Ontario Review Board
Re: Eric Gravel
ORB File No: 7962
Hearing held on: Thursday, April 2, 2026
Place of Hearing: Brockville Mental Health Centre
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. C. Flanagan
Members: Dr. Y. Alatishe Dr. W. Loza Ms. M. Chamberlain Mr. S. Duffy
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Eric Gravel Counsel: Ms. D. Dickinson
The person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. R. Linthorst
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. K. Schultz
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated May 14, 2026)
Introduction
On October 20, 2021, Eric Gravel was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on charges of possession of weapons dangerous, and carrying a concealed weapon, both contrary to the Criminal Code.
Mr. Gravel is currently subject to the terms of a Disposition dated April 25, 2025, which detains him at the Forensic Treatment Unit of the Brockville Mental Health Centre - Member of the Royal Ottawa Health Care Group (“the hospital” or “BMHC”) with privileges up to and including to live in the community in supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge.
On April 2, 2026, a panel of the Board convened to review the Disposition in accordance with the requirements of s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Ms. D. Dickinson, counsel for Mr. Gravel, attended the hearing, as did Mr. Gravel. A Hospital Report dated February 27, 2026, and a CPIC Response Report were filed as Exhibits 1 and 2, respectively at the hearing. In addition to the documentary evidence, Dr. R. Linthorst, the attending psychiatrist, gave evidence at the hearing.
The issues to be determined are whether Mr. Gravel continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public, as defined in section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code, and if so, the necessary and appropriate Disposition 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, this Board concluded that Mr. Gravel continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is the continuation of the existing Detention Disposition with an amendment to condition 2(m) removing the word “supervised”.
Initial Position of the Parties
At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as to their recommendations to the Board.
Dr. Linthorst, on behalf of the Hospital, recommended the continuation of the existing Detention Disposition on same terms and conditions as outlined in the Hospital Report.
Mr. Schultz, on behalf of the Attorney General of Ontario, supported the recommendation of the Hospital.
Ms. Dickinson, on behalf of Mr. Gravel, conceded significant threat and requested a Conditional Discharge Disposition.
Index Offence
- The circumstances giving rise to the index offences are abstracted from the Hospital Report as follows:
“On Wednesday, July 14, 2021, at around 20:41, a witness observed Mr. Gravel pointing a revolver style handgun, while situated on the upper level of a parking garage in the Byward Market in Ottawa. The witness waved down an Ottawa Police Service officer's cruiser and described Mr. Gravel to the officer who then located Mr. Gravel in the roof top parking lot of the garage. He had visible scars on his right arm and was wearing a satchel secured to his body and it appeared to have a heavy weighted object in it. Mr. Gravel's hand trembled as he reached into the outer zipper of his satchel to retrieve his wallet when the officer asked for identification. Upon its removal, a heavily weighted object as still visibly contained within the satchel. When asked if there was a gun inside, Mr. Gravel replied, "yes". He unzipped the larger pocket and the officer observed a handle of a revolver-style starter gun. He was placed under arrest. When searched, two small blue dime bags filled with small metal pellets were located on his person. Similar type of pellets were located into the chamber of the modified starter gun. The starter pistol was loaded with five rounds of ammunition stamped 9mm, but the rounds were blanks.
A circular box of 9mm blank rounds were located in his satchel as well. Mr. Gravel was cooperative during transportation. During a search of his satchel, officers also located three loose yellow pill capsules and after an internet search, they appeared to be possibly Lithium Carbonate 300 mg pills.”
Personal Background/Psychiatric History
Mr. Gravel’s personal background and psychiatric history are set out in the Hospital Report filed as an exhibit at the hearing and need not be repeated in detail in these Reasons.
Briefly, Mr. Gravel is a 29-year-old male born in Montreal. He has an older stepsister. His father worked in the military and the family moved many times during Mr. Gravel’s early years. He was very close to his father who passed away in 2011. Following his father’s death, Mr. Gravel lived in Cornwall with his mother.
Mr. Gravel started using drugs and consuming alcohol at age 16 which increased to daily use at the age of 21 years. Mr. Gravel’s substance use included cannabis, cocaine and crystal methamphetamine.
He did not do well in elementary school where he began to exhibit defiant and disruptive behaviour. No specific learning disabilities were identified other than potential Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”). In later years, Mr. Gravel attended St. Lawrence College, where he enrolled in two programs, welding and accounting and marketing, but did not finish either. He also worked in several retail jobs which were short lived.
Mr. Gravel has a criminal record. On December 21, 2017, he was convicted of a charge of break enter and five counts of failing to attend court. He received a suspended sentence (104 days presentence custody) and was placed on probation for 12 months. On March 29, 2018, he was convicted of assault with a weapon and failing to comply with a probation order. He received 30 days in custody (97 days presentence custody), probation for 18 months and a weapons prohibition for five years. On March 11. 2019. Mr. Gravel was convicted of obstructing a peace officer, theft under and three counts of breach of probation. He received a conditional sentence for 6 months and probation for 12 months.
Mr. Gravel suffered a spinal cord injury after he severely cut himself at home during a suicide attempt in 2019. That same year, he also struck his mother in the back of the head with a rock, after he told her he was receiving messages in his head and seeing messages on the walls. His mother subsequently moved to Montreal and Mr. Gravel relocated to Ottawa where he lived with a girlfriend. She ended their relationship in February 2021 because she could no longer cope with his mental illness and his episodes (e.g. jumping out of a moving car, extreme paranoia, always being on guard). At the time of the index offences Mr. Gravel was residing in a boarding house with a number of individuals.
Mr. Gravel has a history of experiencing persecutory delusions, auditory hallucinations, disorganized speech and extremely disorganized behaviour. This history reveals a connection between psychosis and substance use and/or falling away from treatment leading to aggressive and violent behaviour.
The index offences took place on July 14, 2021. Mr. Gravel was found to be NCR on October 20, 2021, whereupon he was transferred to the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre (“ROMHC”) under the jurisdiction of the Review Board. In January 2023, he was discharged into the community after fifteen months in hospital. He lived at the Lebreton Transition Home in Ottawa until he was readmitted to ROMHC in May 2023, due to substance use, medication noncompliance, antisocial behaviors and lack of engagement in programming.
Mr. Gravel was transferred to BMHC on December 29, 2023, following an elopement from ROMHC. He remained in hospital at the time of the hearing and is capable of consenting to treatment and managing his finances.
Current Diagnosis
- Mr. Gravel’s diagnoses consist of schizoaffective disorder - depressive type, ADHD-by history, stimulant use disorder, cannabis use disorder (in remission in controlled setting) and alcohol use disorder (in remission in controlled setting).
Evidence at the Hearing
The Hospital’s evidence was presented through the oral testimony of Dr. R. Linthorst to supplement the Hospital Report, filed as an exhibit at the hearing. Dr. Linthorst became Mr. Gravel’s attending psychiatrist in October 2025, taking over from Dr. Alabi.
Over the reporting year, Mr. Gravel’s antipsychotic medication was switched from paliperidone to clozapine to reduce dyskinesias. Venlafaxine, an antidepressant medication, was also initiated and slowly increased. Mr. Gravel has been adherent to his medication regimen with no reported incidents of aggression or elopement over the reporting year. Dr. Linthorst advised that his positive symptoms for psychosis are well controlled with no delusions, hallucinations or disorganized behaviour.
Mr. Gravel continues to experience mild residual cognitive effects including reported difficulties with concentration and reduced motivation, which may partially reflect negative symptoms of his illness, as well as untreated ADHD symptoms. In this regard, a trial of atomoxetine medication proved ineffective. Mr. Gravel was switched to Biphentin medication, which has shown mild improvement.
On May 17, 2025, Mr. Gravel experienced a transient increase in paranoia. When asked about substances, Mr. Gravel admitted using “crystal” the previous night, when offered by another patient. On May 24, 2025, a positive urine drug screen came back for methamphetamine. In this regard, Dr. Linthorst highlighted that stimulant use has a short time to cause a relapse of symptoms ranging from days to weeks.
Dr. Linthorst advised that Mr. Gravel has only partial insight into the risk around substance use. He has been offered both 1:1 and group counseling regarding substance use while under the care of Dr. Linthorst. Mr. Gravel has been clear that given his previous participation in such groups, further group programs are not necessary. He believes he is not at risk for substance use, despite the positive test for methamphetamine. Dr. Linthorst advised that it is only within the last two weeks that Mr. Gravel has agreed to meet with the 1:1 Addictions Counselor. He further recommended that Mr. Gravel participate in group Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (“CBT”) for substance use to develop essential skills to address substance use.
Dr. Linthorst further highlighted concerns with Mr. Gravel’s lack of engagement in group programming (spending most of the day in his room) and personal hygiene. The doctor confirmed that there was no such engagement in group programming since he took over care of Mr. Gravel. The doctor also emphasized that Mr. Gravel has not made sufficient use of his indirect privileges which allows the treatment team to test his behavior in the community. Dr. Linthorst confirmed Mr. Gravel has a good relationship with him but advised he has low engagement with the treatment team.
Mr. Gravel has completed grade 12 education and also a welding program. He also enjoys attending the YMCA weekly, accompanied by hospital staff. His primary support is his mother, who lives in Montreal and with whom he remains in regular contact. She is not an Approved Person, however, and as reported in the Hospital Report, has expressed some reservations for overnight visits due to prior issues in their relationship and concerns for her safety.
When asked, the doctor highlighted that a positive year would include the continued management of psychotic symptoms, a significant remission in his poor concentration, complete abstinence from substances, engagement with group programming, and using pass privileges more frequently. He advised that Mr. Gravel could be ready for discharge planning should there be complete abstinence from substance use, participation in group programming, and improvement in insight. The doctor advised that Mr. Gravel has not had an Occupational Therapy (“OT”) assessment at BMHC and would need one prior to any discharge. Although Mr. Gravel’s discharge into the community would most likely involve placement in supervised accommodation, the doctor acknowledged movement to approved community housing may be possible by the end of the coming year, should Mr. Gravel do very well.
Dr. Linthorst maintained Mr. Gravel remains a significant risk to the community. He advised that the two main risk concerns are drifting away from treatment and substance use. He stated that the most likely risk scenario is a relapse towards stimulants, directly inducing a psychosis and behaviour similar to the index offence. In this regard, the doctor emphasized the importance of the hospital approving any accommodation in the community. The doctor highlighted that given the risk factors, it is important that Mr. Gravel’s accommodation has sufficient and necessary support in place to address his risk factors to properly manage his risk.
Dr. Linthorst did not support a Conditional Discharge Disposition at this juncture. Dr. Linthorst emphasized that the hospital requires the ability to approve his accommodation. At this particular point in time, Mr. Gravel is not ready to discharge, and the treatment team has yet to identify appropriately supported accommodation. The doctor opined that the MHA would not suffice to return Mr. Gravel to hospital in a timely manner to manage the risk, should he return to stimulant use. When asked about voluntarily returning to hospital if he became unwell, the doctor advised that looking at Mr. Gravel’s history there would be a low likelihood that he would return to hospital should there be decompensation in his mental state.
No further evidence was presented at the hearing.
Final Submissions of the Parties
Dr. Linthorst, on behalf of the Hospital, maintained his initial position of a Detention Disposition on the same terms and conditions as the existing Disposition but with an amendment to condition 2(m) removing the word “supervised” from the living out condition.
Mr. Schultz, on behalf of the Attorney General of Ontario, maintained his agreement with the Hospital’s recommendation. He submitted that although Mr. Gravel’s position is that he does not need group therapy regarding substances and does not think he is at risk of using substances in the future, Mr. Gravel did engage in the use of cocaine during the reporting year.
Mr. Schultz submitted that a Conditional Discharge Disposition is premature at this juncture. He submitted that the Hospital needs to approve accommodation to manage Mr. Gravel’s risk. Mr. Gravel is yet to be discharged into the community, and at this stage, is not using his indirect community privileges with any frequency. Mr. Gravel has no plan where he will live, and there needs to be identified accommodation to ensure appropriate support is in place to manage his risk. Further, he submitted, the evidence is that Mr. Gravel would be unlikely to return to hospital voluntarily should he begin to decompensate. Mr. Schultz finally submitted that should Mr. Gravel engage in stimulant use, his decompensation could happen in days, and in that regard, the MHA would not suffice to return him to hospital in a timely fashion.
Ms. Dickinson, on behalf of Mr. Gravel, maintained her initial position requesting a Conditional Discharge. She highlighted that there have been improvements over the past year (attaining goalposts) including medication compliance, his admission of using substances substance use once confronted by the team, and importantly responsible recovery from this substance relapse, with no further use of substances for the remaining of the reporting year. She submitted that it was difficult to know how Mr. Gravel would behave in a community setting without being in the environment more often and in this regard, encouraging him to get into the community more often was important. Ms. Dickinson submitted that if concrete steps were specifically laid out for Mr. Gravel to achieve, he was capable of progressing forward towards community living.
Analysis, Conclusion and Disposition
Having considered all the evidence presented at the hearing, this Board finds that Mr. Gravel continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public as set out in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code. We make this finding based on the oral evidence of Dr. Linthorst and the evidence contained in the Hospital Report filed as an exhibit at the hearing, notwithstanding the joint position on significant threat by the parties.
Mr. Gravel’s index offence involved the waving of a loaded modified starter gun on the top of a parking garage during a psychotic episode. He had stopped his medication prior to the index offence. His diagnoses include a major mental illness, namely schizoaffective disorder - depressive type, ADHD-by history, and three separate substance use disorders. His two most salient risk factors center around falling away from treatment and substance use, both of which have led in the past to psychosis and aggressive and/or violent behaviour.
Although Mr. Gravel is not experiencing positive symptoms of his illness, he continues to experience negative symptoms, including reported difficulties with concentration and reduced motivation. The recent addition of new antidepressant medication has shown only mild improvement.
Substance use remains a significant risk factor for Mr. Gravel, particularly stimulant use, which can have a relatively short time to trigger psychosis. In this regard, Mr. Gravel’s admitted use of methamphetamines when confronted by his treatment team (after an observed transient increase in paranoia) and later confirmed by a urine drug screen, raises concern. As does, his partial insight with respect to substance use on his mental health. Mr. Gravel continues to believe he is not at risk for substance use, despite his extensive substance use history and admitted use of methamphetamine during the reporting year.
Mr. Gravel’s position that he would no longer benefit from any group programming, including Cognitive Behaviour Therapy for substance use, as recommended by his psychiatrist, also goes to his underdeveloped insight. Although his very recent agreement to engage in 1:1 substance counselling is encouraging, his continued commitment to such therapy remains to be seen.
This Board also accepts the risk factors as outlined on pages 41-3 of the Hospital Report, and finds in all circumstances, Mr. Gravel remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.
This Board also finds that a Conditional Discharge Disposition is premature at this juncture. Mr. Gravel has yet to fully utilize his indirect privileges allowing the hospital to assess and monitor his behaviour while in the community, particularly with respect to substance use. Mr. Gravel is not at the point for discharge with an identified appropriate accommodation. He needs to complete an updated OT assessment, develop better insight into substance use, successfully engage in 1:1 addiction counseling, engage in appropriate group programming, and remain completely abstinent from substances. Most importantly, given his risk factors, should Mr. Gravel progress to a point where he is ready for discharge, the hospital needs the ability to approve his accommodation. In this regard, his use of methamphetamines during the reporting year (with a transient change in presentation), only recent agreement to engage in 1:1 with an addiction counselor, lack of engagement in programming and underdeveloped insight all serve to demonstrate the importance of properly supported and/or supervised accommodation to manage his risk. Further given the potential decompensation time leading to psychosis should Mr. Gravel engage in illicit stimulant use, the MHA would not suffice to manage risk. In this regard, this Board notes that Mr. Gravel is capable of consenting to treatment, and consequently only Box A of the MHA would be applicable. In addition, as stated by Dr. Linthorst, it is unlikely that Mr. Gravel would return voluntarily to hospital, should he become unwell. For all these circumstances, a Detention Disposition remains the most necessary and appropriate, and least onerous and least restrictive Disposition.
On the positive side, Mr. Gravel’s positive symptoms of his illness remain well controlled with his adherence to his medication regimen. There have been no untoward incidents or attempts at elopement in the reporting year. He enjoys the support of his mother and has completed his grade 12 education and a program in welding. To his credit, when confronted by the treatment team, Mr. Gravel admitted to using “crystal”, and there have been no further relapses during the remainder of the reporting year. He has also agreed, although recently, to engage with an Addiction Counselor on a 1:1 basis.
Accommodation in the Community
This Board agrees to amend condition 2(m) of the current Disposition to read “to live in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge”. This gives the hospital the flexibility in approving Mr. Gravel’s community accommodation. In this regard, it is anticipated that his initial discharge will be to some form of supervised accommodation.
For all these reasons, the Board finds the necessary and appropriate, and least onerous and least restrictive Disposition is the continuation of Mr. Gravel’s existing Detention Disposition, on the same terms and conditions save and except an amendment to condition 2(m) to read “to live in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge”.
In reaching our decision, this Board has considered the safety of the public, Mr. Gravel’s mental condition, his reintegration into society, and his other needs.
DATED this 14th day of May, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. C. Flanagan
Alternate Chairperson
__________________
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board