Ontario Review Board
Re: Isaac Martin
ORB File No: 8455
Hearing held on: Monday, April 13, 2026
Place of hearing: Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. S. Kert
Members: Dr. S. Simpson Dr. S. Wiseman Ms. K. Tomaszewski Ms. C. Plyley
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Isaac Martin Counsel: Mr. S. Gehl
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Zamprogna
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. J. Huber
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated May 12, 2026)
Introduction
On January 9, 2024, Isaac Martin was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCR) on a charge of first-degree murder contrary to the Criminal Code. He is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the Board) dated April 14, 2025, ordering his detention at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care (the Hospital) with privileges up to and including living in the communities of Elgin and Middlesex Counties in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
On Monday April 13, 2026, the Board convened a hearing to review Mr. Martin’s disposition pursuant to section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. The issues to be determined at the hearing were whether Mr. Martin continued to constitute a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and, if so, to determine the necessary and appropriate disposition that was also the least onerous and least restrictive taking into account the factors set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
Counsel for the Hospital indicated that it was the Hospital’s position that Mr. Martin continued to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition was a continuation of the current detention order with the expansion of the geographic area to Southwestern Ontario for residence in accommodation approved by the person in charge; passes to include the addition of supervision by a “delegate agency/organization” approved by the person in charge; and the removal of the “submit samples” clause.
Counsel for the Hospital explained that the “submit samples” clause should be removed because Mr. Martin has no history of substance use. The purpose of the expansion of the geographic area for living in the community is to enable Mr. Martin to live with his Mennonite community.
Both counsel for the Attorney General and counsel for Mr. Martin supported the Hospital recommendation.
Evidence at the Hearing
- The evidence at the hearing consisted of the Hospital Report dated March 16, 2026, and the oral evidence of Dr. D. Curry, a psychiatric resident under the supervision of Dr. J. Quinn, Mr. Martin’s treating psychiatrist.
Findings
- For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that Mr. Martin continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a continuation of the current detention order with the changes to the terms jointly recommended by the parties.
Index Offence
- The circumstances surrounding the index offence are as summarized as follows:
On September 18, 2021, Mr. Martin was in the family home with his wife and their infant son. He told his wife that he wanted to take their son outside, so she gave him some cookies to give their son in case he became fussy while they were outside. Mr. Martin took his son and left to go outside. Shortly after, Mrs. Martin heard strange thumping noises in the house and went to investigate. She went into the basement and observed her son lying on the ground with Mr. Martin standing over him. She observed Mr. Martin strike him in the head two times with an axe.
It was noted by police that after this a neighbour spoke to Mr. Martin who stated, "do you know why I did this? My wife was interested in someone. Now the child can live in eternity."
It was noted by police that Mr. Martin stated that he was in love with someone other than his wife and his wife was also attracted to another man and he had received a message from God to murder his son. He stated that he did not know what to do with the baby if he and his wife were to “make friends” with someone else. Mr. Martin expressed regret for killing his child and said that he didn't know what came across him.
Background Information
Mr. Martin was raised in a Mennonite community and after completing grade eight left school as is customary in his community and entered the workforce joining his father and grandfather in a sheet-metal workshop. He subsequently found employment working on farms, doing machine printing, beekeeping and woodworking.
He married in September 2018 and resided together with his spouse in a rented home within his community until the date of the index offence. The couple had one child who was the one-year-old victim of the index offence. There were no reports of violence or abuse within the home.
Mr. Martin has no prior involvement with the criminal justice system and has no history of alcohol or substance use.
Mr. Martin first began to have difficulties with his mental health after his grandfather passed away in 2010. He started to see a psychiatrist in the community in 2010 and was prescribed medications for his mental health. Mr. Martin recalled being admitted to the hospital twice, once in 2010 and once in 2017.
In August 2018 Mr. Martin was brought to hospital by his parents because he was making threats to them and chased a worker at the farm. Upon admission it was noted that he seemed to be preoccupied, was not following what was being said to him and his thought patterns seemed to be bizarre. With treatment he improved and was discharged with a diagnosis of bipolar affective disorder.
Over the next several years Mr. Martin continued to see a psychiatrist and was compliant with medication, however his medication dosage was reduced on several occasions due to complaints with respect to side effects.
On September 14 and 16, 2021, in the days prior to the index offence, with the support of his father, Mr. Martin went to the hospital with complaints with respect to insomnia. At the time it was believed that Mr. Martin had bipolar disorder and that he was having insomnia secondary to racing thoughts but was not in a manic phase. An increase in antipsychotic medication was suggested, but he was not admitted to the hospital.
Mr. Martin is currently diagnosed with bipolar disorder with psychotic features (rule out schizoaffective disorder). Dr. Curry told the Board that there is no difference in treatment for these two disorders.
Evidence of Dr. Curry
Dr. Curry indicated that he was a psychiatric resident supervised by Dr. Quinn, Mr. Martin’s attending psychiatrist, and that he had read and adopted the Hospital Report.
Dr. Curry gave the following evidence:
- Rates of relapse for bipolar disorder are higher than for other types of disorders because of the cyclical nature of the illness and because it is primarily controlled by medication. If medication is stopped, most people with bipolar will relapse.
- Over the course of the reporting period, Mr. Martin gradually experienced less anxiety. Dr. Curry attributed this to a combination of stability on medication, and the coping strategies Mr. Martin has learned from participating in psychological programing.
- Mr. Martin has participated in a multi-week CBT program for psychosis, twice; DBT for emotions and coping strategies; and has met one on one with a psychologist (about six times) to focus on developing insight and processing the impact of the index offence. He and his wife have also participated monthly in informal couples counselling with the treatment team and Dr. Quinn.
- Mr. Martin experiences anxiety in anticipation of an upcoming pass, and when he is away from his community.
- Psychological testing completed to date indicates that Mr. Martin has an average IQ with strength in non-verbal reasoning, which is consistent with the type of work Mr. Martin has engaged in.
- Mr. Martin has been adherent to treatment while residing in the Hospital.
- Mr. Martin now has fair to good insight with respect to his need for medication but is working with the treatment team to develop insight into his long-term need for medication.
- Mr. Martin can easily identify his symptoms of decompensation, including sleep issues and mood fluctuations. Mr. Martin needs to improve his insight into his need to reach out to other community members and/or the treatment team if symptoms of decompensation develop.
- If Mr. Martin’s sleep is disrupted, this can lead to mania and aberrant behaviour and psychosis (delusions) and potentially violence, as occurred in the index offence.
- Mr. Martin’s insight into the index offence and his potential for violence is partially developed.
- Reintegration with his Mennonite community is key for both management of risk and Mr. Martin’s long-term stability.
- The process of acceptance by the community has occurred during this reporting period, and the community expects that Mr. Martin will return to live with his wife. The treatment team is working to support enhanced communication and understanding between Mr. Martin and his wife.
- This has been a gradual process starting with letters, then phone calls; then visits to the hospital; and then passes to the community.
- Mr. Martin’s wife has partially completed the process to become an approved person. She needs to continue to improve her insight into her need to reach out to other community members and/or the treatment team if symptoms of decompensation develop.
- If his wife becomes an approved person, the length of passes for Mr. Martin to stay with her can be increased gradually.
- The treatment team is mindful of respecting the culture of Mr. Martin’s community while managing the potential risk (both physical and psychological) to Mr. Martin’s wife. It is important that, if Mr. Martin is to return to living with his wife, it is with her clear consent. It is also important that the members of the community clearly understand the risk factors and when to reach out to the treatment team.
- The potential for community living is realistic in the upcoming reporting period. Where Mr. Martin will live depends on the continued improvement of Mr. Martin’s relationship with his wife, which is a gradual process.
- The treatment team has identified two possible options: living with his father, who is an approved person; and living with his wife, if she becomes an approved person. If after a series of successful gradually longer passes, and positive evaluations of the passes by the team in conjunction with input from his wife, Mr. Martin, and members of their Mennonite community, it will then be determined if transition to the community is appropriate.
- Living near the Hospital outside of his Mennonite community will not support Mr. Martin’s reintegration to the community or his mental stability, and could increase his risk. It will be therapeutic for Mr. Martin to reconnect with his own community. This is why the Hospital recommends extending the geographic area for community living to include the location of his Mennonite community.
- Mr. Martin has had a year of great progress and has demonstrated resilience with the help of his community and the treatment team.
- A detention disposition is necessary because the Hospital needs to approve his accommodations, and the address where he will live in the community has not yet been determined. While Mr. Martin has made tremendous progress, he will likely be unable to obtain and sustain psychiatric supports which are sufficient to manage the risk factors without forensic supervision and support. At the time of the index offence, despite receiving psychiatric care and despite the best efforts of his family, the oversight available under the Mental Health Act was not sufficient to protect the safety of the public.
- Dr. Curry provided the following responses to questions by the panel:
- The team recently met with Mr. Martin and his wife at the family home. This meeting went as well as could be expected.
- Mr. Martin has displayed no symptoms of his mental illness.
- Trauma response has been ruled out by the psychologist. Emotional distance is normative.
- He has had no sleep issues or nightmares.
- Mr. Martin is working to improve his insight, especially with respect to the need for medication and the risk of violence with programming in illness and recovery management. He is engaged in ongoing discussion with psychology and the team to understand the psychological impacts of the index offence apart from the finding of NCR. Mr. Martin is “part way there” and moving in the right direction.
- Whether or not there were any adherence issues in the past, it is clear that the oversight provided under the Mental Health Act was not sufficient at the time of the index offence.
Analysis and Conclusion
Mr. Martin has had an excellent year. He has remained adherent to medication, remained stable, and has participated in programming which has improved his insight, and his ability to cope with anxiety. He has participated in counselling with his wife and has increased his communication with her. His wife is moving toward becoming an approved person. His Mennonite community has accepted him. Everything appears to be moving in the right direction.
Nonetheless, continued steady and gradual progress is necessary for Mr. Martin to be safely reintegrated into his community.
Although the issue of significant threat was not contested at the hearing, the Board nevertheless makes an independent finding that Mr. Martin does represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. Mr. Martin suffers from a longstanding major mental illness, bipolar disorder with psychotic features, which has a high rate of relapse even when medication adherent and although he is not currently displaying any positive symptoms of that illness, he has remained in highly supervised environments continuously since the date of the index offence. He has not been assessed in the community and is not yet clear where he will reside in the community.
The Board relies on the summary of risk factors set out on page 43 of the Hospital Report, which are amply supported by the evidence:
- Mr. Martin suffers from a longstanding major mental illness, bipolar disorder with psychotic features, which has a high rate of relapse even when medication adherent. Although he is not currently displaying positive symptoms of that illness, his stability is relatively recent (2023) and he remains vulnerable to illness relapse in the context of anticipated stress over the coming year. He will require further assessment when transitioned to a community setting;
- Mr. Martin’s insight is not fully developed and his adherence to medication will need to be assessed in a less supervised environment, where the likelihood of increased stress would occur (e.g., relationships, employment, home life);
- Mr. Martin has no professional mental health supports aside from his current Forensic Treatment team; and
- Ongoing family reunification and psychoeducation are recommended to continue in the subsequent reporting period. This will likely require the support of his current Treatment team.
Family reunification and psychoeducation, as well as education of Mr. Martin’s Mennonite community about the signs of decompensation and its attendant risks is particularly important to the management of Mr. Martin’s risk of future violence.
As noted by Dr. Curry and set out on page 42 of the Hospital Report,
Absent the supervision and support of the forensic system, Mr. Martin would likely be unable to obtain appropriate psychiatric and professional supports in the community independently. This integral component of his recovery and rehabilitation would cause him psychological stress, irregular sleep, followed by an increased sex drive. Together, these symptoms would likely exacerbate his mental illness leading to interpersonal friction, and further stress and decompensation, such as experiencing delusions and hallucinations driving serious violent acts as demonstrated in the index offence.
The Board finds that the evidence also amply supports the joint submission that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a continuation of the current detention order with the terms and conditions as recommended by the Hospital and supported by the other parties.
The Hospital needs to be able to approve Mr. Martin’s accommodation. The plan is to have Mr. Martin live in his community, and the hope is that he will be able to live with his wife, but the Hospital needs to be able to assess whether both Mr. Martin and his wife (and by implication his Mennonite community) are ready for that step. The Hospital needs to be able to determine whether Mr. Martin will begin community living with his father or his wife.
In addition, the Hospital will need to rely on either Mr. Martin’s father, or his wife (and their community) to alert the treatment team to any signs of decompensation. It is essential in this context that the Hospital has recourse to the warrant of committal to expeditiously return Mr. Martin to the Hospital should this become necessary.
The events leading up to the index offence give weight to the Board’s conclusion that the Mental Health Act will not be sufficient to mitigate the risk for the upcoming year with its potential for stress while transitioning to the community.
The HCR-20 indicates that risk is low on a detention disposition while in the Hospital but rises to moderate-high on a conditional discharge.
In the circumstances, a conditional discharge is not realistic.
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. Martin, his reintegration into society and his other needs, the necessary and appropriate disposition is a detention disposition with the clauses recommended by the parties.
The Board notes that several members of Mr. Martin’s Mennonite community attended the hearing and encourages them to reach out to the treatment team as needed during the upcoming reporting period.
DATED this 12^th^ day of May 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Ms. K. Tomaszewski Legal Member
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board