Re: Mark McKinnon
ORB File No: 7958
Hearing held on: Tuesday, March 31, 2026
Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Weinstein
Members: Dr. S. Lessard Dr. M. Green Hon. C. Nelson Mr. J. Cyr (via Zoom)
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Mark McKinnon Counsel: Mr. A. Pollard (via Zoom)
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. M. Warner
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. D. Brandes
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated May 11, 2026)
Introduction
On October 14, 2021, Mr. Mark McKinnon was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on charges of criminal harassment, failure to comply with probation order, and failure to appear, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (the “Criminal Code”).
Mr. McKinnon is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB” or the "Board") dated April 14, 2025, detaining him on the Forensic Service at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (“CAMH” or the “hospital”) with privileges up to and including living in the community in supervised accommodation, and approved by the person in charge of the hospital.
On March 31, 2026, a panel of the Board convened at CAMH to hold a hearing to review Mr. McKinnon’s Disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. McKinnon was not in attendance at the hearing but was represented by his counsel, Mr. Pollard. Mr. Pollard advised that he had received instructions and was prepared to proceed in his client’s absence. At counsel’s request and there being no disagreement, the Board agreed to excuse Mr. McKinnon from attending the hearing under s. 672.5(10) of the Criminal Code.
The issues to be determined at this time were whether Mr. McKinnon meets the threshold of significant threat and, if so, the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances 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, the Board finds that Mr. McKinnon continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that his existing Detention Order remains the necessary and appropriate Disposition with one change to its terms.
Initial Positions
At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as to their initial positions. The hospital’s representative indicated the hospital was seeking a continuation of the existing Detention Order with the deletion of “supervised” in paragraph 2(g) of the current Disposition.
Counsel for the Attorney General supported the hospital’s recommendation.
Mr. Pollard stated that he agreed with the hospital’s position. The matter proceeded as a joint submission.
In closing submissions, the parties maintained their initial positions.
Index Offences
- The circumstances of the index offences involved persistent and escalating harassment over almost three years after the victim had terminated a nine-month relationship with Mr. McKinnon. The particulars of same are set out in detail in the Hospital Report dated March 11, 2026 (the “Hospital Report”) but are summarized as set out in last year’s ORB Reasons, as follows:
“The index offences occurred in the context of a former relationship and almost three years of unwanted communications directed at the victim by Mr. McKinnon. After a nine month relationship with SG that ended in September 2017, Mr. McKinnon persisted in contacting her after he: (a) was warned by the police to stop, (b) he was charged with criminal harassment and signed an undertaking not to have contact with her, (c) he was charged and released again, (d) he completed counseling and entered into a peace bond including a condition that he have no contact with SG, (d) he was again charged for repeatedly contacting her and was released on bail with a no contact term, and (e) he pleaded guilty to criminal harassment and fail to comply with the peace bond and was placed on probation for three years (including a term to have no contact with SG) in September 2019.
After his convictions in September 2019, Mr. McKinnon continued to email SG. At times, she received six or seven a day. She decided not to report them to the police – she thought maybe that was the attention Mr. McKinnon was seeking. By this time, SG was using a new email address but she kept the previous one and could check for messages from Mr. McKinnon. Often the emails were sent from unknown email addresses but followed a format and style that made them identifiable.
Leading up to June 2020, SG began to receive “up to 100 emails a day” and they became “more weird and malicious”, and made SG increasingly fearful. One email stated: “you are dead yesterday.” On June 12, 2020, SG and her mother noticed someone standing just outside their backyard gate. SG checked her phone and found emails from Mr. McKinnon telling her that he was waiting outside her home and asking her to come outside. When a car drove by the house, SG was able to see by the lights that the figure outside was Mr. McKinnon. SG’s mother called the police. When police arrived, Mr. McKinnon referred to himself as God and “King, God.” He was charged with criminal harassment (x2), breaching his probation (x2) and threatening. He was released on a recognizance on June 16, 2020.
The index offences themselves, occurred on June 17, 2020. Almost immediately upon his release from jail, Mr. McKinnon began to email SG again. He sent 12 emails and was found by police in a park near her home.
Mr. McKinnon later explained that just before these June events, he began to hear SG’s voice in his head. They were conversing and she was inviting him in. He believed she was experiencing a “psychic breakdown” and needed his help. He realized that both he and SG had “exalted supernatural status,” had been chosen by God and he needed to make sure she understood this. Before contacting her, he asked for a sign from God and he received a clear one in the form of a bird.”
Personal History
The Hospital Report outlines in detail Mr. McKinnon’s personal background, legal and psychiatric history, but need not be repeated here as it was entered as an Exhibit at the hearing. Additionally, the previous Board’s Reasons for Disposition dated May 2, 2024, also summarize Mr. McKinnon’s history and his circumstances and we rely thereon in these Reasons.
In brief, Mr. McKinnon is a 32-year-old man. He was born and raised in Peterborough and has one brother. His father suffered a brain injury that caused him to have “fits of rage” that strained that relationship. Mr. McKinnon reported positive relationships with his mother and brother.
Mr. McKinnon completed high school and one year of university before choosing to pursue music.
Mr. McKinnon began using cannabis in high school and reported using it a couple of times a week. He was inconsistent in his reports of alcohol use but acknowledged that he had at one time been drinking excessively and decided to stop.
Mr. McKinnon had a variety of jobs, including operating machinery, labour and restaurant work, that he balanced with his music pursuits. His goal was to be able to support himself through his music.
Mr. McKinnon had had two significant relationships, one of five years in duration that preceded his relationship with S.G. (the victim of the index offences). Mr. McKinnon described himself as “devastated” when his relationship with S.G. ended.
Leading up to the index offence, Mr. McKinnon was living in his own apartment. His mother saw a significant change in his mental health during the pandemic. He was depressed. It was her impression he was drinking and using cannabis daily. His friends reported that he spoke of rekindling his love for someone.
Legal History
- He had no criminal history prior to his involvement in the index offences.
Psychiatric History
- Mr. McKinnon had a limited psychiatric history prior to the index offences. He reported experiencing depression and once saw a psychiatrist who prescribed anti-depressant medication. After a short trial, he stopped taking the medication because he felt that it dulled his creative process. After SG ended the relationship in 2017, he attended a hospital emergency department in April 2018, after experiencing suicidal thoughts. He had been using cannabis for a few days, and he acknowledged that it put him in a “bad state of mind.” He was treated, prescribed an anti-depressant, and discharged the next day.
Current Diagnosis
- Mr. McKinnon is diagnosed as suffering from Bipolar I Disorder.
Evidence at the Hearing
The evidence at the hearing was given by Dr. R. McMaster, Mr. McKinnon’s outpatient psychiatrist and author of the Hospital Report dated March 11, 2026 (Exhibit 1). Dr. McMaster became Mr. McKinnon’s psychiatrist when Mr. McKinnon was discharged to housing on August 25, 2025. Mr. McKinnon is living in TRHP-2 housing which is a transitional housing program providing supervision through medication, monitoring, curfew, urine drug screen collection, case management and programming.
There have been no significant updates since the preparation of the Hospital Report, other than Mr. McKinnon expressing some confusion around his Disposition relating to the fact that he cannot simply be transferred to Peterborough, as he wishes, until there is a plan in place to effect such a transfer. He has expressed an interest in a transfer but has not been willing or has been unable to discuss a concrete plan with the hospital. The housing he is living in now is transitional, and the time for a move to more permanent housing is typically 12 to 18 months.
The discussions with Mr. McKinnon about a transfer to more permanent housing have been challenging as there has been no collaboration with people in the area he wants to move to, including Mr. McKinnon’s mother, to assist in the planning. He has expressed an interest in moving to Peterborough but is very vague and guarded when discussing plans with the team.
There have been some discussions around moving to TRHP-1 housing as it offers more independence and Mr. McKinnon does well in terms of independent living, but he has told the team that he does not want to move there. One of the reasons may be that TRHP-1 is located in the west end of the city and is closer to Etobicoke where the victim of the index offence still resides.
Dr. McMaster does not think that an impasse has been reached, but does feel that Mr. McKinnon’s tenure under the Board has been prolonged because of his lack of engagement with the team on the housing issue. The idea of an apartment in Toronto has been raised but the team is unsure where he would like to move.
One of the goals of the team is to work collaboratively with Mr. McKinnon towards new permanent housing. The current Disposition gives the hospital the tools it needs to work together with Mr. McKinnon on this issue in the upcoming year. The recommendation is to remove the term “supervised” in his current Disposition as he has demonstrated that he is able to live independently, but the team still requires the ability to approve his housing. This is especially so as there still remain concerns about changes in his mental state. It is Dr. McMaster’s opinion that a Detention Order is necessary and appropriate and the least onerous and least restrictive Disposition available in order to protect the public.
In answer to questions from counsel for the Attorney General, Dr. McMaster stated that Mr. McKinnon is a complex individual and that there are features of his personality that tend to minimize fallibility. He remains guarded and vague. Dr. McMaster suspects that there might be an underlying psychotic disorder in addition to a diagnosis of bipolar disorder. Mr. McKinnon is an intelligent individual, but he is not incorporating what is needed in order to help him move forward. For instance, he is of the opinion that he could simply ask for a Conditional Discharge and move to Peterborough without much planning or discussion. On a positive note, he does seem to be showing a better understanding of the planning that is required.
In answer to questions from Mr. Pollard, Dr. McMaster discussed the possibility of rapid decompensation and mood change stressors. He pointed out that, in a highly structured environment, Mr. McKinnon does not have issues with substances or other de-stabilizing influences. When asked about insight, he also stated that Mr. McKinnon believes there were proper moral reasons that caused him to do what he did around the time of the index offences and that the actual offences were nuanced in that he was trying to save the victim because she wanted to be saved. Mr. McKinnon still carries some vague beliefs about “signs” he had at the time of the index offences, about some people thinking he was God, including the police officers who arrested him. To Dr. McMaster, this demonstrates potential psychosis. Dr. McMaster, however, points out that Mr. McKinnon has good insight into the fact that the victim does not want any contact with him. Figuring out Mr. McKinnon’s housing is the main issue that the team is working on with him. A reality-based plan is the goal. Engagement with the team about this issue is necessary.
In answer to a question from a panel member about motivation, Dr. McMaster stated that Mr. McKinnon has difficulty following through with things. He talks wistfully about his writing but has not shown the team any sort of writing. He talks about returning to his band in Peterborough but has not spoken to a band member for four years. There is a lot of inconsistency in terms of achieving realistic goals.
In answer to further questions from a panel member, Dr. McMaster stated that Mr. McKinnon is not willing to receive psychotherapeutic assistance through FORCAT to address concerns raised by the team, especially with regards to his cognitive rigidity. Having said that, Mr. McKinnon is described as pleasant and not hostile with the team. Dr. McMaster has consulted with Dr. O'Sullivan, Mr. McKinnon’s previous inpatient psychiatrist, and both are under the impression that Mr. McKinnon has a primary psychiatric disorder that does not fit neatly into what is generally seen with a schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. Mr. McKinnon is a complex individual which presents a challenge for the team. While he has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, there are subtleties to his illness that raise a lot of unknowns. Further psychological testing might help.
In response to a question from a panel member about Mr. McKinnon’s refusal to take mood stabilization medications, Dr. McMaster said it is unclear to him whether Mr. McKinnon (who is capable of consenting to treatment) appreciates or understands the risks or benefits of taking this type of medication with antipsychotic medication.
In answer to further questions about last year’s Reasons for Disposition, Dr. McMaster stated that the findings set out in paragraphs 29, 34, 36 and 40 are still true. These findings in short are as follows:
(a) Mr. McKinnon lacks insight into the fact that his mental illness is chronic in nature.
(b) Mr. McKinnon still represents a significant risk to the safety of the public because he:
(i) has a major mental illness;
(ii) has a history of criminal offending;
(iii) has limited insight across all domains, particularly with regard to the impact of his past behaviour on the victim;
(iv) refuses to take recommended mood stabilization medication;
(v) remains vulnerable to substances;
(vi) is superficially engaged with his forensic team; and
(vii) has a history of supervision difficulties.
(c) In assessing risk, it is the team’s opinion that Mr. McKinnon is a low risk for violence under a Detention Order but moderate to high, under either a Conditional Discharge or Absolute Discharge.
(d) Although Mr. McKinnon has had a stable year, his stability must be seen in the context of living in a highly structured and supervised environment. Going forward, Mr. McKinnon will require ongoing and close monitoring by housing staff and an outpatient team to ensure that he will not reach out to the victim of the index offences.
(e) The team is hopeful that Mr. McKinnon will continue to engage in structured activities and skills to mitigate the destabilization. The Mental Health Act is inadequate to promptly admit Mr. McKinnon to the hospital should he begin to decompensate.
- There was no further evidence called.
Analysis and Conclusion
Having heard the evidence, the Board agrees with the joint submission of the parties. Mr. McKinnon remains a significant threat to the safety of the public. He continues to suffer from bipolar I disorder and a possible primary psychotic illness that does not fit neatly with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. He tends to minimize his symptoms.
His insight into his illness and the need for medication when coupled with his risk profile and past behaviour still causes the Board concern. While he is to be commended for having had a stable year, this must be seen in the context of a highly supervised and structured environment where he has limited access to substances and stressors are minimal.
As far as fashioning an order is concerned, the Board also agrees with the parties’ joint submission that the necessary and appropriate and least onerous and least restrictive order remains a Detention Order on the same terms as last year’s Detention Order with the removal of the term “supervised” in paragraph 2(g) of the Detention Order. The Board also finds that the provisions of the Mental Health Act are not sufficient to effectively manage risk in the event Mr. McKinnon should begin to decompensate. As well, the hospital requires the need to approve Mr. McKinnon’s housing. As a result, a Conditional Discharge is not an appropriate Disposition.
The Board wishes Mr. McKinnon a positive year in his ongoing recovery.
In reaching our decision, we have taken into consideration the criteria set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, which are the safety of the public, which is the paramount consideration, Mr. McKinnon’s mental condition, his reintegration into society and his other needs.
DATED this 11th day of May, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Hon. C. Nelson
Legal Member
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board