Re: J. (H.), 2026 CanLII 45697

Re: J. (H.)

ORB File No: 8878

Hearing held on: Wednesday, April 8, 2026

Place of hearing: Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre

Pursuant to: Sections 672.47(1) and 672.48(1) of the Criminal Code

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Goldenberg

Members: Dr. H. Bloom Dr. P. Wright Mr. M. Segal Ms. R. Chopra

Parties Appearing:

Accused: J. (H.) Counsel: Mr. K. Warkentin

Person in charge of Hospital: Representative: Dr. R. Sheppard

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. A. Pollak

*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 5, 2026)

Introduction:

1. On October 8, 2025, J. (H.) was found unfit to stand trial on charges of sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching under 16 years of age, and sexual assault. The trial judge accepted the opinion of Dr. Kravtsenyuk set out in her report to the court, that J. (H.) is unfit to stand trial. The judge referred the matter to the Ontario Review Board.

2. On Wednesday, April 8, 2026, the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing at the Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre (“the Hospital”) and conducted the initial disposition hearing for J. (H.). J. (H.) appeared via videoconference with his lawyer, Mr. Warkentin. Ms. Pollak, for the Crown Attorney, appeared via videoconference from Fort Frances.

Position of the Parties:

3. At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as to their recommendations to the Board.

4. Dr. Sheppard appeared for the Hospital. Dr. Sheppard noted that he had met J. (H.) on one occasion and that meeting was conducted virtually. It is the Hospital’s position that at this point in time, J. (H.) remains unfit to stand trial. The Hospital is recommending that the Board issue a Conditional Discharge. At the outset, Dr. Sheppard opined that a residence clause was not necessary. Dr. Sheppard noted that J. (H.) has lived for approximately the last four years at a specific residence that has full-time supervision. Ultimately, the Board learned that J. (H.) has his own apartment in a building with approximately 20 units. The Hospital believes that reporting of not less than once per month would be appropriate. The Hospital recommended a no-contact provision with the victims of the outstanding charges.

5. Ms. Pollak appeared for the Attorney General. She accepted that a Conditional Discharge is both necessary and appropriate. In Ms. Pollak’s opinion, however, she asked the Board to include a residence clause. With the assistance of Mr. Warkentin, Ms. Pollak advised that J. (H.) is living at 237 8th Street, Unit 13, in Fort Frances, Ontario. Ms. Pollak also supports the Board including a no unsupervised contact with individuals under 16 years of age as part of our disposition.

6. Mr. Warkentin agreed with the provisions recommended by the doctor and by Ms. Pollak. He does accept the Board including a residence clause specifying the actual residence. He does accept the proposed no contact provisions and the proposed no unsupervised contact with individuals under the age of 16.

Outstanding Charges:

7. A summary of the allegations giving rise to the outstanding charges as set out in the hospital report is as follows:

“On the 18th of October 2023, J. (H.) was charged with sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching under 16 years old, and sexual assault. The offences were on P. (A.).

During the years of 2016-2019, J. (H.) and P. (A.) were residing in the same residence, the home of their foster parent. During this time, J. (H.) would touch P. (A.) with his penis, directed P. (A.) to sit on his penis, and would touch P. (A.) without her consent. P. (A.) is a person under the age of 16 years old.

A review of both victim and witness statements was conducted. Through the investigation, reasonable grounds were formed to charge J. (H.) with sexual interference under s. 151, s. 152, and s. 271 of the Criminal Code.

On August 25, 2024, B.(J.) was with J. (H.) outside of her residence. She informed police that J. (H.) touched her ‘private parts’ (vaginal area) over her shorts. She told him to stop and he did not. He touched her twice on the 25th even after being told not to. B.(J.) stated that her roommate, M. (V.), observed this and also told J. (H.) to stop. B.(J.) stated that J. (H.) did not ask to touch her nor did he give any advanced warning that he would touch her. B. (J.) also informed police that V. (J.), her boyfriend, was present for this as well.

B.(J.) has known J. (H.) since high school. They are not and never were in a relationship. B.(J.) stated that she felt uncomfortable when J. (H.) touched her in her private area and she does not feel safe with him.

On Tuesday, August 27, 2025, Fort Frances O.P.P. received a call from B. (K.), who reported the sexual assault with victim B. (J.). Police conducted an audio/video statement with B.(J.). As a result of the investigation, police formed the reasonable grounds to arrest and charge J. (H.) under s. 271 of the Criminal Code.”

Evidence at the Hearing:

8. The Board admitted into evidence a copy of the court’s ruling on the issue of unfitness, a copy of the court informations, a transcript of the hearing of October 8, 2025, a hospital report dated March 25, 2026, and a hospital report of Dr Kravtsenyuk dated June 23, 2025. As the hospital reports were made exhibits in this hearing, it is not necessary to reproduce all of the information contained in the hospital reports in these reasons. We do note, however, the following statement from the March 25, 2026, report:

“J. (H.) is a 24-year-old single man. He has an established diagnosis of intellectual disability, apparently moderate in degree, with reported cognitive and language delays. He has not been diagnosed with an independent psychiatric illness or disorder. He had never been hospitalized for psychiatric reasons.”

We also note the following from that hospital report:

“Information with respect to J. (H.)’s developmental years is incomplete. He was apparently taken into foster care at a young age, and lived for a time with his foster mother and his sister, but there is a reported history of aggression towards the foster mother which eventually necessitated J. (H.)’s removal from the home. He moved into his current supportive living arrangement, where he lives with staff on site 24/7, in October 2020.”

9. In addition to the documentary evidence, the Board also heard from Dr. Sheppard. Dr. Sheppard advised that he had interviewed J. (H.) on one occasion, March 24, 2026. That interview was conducted virtually. Dr. Sheppard accepts that J. (H.) is developmentally delayed. Dr. Sheppard does not believe that J. (H.) suffers from any psychotic illness. Dr. Sheppard noted that J. (H.)’s family doctor recommended that J. (H.) be treated with a modest amount of Olanzapine. Dr. Sheppard believes that was done in order to achieve mood stability.

10. Dr. Sheppard believes that J. (H.)’s threat to public safety can be managed if the Board saw fit to issue a Conditional Discharge.

11. In response to questions from Ms. Pollak, Dr. Sheppard agreed that the Hospital should be involved in educating J. (H.) with respect to fitness. Dr. Sheppard was not able to opine on the length of time it might take in order for J. (H.) to achieve fitness.

12. In response to questions from panel members, Dr. Sheppard acknowledged that J. (H.) has a family doctor in Fort Frances.

13. Dr. Sheppard believes that there is a “degree of supervision” in the building in which J. (H.) lives. Dr. Sheppard was unable to assist as to how exactly the underlying offences occurred.

14. Dr. Sheppard advised that the Hospital has a case manager in Kenora who will be the person meeting with J. (H.). Dr. Sheppard expected monthly meetings and that some of the meetings would be in person and some of the meetings would be virtual.

15. In response to questions from another member, Dr. Sheppard agreed that it would be appropriate for the disposition to have a no contact with minors provision.

16. No other evidence was heard at this hearing.

Final Submissions

17. Ultimately, the parties reached a joint recommendation. All parties accept that at the present time, J. (H.) is unfit to stand trial. All parties agreed that a Conditional Discharge is both necessary and appropriate. Ultimately, all parties agreed that there be a prohibition against J. (H.) having any contact with the two named victims. All parties agreed that in addition, there should be a clause directing that J. (H.) have no unsupervised contact with individuals under the age of 16.

Findings of the Board

18. The Board accepts Dr. Sheppard’s opinion that at the present time, J. (H.) is unfit to stand trial. We note that J. (H.) was found unfit in court in October of last year, and accordingly, there is no longer a presumption of fitness. The Board also accepts that J. (H.)’s threat to public safety can be managed with a Conditional Discharge. We will include all the terms recommended by the parties. Those terms will be set out more exactly in the Board’s disposition.

19. In reaching our disposition, the Board has taken into consideration the safety of the public, J. (H.)’s mental condition, his other needs, and his potential reintegration into society.

DATED this 5th day of May 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

Mr. J. Goldenberg

Alternate Chairperson

Office of the Registrar

Ontario Review Board