woodside agreed with the suggestion that the family required support and education to increase their understanding into the risk S. (D.) poses to the safety of the public and those proactive measures and that level of cooperation required to mitigate that risk as he continues to reintegrate into the community.
The Hospital Report indicates that S. (D.) has attributed some of his progress to the unit he was transferred to following several incidents of aggressivity as well as an incident where he was the victim of an on-unit assault himself. Dr. Woodside agreed with S. (D.) in this regard. He noted that he had actually anticipated more challenges with S. (D.) than he had seen. Dr. Woodside testified that S. (D.) has been participating well and seemed well-suited to his current environment. He is involved in one-on-one therapy and is engaging in recreational groups. In the Hospital’s highly secure environment, S. (D.) has been abstaining from the use of substances.
The Hospital Report includes a Clinical Risk Assessment utilizing two instruments commonly accepted in the general forensic community for the assessing of risk of those that are subject to Board dispositions – the HCR 20, V3, the SAPROF, and the Static 99R (an empirically validated actuarial measure designed to estimate relative risk for sexual offence recidivism). The propriety, employment and sufficiency of these instruments was not questioned over the course of this hearing. In its conclusion, S. (D.) rated “Well Above Average Riks” for being charged with or convicted of another sexual offence. He tested in the “High” range for presence of psychopathic traits. The Risk Assessment outlines clinical and risk management factors that inform S. (D.)’s re-offence scenario:
If S. (D.) were to reoffend, it would likely be in the context of medication non-compliance and/or substance use. He has not maintained full compliance with medication [or sustained abstinence from the use of substances] outside of the hospital setting. In the absence of external monitoring, he will likely disengage with services, use substances, and become non-compliant with medication, which will increase his risk of relapsing into a psychotic episode similar to his mental state at the time of the index offence. He would be at risk of engaging in further sexual or violent behaviours [emphasis added].
This summary though leads to the question “can S. (D.) be adequately monitored at this time, with the progress he has made, in a community setting, living with his parents, or pursuant to a conditional discharge that includes increased reporting conditions, residence conditions and treatment clauses (if made on consent)?”
The Hospital Report suggest that this would be premature. It notes the lack of testing of S. (D.) in the community, the fact that he has not been exposed to the stresses associated with reintegration, and the fact that a high level of monitoring would be required even though S. (D.)’s mother has now been designated an approved person for the purpose of the exercise of S. (D.)’s pass privileges. It notes the need to build alliances between S. (D.) and allied health supports and the fact that S. (D.) continues to experience auditory hallucinations and periods of affective and behavioural instability. While he has made progress on his current all-male unit, his aggressivity and unpredictability where previously detained suggests the need for prudence when advancing towards community reintegration that, but its very nature, exposes S. (D.) to greater aggravators of risk than any Hospital environment.
Dr. Woodside’s testimony bolstered the observations outlined in the Hospital Report. Contextually in terms of reintegration factors, Dr. Woodside explained that there is uncertainty both in terms of S. (D.)’s immigration status and in the amount of undistracted, unified support S. (D.)’s parents are able to offer him. S. (D.)’s father and mother do not live together and for an unexplained reason, S. (D.)’s father has been limited in his liberty to have contact with the mother. The family is anxious to have S. (D.) return home and sees home as the best option for him. S. (D.)’s mother declared this in an emotional outburst over the course of the hearing.
While one cannot fault her for what was a manifestation of loving concern fueled by the heartsickness associated with deferred hopes of her son’s return, the outburst served to support the Hospital’s position that more work had to be done prior to considering a placement in the community. As Dr. Woodside testified, it must be determined whether the victim of the index offence continues to live in the same apartment building as the mother. An assessment by the Sexual Behaviour Clinic would be helpful to instruct community supports and inform measures needed to mitigate the significant risk of harm that Mr. Woodside continues to represent to the safety of the public. S. (D.)’s family’s insight into his symptoms and that risk needs to be improved. Standard but purposeful protocols such as the treatment team’s visits to the mother’s home and testing of S. (D.)’s ability to comply with the Board disposition over the course of prudently increasing liberties when visiting that home need to take place. This is a purposeful process that requires the patient plodding of both S. (D.) and his parents.
Dr. Woodside expressed hope that S. (D.) will continue to progress to increasing levels of community reintegration over the course of this next reporting period. He highlighted that while S. (D.)’s insight is partial, he is fairly stable notwithstanding residual symptoms of his major mental illness. He is functioning well on the unit. His symptoms are not treatment-resistant, they are just residual. When considering the key question in all Board hearings that the evidence must answer – “Why not a conditional discharge with strict terms as noted above?” – Dr. Woodside described the following factors:
S. (D.) has not been tested in the community (a necessity when one considers again the difficulties he had in Hospital prior to being transferred to his current unit).
S. (D.)’s ability to manage community stressors exacerbated by residual symptoms and limited insight has yet to be tested.
S. (D.)’s family’s insight needs to be strengthened. While the Hospital could communicate expectations of the family in the context of a conditional discharge, this would not be adequate to manage either S. (D.)’s apparent or his untested risk to the safety of the public.
S. (D.) requires high intensity support and supervision at this time that could not be provided under the auspices of a conditional discharge.
Dr. Woodside testified that it simply would not be possible at this stage to address risk management factors uninformed by observed gradual privilege extension in the context of a conditional discharge. He noted that S. (D.) has not undergone phallometric testing. To some extent, Dr. Woodside minimized the need for such testing, reasoning that its greatest value is in documenting inappropriate age preference. He suggested that S. (D.)’s testing is related to testing for a coercive preference. He reasoned that phallometric testing may be helpful in answering the question as to whether there is paraphilia present, a positive test for preference is not related to increased risk.
The Board is not convinced. There is evidence that S. (D.)’s major mental illness has found its expression in loitering and leering at young women of undefined ages around public pools. The process of community reintegration will necessarily expose S. (D.) to a variety of settings where children and teens as members of the public will be present. Housing considerations may need to include geographic and environmental settings that limit S. (D.)’s unsupervised exposure to children in a variety of settings. It is difficult for the Board to conclude at this time that the Hospital could satisfy its statutory obligation to ensure the safety of the public in the absence of phallometric testing on this evidence. While there may be systemic reasons associated with this insufficiency in the prognostic evaluation of the risk S. (D.) poses to the safety of the public, the Board would expect that the Hospital would undertake all efforts required to help S. (D.) undergo that testing.
Submissions
At the end of the hearing, the parties renewed their submissions as set out at the beginning. All agreed that S. (D.) continued to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public as that term is defined in section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and as it has been explained in Winko. But whereas counsel for the Hospital and the representative from the Office of the Crown Attorney for the Attorney General took the position that the objectives set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code warranted the continuation of S. (D.)’s detention disposition, S. (D.)’s lawyer argued that a conditional discharge was necessary and appropriate.
In their submissions, the Hospital and the Attorney General highlighted the primary objective of assuring the safety of the public. They argued that a conditional discharge was premature. S. (D.) has had significant difficulties while under the jurisdiction of the Board. Those difficulties persisted until he was transferred to his current all-male unit at the Hospital. While he has progressed in his passes, he has not yet been tested in the community. They pointed to residual symptoms, inadequate insight and to the conclusions of the Hospital’s risk assessment to support their argument that S. (D.) required an elevated level of support by professional staff to oversee his risk to the public and to manage his clinical needs. They addressed the other objectives laid out in s. 672.54 and the principle of minimal intrusion commensurate with the obligation to assure the safety of the public. They pointed to the Hospital’s ongoing involvement with S. (D.)’s family, the approval of his mother as an alternate for the purpose of supervising S. (D.) in the community, and the Hospital’s plans to follow through with purposeful protocols associated with educating his family and investigating the home environment to ensure that eventual reintegration plans bear an informed predictability of success.
The Attorney General notably argued that S. (D.) is experiencing more prevalent auditory hallucinations than he has in the past. It was argued that he needs supportive or DSO housing to manage his risk in the case of decompensation in the community. The Attorney General placed S. (D.)’s recent progress in the context of a long history of major mental illness, substance use and criminal activity that includes sexual offences.
Counsel for S. (D.) argued that a conditional discharge incorporating a treatment condition (which he indicated his client would consent to), a Young clause requiring S. (D.) to attend and remain at the Hospital when required to do so by the person-in-charge and a clause that he reside with his parents was the disposition most appropriate having regard to both the 672.54 objectives and the principle of minimal intrusion. He noted that there was no update as to whether the victim of the index offence continued to live in the same apartment building as was proposed for S. (D.)’s residence and pointed to the fact that S. (D.) has been generally well in the Hospital since June 2025. He argued that S. (D.)’s residual symptoms have not interfered with his ability to be in the community and to act appropriately on passes.
Counsel for S. (D.) addressed housing concerns that were raised in the evidence over the course of the hearing. Housing, appropriate for the risk that S. (D.) continues to represent, is difficult to procure, with lengthy waitlists posing a real likelihood of delay for S. (D.)’s reintegration. The question is whether his mother’s apartment and support, together with a Young clause and treatment provision is sufficient to manage a very apparent significant threat to the safety of the public. In the Board’s view, respectfully and for the reasons set out below, it cannot.
Analysis and Conclusion
Turning first to the threshold issue of significant threat, the Board benefitted from the joint submission on this issue. There is little doubt that S. (D.) continues to satisfy the test set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Winko. He suffers from a major mental illness, and a history of severe substance use that has repeatedly contributed to his commission of serious criminal offences. He lacks insight into his mental illness and the need for medications to manage the risk he poses to the community. While he has avoided substances while in the highly secure environment offered by the Hospital, his ability to abstain from all substances when confronted with increasing stresses and opportunities to use in the community must be tested. This is particularly the case given the prominent role his major mental illness and substance use played in index offences that were sexual in nature. The re-offence scenario set out in the Hospital Report is realistic and unchallenged. Absent a Board disposition there is a real likelihood that S. (D.) will return to substance use, experience a deterioration of his mental health, become noncompliant with treatment, and commit serious offences that will cause significant physical and psychological harm to members of the community.
Turning to the issue of disposition, the Board asked itself, “why is a conditional discharge,” with the strictures proposed by counsel for S. (D.) insufficient to assure the safety of the public, and how does the continuation of a detention disposition and the treatment plan set out by the Hospital for the forthcoming review period satisfy the principle of minimal intrusion on S. (D.)’s liberty interest?
It was proposed that, in terms of housing, S. (D.)’s mother’s home would be sufficient to satisfy the primary objective, if supported by strict conditions that include treatment clauses. The difficulty with this submission is that the evidence was clear that S. (D.) requires elevated levels of support and services that surpass what could be provided to him in that setting. His plan of return to his mother’s home has not ripened. She requires instruction and education, as does the rest of the family, to help her fully understand the risk her son poses to the safety of others and her need to recognize and report any initial signs of decompensation – a task not easily undertaken when her son is experiencing residual symptoms that include a recent increase in auditory hallucinations. Her home environment needs to be examined. Assurances must be made that no victims from the index offences reside in the same apartment building. This can be confirmed by the next hearing by the Hospital working together with the Attorney General.
The plan is also premature in that there are several variables that have yet to be determined, all of which impact on the process of reintegration and accommodation. As noted, the Board is not convinced that phallometric testing would not be informative and instructive in the formulation of a plan that places the safety of the public at its centre. S. (D.) has yet to be tested in terms of his ability to not act aggressively or sexually in the context of his major mental illness when in the community. He has done well in the last 7 months, but that progress has been in an all-male unit where female individuals stand in a position of authority over S. (D.) and receive a level of systemic and structural support that S. (D.)’s plan does not offer. Furthermore, substance use was a factor in the commission of the index offences. While S. (D.)’s period of sobriety is commendable, further time is needed for it to represent a mitigated concern, particularly on the backdrop of S. (D.)’s longstanding struggles in this regard.
Counsel for S. (D.) suggested that maintenance of the current disposition, which includes provisions associated with the ultimate objective of S. (D.)’s reintegration into the community, will lead to years of delay of discharge from the Hospital. This is something that will be monitored by future Boards in future hearings. Meanwhile it is notable that the Hospital’s treatment plan does not say “never with the parents” but rather indicates that this proposal is insufficient to assure public safety at this time. What needs to happen? In addition to clarifying the risk concerns inherent in S. (D.)’s history by way of further assessment, observation and testing in the community, S. (D.) needs to develop enhanced insight into the risk posed by his major mental illness and substance use. He must develop internally motivated insight regarding the need to abstain from the use of all substances. He needs to improve his insight into the protective role treatment plays for the benefit of the community; beyond the personal gains it may offer to S. (D.) himself. S. (D.) and his parents must be educated about his major mental illness, symptoms, signs of early decompensation and the triggers (yet to be ascertained) that have historically driven his sexual aggression. This insight must be tested, noting the family’s history of not reporting breach activities undertaken by S. (D.).
The development of community supports as reintegration into the community progresses is key. If S. (D.) were to reside at his home under a conditional discharge at this time, it would be necessary for the Hospital to have such a level of community and treatment team supports in place that his risk would be managed in a multi-gendered community setting to the level it has been managed in an all-male unit at the Hospital. This is not realistic. Reintegration into the community must be gradual in circumstances such as those presented in this case. It is notable that Dr. Woodside testified that S. (D.) requires “highly supportive housing.” He has not engaged in substance abuse programming and will require careful monitoring of both compliance with the ORB disposition and signs of decompensation. This is not a situation where S. (D.) is being detained as a substitute for scarce social supports. It is a situation where the appropriate supports must still be identified and engaged. It is a situation where S. (D.)’s history, even over this review period, involved aggression and violence while in the Hospital and where his sexual aggressivity and substance use has only been brought to bear in the controlled setting of an all-male unit at the Hospital. His supervision as the process of reintegration progresses must be continuous. His community supports must be strengthened and his discharge planning must be informed by assessment and testing under the confines of a detention disposition.
As a result, it is our conclusion that S. (D.) continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public as that term is defined in section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and as it has been explained by the Supreme Court of Canada in Winko. It is further our conclusion that a continuation of S. (D.)’s detention disposition is necessary and appropriate to satisfy the objectives set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
The Board thanks those who attended and participated in today’s hearing, expresses its appreciation to S. (D.)’s family for their ongoing and valuable support for their son, and encourages them and S. (D.) in the progress to be continued over the course of the next review period.
An order will issue accordingly.
DATED this 12^th^ day of May, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. D. Sandor
Legal Member
__________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board