Re: Jeffrey Sinclair, 2026 CanLII 45698

Re: Jeffrey Sinclair

ORB File No: 7602

Hearing held on: Wednesday, April 15, 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. P. Prendergast Dr. G. Nexhipi Ms. A. Israel Mr. J. Cyr (via Zoom)

Parties Appearing: Accused: Jeffrey Sinclair Counsel: Mr. J. Louch The person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. P.L. Darby Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. D. Brandes

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated May 11, 2026)

Introduction

1. On September 11, 2019, Jeffrey Sinclair was found not criminally responsible by way of mental disorder on a charge of aggravated assault, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (the “Criminal Code”). He is subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”), dated March 26, 2025, ordering a conditional discharge with the privileges of living in the community in supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto (hereinafter referred to as “CAMH” or “the Hospital”). That disposition also subjects him to certain other terms and conditions, including that of abstaining absolutely from the non-medical use of alcohol or drugs or any other intoxicant and of submitting samples for the purpose of monitoring his compliance with the abstention condition.

2. On April 15, 2026, a panel of the Board convened a hearing to review the Disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Sinclair was present for the hearing, represented by his lawyer, Mr. Louch.

3. The Record for the hearing consisted of the Notice of Hearing dated February 2, 2026, the most recent Disposition and the Reasons for that Disposition dated May 6, 2025. On consent of all parties, a Hospital Report, dated March 27, 2026, was entered into evidence as Exhibit 1.

4. The parties were canvassed for initial positions. Dr. Darby, Mr. Sinclair’s treating psychiatrist, recommended no change to the current Disposition. The representative of the Attorney General agreed with the position. Counsel for Mr. Sinclair joined the Hospital. Accordingly, the Board benefitted from a joint submission on the threshold issue of significant threat, and the recommended disposition. At the conclusion of the hearing all parties agreed that it was appropriate to delete the clause requiring Mr. Sinclair to remain abstinent from alcohol or drugs or other intoxicants.

5. For the following reasons, the Board accepts and finds that Mr. Sinclair continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. It has further concluded that the necessary and appropriate disposition, having regard to the primary objective of assuring the safety of the public, together with the other objectives set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, and applying the principle of minimal intrusion, is a conditional discharge, with terms and conditions mirroring those in effect under the current Disposition, with the amendment to deleting condition clause 1(c) (abstention).

Background and Index Offences

6. The evidence for the hearing came from two sources – the Hospital Report mentioned, and the testimony and update offered by Dr. Darby.

7. Turning first to the Hospital Report, it explains that Mr. Sinclair was previously under the Board’s jurisdiction beginning in 2006 after being found not criminally responsible on the charges of sexual assault (x3), sexual interference, failing to comply with a recognizance and obstructing a police officer. He received an absolute discharge in 2012 and was followed by an outpatient psychiatrist at Humber River Hospital until the 2019 NCR finding that has brought him again under the Board’s jurisdiction.

8. The index offence is described in the Hospital Report as it has been set out in previous Reasons for Disposition.

“On September 7, 2018, at approximately 9:56 pm, the victim, Ms. W.M., and her cousin, Ms. J., arrived at K[…] Street in Toronto, and went to the apartment building’s mail room to retrieve their mail. When they arrived there, Mr. Sinclair quickly approached from behind, holding a knife in his right hand. Once he was close to the victim, he stabbed her multiple times about her head and shoulders, causing her to fall to the ground. While she was on the ground, he continued to stab her a few more times. He placed the knife in his pocket and casually walked away and waited in the lobby until the elevator came down. The assault took place in the close presence of another woman and her infant and young child.

Police were called and attended the scene. Shortly after, Mr. Sinclair was located and placed under arrest for Attempted Murder. He disclosed to police that he had stabbed the victim and directed them to the knife. The victim sustained stab wounds to her right and left temple (1cm), the left side of her head (1cm), and right shoulder. The victim received numerous steri-strips for her injuries.”

9. The Hospital Report also provides significant details associated with Mr. Sinclair’s personal history and course while under the jurisdiction of the Board. Briefly put, Mr. Sinclair is of Jamaican heritage and came to Canada when he was 10 years old. He has no childhood abuse history and there is no reported family history of psychiatric illness or substance use problems.

10. In terms of education, Mr. Sinclair had some difficulties with behaviour starting in Grade 11. From age 17 to 23, he became a member of a gang, sold drugs, shoplifted, fought with rivals, and engaged in other criminal activities. He has indicated that it was when he began withdrawing from “gang life” that he started experiencing psychotic symptoms. Mr. Sinclair did not complete high school as an adolescent, but he did obtain some additional credits as a mature student and was enrolled in a one-year business administration program at the Academy of Learning College in Toronto. This seems to have been disrupted, however, by the emergence of further psychotic symptoms that included auditory hallucinations, delusions of reference, mind reading and paranoia.

11. In terms of employment, Mr. Sinclair has held various entry-level jobs, working in factories and stores. He has said, however, that his mental illness interfered with these as well as he often became stressed and sick, experiencing symptoms of paranoia directed towards work colleagues. He has been an Ontario Disability Support Program (“ODSP”) recipient since 2000.

12. Regarding substance use, it is stated in the Hospital Report says that Mr. Sinclair smoked cannabis almost daily at the time of the previous index offences (in 2005 and 2006). To his credit, he consistently tested negative for substances from 2006 to 2012 as he found himself for the first time under the Board’s jurisdiction. He then returned to sporadic use, the last of which according to him was in 2018. There have been no further positive drug tests and Mr. Sinclair appears to have good insight into the impact of cannabis on his psychotic symptoms. Historically, cannabis has been significantly decompensating leading to rapid exacerbation of his psychotic symptoms.

13. Mr. Sinclair has a long history of psychiatric illness and hospitalizations. He first came into contact with mental health services in 1999. His symptoms have consistently included paranoid and other types of delusions, auditory hallucinations, disorganized thought and behaviour, affective instability, disinhibition, agitation, and negative symptoms of psychosis. He also has a significant history of noncompliance with psychiatric treatment that has led to severe decompensations in his mental state. This has occurred when he was using substances, and when he was both adhering to treatment and abstaining from substances. Historically, Mr. Sinclair has been inconsistent in disclosing his psychotic symptoms to clinicians.

14. Mr. Sinclair’s current diagnoses are:

• Schizophrenia;
• Cannabis Use Disorder (noted at page 35 of the Hospital Report to be “in remission”);
• Conduct Disorder, Adolescent-Onset;
• Personality Disorder, Not Specified (Antisocial Traits).

15. The Hospital Report indicates that since the issuance of the conditional discharge dated March 26, 2025, Mr. Sinclair has remained in the community under the supervision of CAMH. He has continued to reside in high support housing in Brampton and has complied with the conditions of his Disposition. There have been no incidents of violence, arrest, breach, or re-hospitalization during the review period, and housing staff report no management concerns.

16. The Hospital Report indicates that Mr. Sinclair's mental state has remained generally stable over the past year. He continues to acknowledge his diagnosis of schizophrenia and the role of antipsychotic medication in managing his illness. While he experiences occasional paranoid ideation and perceptions that others may be talking about him, these symptoms are less frequent and less intense than in prior years. His insight has improved, and he is often able to question these experiences and discuss them openly with the treatment team. He has consistently denied feeling threatened and has denied any urges towards aggression or violence.

17. The Hospital Report indicates that Mr. Sinclair has remained fully compliant with treatment, including supervised administration of olanzapine, 30 milligrams nightly, and has attended appointments reliably. Mr. Sinclair has also maintained absolute abstinence from alcohol and non-prescribed substances, with regular urine drug screens remaining negative throughout the reporting period. He continues to function independently in activities of daily living, participates in structured recreational and therapeutic activities, and maintains strong and supportive contact with his family.

18. The Hospital Report concludes that, overall, Mr. Sinclair has demonstrated another year of stable community adjustment, sustained compliance, and incremental improvement in insight, with ongoing symptoms that remain managed under the current conditional discharge and support structure.

Evidence at the Hearing

19. Dr. Darby, the attending psychiatrist, testified that Mr. Sinclair has remained in the community since 2021 with a sustained period of stability and good engagement with treatment over approximately the last 4.5 years. He described no concerns with behaviour, medication adherence, or substance use, and noted that Mr. Sinclair has generally positive relationships with staff, his case manager, and other residents, with only occasional minor verbal conflict reported. Dr. Darby stated that the clinical team considered whether an absolute discharge would be appropriate but concluded that continuation of the current conditional discharge remains necessary at this time.

20. Dr. Darby indicated that his primary rationale for a continuing conditional discharge was that Mr. Sinclair's insight remains variable. While he sometimes recognizes that mild auditory hallucinations and paranoid ideation improve with medication, he at other times maintains that these experiences are real. Dr. Darby testified that if symptoms were to intensify and insight to decrease, there is a concern that Mr. Sinclair could become nonadherent with medication, consistent with his prior history. In Dr. Darby's opinion, medication nonadherence in those circumstances would create a significant threat to public safety. For this reason, the hospital recommended maintaining the existing conditional discharge while continuing to work to enhance insight and support stability.

21. Dr. Darby further testified that, before the hospital could recommend an absolute discharge, the team views it as important for Mr. Sinclair to transition from Forensic Services to a non-forensic community team and have sufficient time to establish a trusting therapeutic relationship with them. Dr. Darby acknowledged Mr. Sinclair can have difficulty trusting professionals and described that rapport may be fragile if symptoms worsen. He also testified that identifying an appropriate non-forensic provider has been challenging, particularly in Brampton; he reported outreach to the local Chief of Psychiatry who was not encouraging due to concerns about accepting patients with a forensic history. He indicated the hospital would continue to pursue options, including potentially escalating the request through “hospital-to-hospital channels.”

22. In response to questions posed by the panel:

• Dr. Darby confirmed that the immediate issue with respect to community care is provider availability rather than Mr. Sinclair's unwillingness to work with new providers;
• Dr. Darby confirmed that supervision of Mr. Sinclair's medication administration is conducted by the residence, with evidence that staff supervise dosing except during approved family visits and that greater independence was not currently contemplated within the residence model;
• Dr. Darby indicated that the geographic scope of the search for an outpatient psychiatrist was not limited to strictly Brampton, but that a regular treatment relationship requiring long distance travel (e.g., to Toronto) was viewed as impractical;
• With respect to substance use conditions, a panel member asked whether, given the extended period of abstinence and Mr. Sinclair's continued denial of cravings, it was appropriate to remove the abstention clause while maintaining ongoing testing. Dr. Darby agreed that this was reasonable and could provide a further positive message regarding Mr. Sinclair's progress. The chair canvassed the parties and confirmed there was no opposition to deleting condition 1(c) regarding abstention.

23. The evidence and submissions emphasized Mr. Sinclair's sustained stability and positive engagement, while maintaining that the current level of oversight remains necessary pending successful transition to non-forensic care and further consolidation of insight.

Submissions

24. At the end of the hearing, the parties renewed their submissions as stated at the hearing's outset. Dr. Darby, speaking for the hospital, sought a continuation of the existing conditional discharge. He emphasized sustained stability and engagement but submitted that an absolute discharge is premature because Mr. Sinclair's insight remains variable and a relapse/noncompliance risk could increase if symptoms intensify. He recommended maintaining oversight while pursuing a transition to a non-forensic community provider and allowing time to build a new therapeutic relationship.

25. The representative of the Attorney General joined the hospital’s position and supported the joint disposition. Mr. Brandes agreed with removing the abstinence condition (1(c)) while keeping testing (1(d)) and expressed hope that community resources will allow for an eventual transition.

26. Counsel for Mr. Sinclair participated in the joint submission and did not dispute significant threat for the purposes of the hearing. He highlighted Mr. Sinclair's progress and the frustration caused by repeated references to historical events, emphasizing there has been no concerning conduct since the NCR finding.

Analysis and Conclusion

27. As stated above, the panel had no difficulty accepting the joint submission that Mr. Sinclair represents a significant threat to the safety of the public. In doing so, the panel considered the following factors in arriving at its conclusion:

• Mr. Sinclair suffers from a major mental illness that figured prominently in the commission of a serious index offence.
• Mr. Sinclair has a significant criminal record, history of aggression, and was previously under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board for acts of sexual aggression and other offences, all driven by his psychosis.
• Mr. Sinclair’s insight, while improving, remains partial. What is more, while he continues to be assiduous with antipsychotic medications, his symptoms return unexpectedly. When this takes place, he becomes oppositional, aggressive, and irritable.

28. Looking at the history of aggressive behaviour when suffering the primary symptoms of his psychosis, the risk Mr. Sinclair poses to the public is one of serious physical harm. Applying the direction provided by the Supreme Court of Canada in Winko, Mr. Sinclair's re-offence scenario as described in the Hospital Report sets out a clear threat that, absent a disposition, he is likely to experience unpredictable relapse into paranoid delusions similar to those experienced at the time of the commission of the index offence, and that there is a resultant risk that the public will suffer serious physical harm. The risk, in his situation, is both significant in terms of likelihood and in terms of the seriousness of harm.

29. Turning then to the issue of disposition, the Board is mindful of the provisions of s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code and of its primary objective to assure the safety of the public. It is also mindful of the important consideration and balancing of the other objectives pertaining to ensuring that Mr. Sinclair’s mental health and other needs are met, including the ultimate objective of reintegration into the community.

30. Applying the principle of minimal intrusion, the Board is of the view that a conditional discharge, with the amendment to deleting condition 1(c) (abstention), is the necessary and appropriate disposition having regard to the objectives set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code. An order will be issued accordingly.

31. In concluding the hearing, the Chair read the following positive points from the Hospital Report:

• Mr. Sinclair participated in the cultural adaptive CBT group at CAMH with good attendance;
• he has shown improved insight into his mental illness;
• he is independent in managing his finances;
• he continues to receive support from his family;
• he is engaged in treatment at his residence;
• he presents as pleasant and cooperative with staff and co-patients during group activities;
• he has good rapport and is open with the team, with a positive attitude towards staff; and
• he has been in the community for three years with no readmission.

32. The Chair encouraged Mr. Sinclair to “keep doing what you're doing” and that the remaining issues (like the systems community resource gap) were for the hospital to address, not him.

DATED this 11^th day of May, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.

Ms. A. Israel Legal Member

__________________

Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board