Re: Michael Calvo
ORB File No: 8888
Hearing held on: Thursday, April 16, 2026
Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
Pursuant to: Section 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Weinstein
Members: Dr. R. Wood Hill Dr. G. Stones Ms. A. Israel Mr. J. Cyr
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Michael Calvo Counsel: Mr. B. Eberdt
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. M. Warner
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. M. Feindel
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated May 11, 2026)
Introduction
On October 27, 2025, Mr. Michael Calvo was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on a charge of second-degree murder, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”). That finding was based on an assessment by Dr. Lisa Ramshaw, dated April 30, 2025, and an NCR report by Dr. A. Iosif, dated September 15, 2025.
The Court did not make a Disposition in respect of Mr. Calvo and referred the matter to the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”) for an initial Disposition. The Court further ordered that Mr. Calvo be detained at the Toronto East Detention Centre until a bed became available at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto (“CAMH”).
On April 16, 2026, the Board convened a hearing at CAMH to make an initial Disposition.
Mr. Calvo was present at the hearing and was represented by his counsel, Mr. B. Eberdt. A Portuguese interpreter was provided for Mr. Calvo on an as-needed basis.
A Hospital Report, dated March 20, 2026 (the "Hospital Report"), was entered as Exhibit 1.
The Board received four Victim Impact Statements (“VIS”) from the following individuals: Mr. Harry Margulies, Mr. David Margulies, Mr. Aleksander Nippak, and Ms. Raquel Almeida Margulies (marked as Exhibits 2-5, respectively). Some of these VIS were not in full compliance with s. 672.5(14) of the Criminal Code, which governs the contents of VIS in Board proceedings. Counsel for the hospital, the Attorney General, and Mr. Calvo met and agreed on appropriate redactions.
There were still some parts of these four VIS which were not in full compliance with s. 672.5(14) of the Criminal Code. All parties consented to admission of these VIS. The Board marked the VIS exhibits on this hearing but advised all parties that it will follow the procedure approved by the Court of Appeal and decision in Klem 2016 ONCA 119. The Board will only take into consideration those parts of the redacted VIS that comply with the provisions of the Criminal Code.
The issues at this hearing were whether Mr. Calvo is a significant threat to public safety, as defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code, and, if so, the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances must be determined, bearing in mind the factors enunciated in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
For the reasons set out below and based on the expert evidence and opinions before us, the Board concluded that Mr. Calvo poses a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board found that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Detention Order, upon the terms set out in our formal Disposition. The highest level of privileges is to enter the community of the Greater Toronto Area, indirectly supervised.
Position of the Parties
- At the conclusion of the hearing, counsels for the hospital, the Attorney General and Mr. Calvo advised that they all agreed to the following:
a) Mr. Calvo continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public, and a Detention Order is the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances; and
b) Clauses will be added to his Disposition requiring him to: surrender his passport; have no contact, directly or indirectly, with the victims named in our formal Disposition; and not attend at any place where these victims reside, work or worship.
Counsels for the hospital and Mr. Calvo requested that Mr. Calvo’s Disposition contain the privilege that he be able to enter the community of the Greater Toronto Area, indirectly supervised.
Counsel for the Attorney General opposed this privilege.
Psychiatric Diagnoses
- Schizoaffective Disorder, depressive type;
Opioid Use Disorder.
Index Offence
- Mr. Calvo met the victim of the Index Offence in October 2022. They were involved in an intimate partner relationship leading up to the Index Offence, on October 15, 2023. On that evening, Mr. Calvo stabbed the victim 26 times, causing her death.
Mr. Calvo’s Self-Report
- Mr. Calvo’s self-report is summarized in the Assessment of Criminal Responsibility by Dr. Ramshaw and is set out in detail on pages 12 to 14 of the Hospital Report.
Psychiatric History
- Mr. Calvo’s psychiatric history is set out in detail in the Hospital Report. The following is a summary of the highlights of his history:
a) Mr. Calvo presents with a chronic, and progressively impairing, psychiatric condition that emerged directly following a workplace injury in February 2017. It evolved over several years into a persistent pattern of depressive, anxiety‑related, and psychotic‑spectrum symptoms.
b) His psychiatric trajectory is characterized by recurrent major depressive episodes, panic attacks, somatic preoccupation with pain, and the development of fixed persecutory beliefs that have fluctuated but have never fully resolved. These symptoms have had a sustained and substantial impact on his functioning, his ability to work, and his interpersonal relationships.
c) Mr. Calvo had no documented psychiatric history prior to the workplace accident.
d) Dr. Bao, one of his psychiatrists, explicitly considered delusional disorder, persecutory type, noting that Mr. Calvo’s belief that investigators were following him “may” have represented a fixed false belief.
e) The longitudinal record strongly supports that Mr. Calvo’s persecutory ideation became entrenched, pervasive, and resistant to treatment, consistent with a psychotic‑spectrum disorder superimposed on chronic depression.
f) Across multiple years and providers, his presentation consistently included:
Persistent depressive symptoms
Panic attacks and anxiety
Somatic symptom disorder with predominant pain
Fixed persecutory delusions involving surveillance, monitoring, and harm
Significant psychosocial stressors (financial strain, marital difficulties, legal disputes)
In summary, Mr. Calvo’s psychiatric history demonstrates a chronic, treatment‑resistant mental illness characterized by persistent depressive disorder with superimposed persecutory delusions that have remained present for over five years. His symptoms emerged in direct temporal association with his workplace injury and subsequent stressors, but they evolved into a self‑sustaining psychotic belief system that is no longer situationally confined.
Substance Abuse History
- According to Dr. Ramshaw’s Assessment Report and adopted in the Hospital Report, the following is an excerpt of Mr. Calvo’s substance abuse history:
“On his October 16, 2023, Inmate Intake Assessment form, Mr. Calvo reported drinking five to six beers daily with last use 36 hours prior. When seen in December 2023, he reported drinking at least twelve beers per day prior to arrest, buying additional opioids in addition to the six prescribed Percocets per day, a history of crack cocaine use, and a half gram of cannabis per day.”
Mr. Calvo’s substance use disorder only arose following his workplace injury.
Legal History
- Mr. Calvo has no prior convictions.
Course in Hospital
- Mr. Calvo’s course at CAMH since his transfer from the correctional facility is set out in detail in the Hospital Report. The following extracted paragraphs are relevant to this hearing:
“Mr. Calvo was admitted to the ATU on January 20, 2026.
Mr. Calvo’s course in hospital up was uneventful. There were no instances of violence or aggression on the unit. He was largely calm and cooperative with staff and co-patients. On regular assessments, Mr. Calvo denied feeling depressed or anxious.
With respect to his previously expressed belief that WSIB investigators were tracking his movements and connected to various law enforcement agencies, Mr. Calvo did not view these beliefs as related to psychosis.”
Evidence at the Hearing
- The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence from Dr. Eid. Dr. Eid co-authored the Hospital Report, and she testified as follows:
a) She has been Mr. Calvo’s inpatient psychiatrist on the Forensic Assessment Treatment Unit (“FATU”) at CAMH since his admission on January 20, 2026, following his transfer from the correctional facility. She had no prior involvement in his care.
b) The current working diagnosis is schizoaffective disorder, depressive type. He also suffers from an opioid use disorder. However, his age of onset of this disorder and course of behaviour are atypical, so the diagnosis remains provisional and will need to be clarified over time, as his progress and illness are observed.
c) At admission, Mr. Calvo was taking only an antidepressant and no antipsychotic medications, so the team initiated antipsychotic medication as a preventative measure.
d) Mr. Calvo is capable to consent to treatment and has been fully adherent for over two months. They have not observed any change in Mr. Calvo’s mental status, because he was not psychotic on admission.
e) Since admission, Mr. Calvo has shown no symptoms of depression or psychosis, he has been calm and cooperative, has shown no evidence of hallucinations, paranoia or delusions of reference, has not required seclusion, and has not been involved in any incidents of violence or aggression on the unit.
f) Mr. Calvo is on daily Suboxone as opioid replacement therapy and has been encouraged to attend a newly started substance use treatment group. He is also attending a forensic system group for new clients.
g) Mr. Calvo’s insight is partial and underdeveloped; he accepts the schizoaffective diagnosis and acknowledges that he was psychotic on the day of the Index Offence, but he does not accept that he was psychotic for years beforehand. He continues to hold the same belief he held at the time of the Index Offence, that his thoughts and feelings at the time were not driven by psychosis.
h) The treatment plan involves pharmacological interventions involving an antipsychotic, antidepressants and medication to prevent opioid relapse; psychological interventions including psychoeducation, substance use treatment, insight building and relapse symptoms recognition; and psychosocial interventions to strengthen supports that promote vocational and leisure activities.
i) Over the next year, the treatment team will focus on improving Mr. Calvo’s understanding of his mental illness, his relapse factors, the relationship between substance use, relapse and violence, and the forensic system.
j) Mr. Calvo generally follows rules and works well with staff and peers. He has only occasionally shown mild irritability when his needs are not met promptly.
k) Looking ahead, the treatment team will proceed in a slow, stepwise progression of passes, starting with escorted passes on hospital grounds with multiple staff, including security. They will gradually reduce staff and security, and eventually, if all goes well, progress to community passes. The progression can be paused or reversed if problems arise. Indirectly supervised passes would not be considered until seven months from the date of this hearing, at the earliest.
l) The next step would be for Mr. Calvo to either move to a Secure Forensic Unit (“SFU”), to assess how he uses his passes before he is transferred to a General Forensic Unit (“GFU”), or to see if he can move directly from FATU to a GFU. This decision will depend on his progress.
m) It is important to have abstinence and urine testing clauses in the current Disposition, as Mr. Calvo’s psychosis emerged after the use of cannabis, alcohol and opioids. His risk of violence directly flows from his psychosis, and any non-prescribed, psychoactive substance use would increase the risk of psychosis relapse. While Mr. Calvo is an inpatient, if urine testing were to reveal substance use, the hospital would reassess his mental state, consider whether a higher level of security was required, and review, hold or discontinue any passes.
n) Each new level of pass requires a formal application to the Office of the Person in Charge (“OPIC”), and even after OPIC approval, the clinical team conducts a second review to determine whether the pass remains appropriate.
o) Passes are increased only in response to appropriate use, and if there are concerns at any stage, it can result in the pausing of, or stepping back down, the pass ladder. When a new level pass is approved, nurses conduct a mental status examination, and if concerns arise, the pass is held until the physician reviews the situation.
p) One of the initial purposes of a pass is therapeutic programming, which usually takes place on hospital grounds. As a patient progresses, passes may be used for volunteering, education, or structural activities in the community.
q) Indirectly supervised passes are not available on an SFU.
r) “Indirect” supervision does not mean unsupervised. It involves pre- and post-pass check-in, a mental status exam, a description by the patient of exactly where they are going and for how long, and verification upon return. Depending on the pass, the patient may also be required to call the unit upon departure and arrival.
s) Any positive substance use test automatically results in a reduction to level 3 passes.
- In response to questions from counsel for the Attorney General, Dr. Eid testified:
a) Pass progression often occurs roughly monthly, and each step depends on an individual’s performance and clinical stability, rather than on a fixed schedule.
b) Mr. Calvo’s presentation can appear deceptively well organized. Past assessors, including trained forensic clinicians, did not initially observe psychotic symptoms. Mr. Calvo’s delusional content only emerged after several hours of assessment.
c) Mr. Calvo continues to endorse the same delusional beliefs that informed the Index Offence. This persistence reflects limited insight, and an ongoing symptom of his illness, even if he is not currently experiencing active psychosis. Delusional beliefs can be among the most difficult symptoms to treat and may not fully respond to medication.
d) Mr. Calvo has a documented history of masking symptoms and appearing more well than he is, which requires assessors to be vigilant. However, the inpatient setting provides continuous observation by nurses and physicians, making it more difficult for Mr. Calvo to conceal emerging symptoms than it would be during brief encounters as an outpatient or in any correctional assessments.
e) While no staff member will ever spend several continuous hours assessing Mr. Calvo on a given day, staff do observe him repeatedly across entire shifts, which provides a broader and more reliable picture of his mental state.
f) The team is still assessing whether trauma-related factors or antisocial traits contribute to his risk profile.
- In response to questions from counsel for Mr. Calvo, Dr. Eid testified:
a) Counsel asked Dr. Eid to elaborate on her earlier evidence that Mr. Calvo continues to maintain the same delusional beliefs that informed the Index Offence, even though he is not currently experiencing active psychosis. She explained that Mr. Calvo no longer believes that people are actively tracking him, but he maintains the delusion that there had been an elaborate scheme against him in the past.
b) Maintaining a historical delusion does not necessarily mean that the individual is experiencing ongoing psychosis. Rather, it reflects residual fixed beliefs and limited insight, which may or may not change over time. Some people continue to believe that their delusions in the past were true, even when optimally treated.
c) It is too early to determine whether Mr. Calvo’s persistent belief about the Index Offence contributes to any current or future risk of violence, as she is just getting to know him.
d) Future risk depends on whether new psychotic symptoms emerge, not solely on the persistence of a past delusional narrative.
- In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Eid testified:
a) Mr. Calvo is currently housed on an SFU, and his future unit placement will depend on how he manages his passes and how his mental state evolves over time.
b) Mr. Calvo’s symptoms and his delusional thinking are not readily apparent.
c) As set out on page 28 of the Hospital Report, Mr. Calvo’s pattern of attempting to conceal symptoms of psychosis when unwell has been noted by his outpatient psychiatrist, Dr. Scalco, the jail psychiatrist, and Dr. Ramshaw. This pattern suggests that Mr. Calvo can present as less ill than he is, even when very unwell. While this masking ability is a concern, this issue arose when Mr. Calvo was an outpatient, not as an inpatient, where there are now eyes on him essentially all the time, so it is much harder to mask symptoms. It is also relevant that staff are aware of Mr. Calvo’s presentation and know what signs and symptoms to look for.
d) By the time the treatment team is ready to consider indirectly supervised passes into the community, Mr. Calvo will have been an inpatient for several months, and they will have a much better idea of his symptomatology and his presentation.
e) Her attention was drawn to page 24 of the Hospital Report, which indicates that Mr. Calvo has a: “history of problems with traumatic experiences and other antisocial behaviour which are possibly present, and require further exploration over the course of the coming year.”
The team is still trying to assess, and ascertain the full picture of, Mr. Calvo, and these are still early days.
f) The current working diagnosis for Mr. Calvo is schizoaffective disorder, which is a chronic, lifetime condition. Untreated, there is an upwards of 90% chance that he would experience a subsequent psychotic episode, which is why they are currently administering antipsychotic medication to him.
g) It is likely that Mr. Calvo will be able to avail himself of indirectly supervised passes on hospital grounds during the next reporting year. The privilege to enter the community indirectly supervised depends on whether Mr. Calvo appropriately exercises all his privileges and passes up to this level.
h) The requirement to avoid “substances” does not mean just opioids; cannabis, alcohol, and all such substances would contribute to his risk factors.
i) There have been referrals made for a psychological assessment to explore his personality factors and other risk factors.
j) Mr. Calvo has not expressed any remorse for the Index Offence because, in his view, he had no choice. He believes that the victim was going to kill him and that he was acting in self-defence.
k) The Hospital Report does indicate that Mr. Calvo has a hearing deficit of some sort. However, she has not observed him having any hearing difficulty or seen him use hearing aids. Once Mr. Calvo has settled onto her unit and has access to passes, they would consider sending him for a hearing test.
l) She would not describe him as particularly forthcoming or chatty, but he is not particularly guarded or suspicious either.
m) The highest level of passes that Mr. Calvo can enjoy on her unit is level 3. When he transfers to an SFU, he will be able to access higher levels.
n) The granting of passes is tied to Mr. Calvo’s abstention from substances and participation in psychotherapeutic programming. Lack of insight is not a barrier to obtaining passes, as it does not necessarily correlate with risk. “Indirectly supervised” does not mean going out independently without any supervision. Some passes might be for half hour into the community, where the patient is followed by staff; other passes require regular check-in by phone.
o) A patient would not be granted indirectly supervised passes before demonstrating that he can enter the community on accompanied passes.
- No other evidence was called.
Analysis and Conclusions
Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence as well as submissions of the parties, the Board agrees with the joint submission: Mr. Calvo poses a significant threat to the safety of the public. The risk that he poses can be managed with a Detention Order.
In Winko, the Supreme Court outlined that, in coming to the conclusion on the issue of significant risk, a Review Board should closely examine a range of evidence, including: the circumstances of the original offence; the past and expected course of the accused’s treatment; the present state of the NCR accused’s medical condition; the NCR accused’s own plans for the future; the support existing for the NCR accused in the community; and most importantly, the recommendations provided by experts who examined the NCR accused. In coming to our conclusion in this matter, the Board relies on the uncontroverted expert evidence of Dr. Eid, in addition to the documentary evidence before us.
As set out on page 21 of the Hospital Report, when asked if he required supervision by the Board, Mr. Calvo provided a circumstantial response, stating that he would be in hospital for another year. He did not believe ongoing detention was necessary, and he denied any concern regarding psychotic symptoms if he were to discontinue antipsychotic medication and remain unsupervised in the community.
Mr. Calvo suffers from a primary psychotic illness, schizoaffective disorder. He requires long-term treatment on antipsychotic medication.
Mr. Calvo has a history of severe violence in the context of untreated psychotic symptoms. He continues to demonstrate limited insight into his past psychotic symptoms and illness. In the community, he has demonstrated variable adherence to prescribed psychotropic medications.
Mr. Calvo has historically demonstrated limited coping strategies for managing stress and negative emotions. He would benefit from attending psychoeducation and structured programming to learn coping skills to manage his anger and frustration effectively, without resorting to the use of substances or violence to cope with stress.
In particular, the Board relies on the following extracted paragraphs from the Hospital Report:
“Mr. Calvo possesses the following current Clinical risk factors of high relevance: recent problems with symptoms of major mental disorder (ongoing delusional ideation) and insight (partial insight, has not yet received extensive psychoeducational programming regarding his illness). He possibly possesses current problems with treatment or supervision response (history of medication non-adherence). He has not had any recent problems with instability or violent ideation or intent.
Mr. Calvo possibly possesses the following Risk Management risk factors of high relevance: future problems with treatment or supervision response (history of non-adherence to psychotropic medications and a pattern of attempts to conceal symptoms during assessment) and stress and coping (coping skills have consisted primarily of substance use). He possibly possesses problems with personal support (a few sustained friendships, no current family contact), but this is of moderate relevance. While under the ORB, he would not have problems with professional services or his living situation.
In risk assessment, one of the best predictors is a patient’s history of violence. Mr. Calvo’s index offence occurred in the context of cocaine, opioid, alcohol use, and symptoms of psychosis, including auditory hallucinations, persecutory delusions that he was being monitored, and delusions of reference. Though he had not been experiencing psychotic symptoms on admission, he only demonstrated partial insight into his illness and history of psychosis, and inconsistent commitment to long-term treatment with antipsychotic medications. If he were to become medication non-adherent, use substances, or disengage from psychiatric services, he would likely experience disturbed perceptions and paranoid and persecutory delusions. This would cause him to misperceive the behaviour of others, leading to violence.
Mr. Calvo has a history of psychosis, violence, and significant substance use, including opioids, alcohol, cannabis, and stimulants, which likely exacerbated his psychotic symptoms at the material time. It is our opinion that given the aforementioned risk factors and his risk assessment scores, Mr. Calvo remains a significant threat to the safety of the public absent ORB supervision.
The team is of the unanimous opinion that a Detention Order, with up to indirectly supervised passes into the community, is necessary and appropriate to manage Mr. Calvo’s risk to the public.
Mr. Calvo’s index offence was serious, and resulted in the death of the victim. Of note, despite contact with psychiatric care on multiple occasions, Mr. Calvo was not definitively diagnosed with, or treated for, a psychotic disorder prior to the index offence. Furthermore, when unwell Mr. Calvo has made attempts to conceal symptoms of psychosis, which is a notable pattern from assessments by his outpatient psychiatrist Dr. Scalco, jail psychiatrists, and Dr. Ramshaw. This suggests that even when very unwell, Mr. Calvo can present as less ill than he is. While he has not demonstrated severe overt psychotic symptoms during his time on the FATU thus far, despite being on a therapeutic dose of antipsychotic medication, he remains with limited insight into the relationship between his persecutory beliefs, his illness, and his risk of violence. As such, it is our view that he requires ongoing inpatient hospitalization for ongoing assessment, treatment optimization, and psychotherapeutic programming to address insight, coping skills, and substance use. For the above reasons, it is our opinion that community living would not be appropriate in the coming year.”
Indirectly Supervised Passes Into the Community
Dr. Eid’s evidence confirms that Mr. Calvo has shown no signs of psychosis, no depressive symptoms and no behavioural management concerns. He has remained fully adherent with all prescribed medications, including antipsychotic medication and opioid replacement therapy. These factors indicate that he is functioning well within a structured environment and is capable of safely progressing through standard pass hierarchy.
The pass system employed by CAMH is inherently protective; each level requires both approval from the Office of the Person in Charge and day-to-day clinical assessment of his mental status before any pass is exercised. Dr. Eid described a system in which passes are incremental, reversible, and able to be paused immediately if any concerns arise. This structure serves as a safeguard that allows the Board to authorize indirectly supervised passes without compromising public safety.
The evidence before us is that, if all goes well, a patient typically reaches indirectly supervised community passes after around the seventh month from the date of the Disposition. In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Eid testified that Mr. Calvo could utilize indirectly supervised passes towards the end of the coming reporting year, depending on how things go.
The Board recognizes that there are currently many unknowns, as staff are still getting to know Mr. Calvo. He still must engage in many psychotherapy treatments and be assessed on how he handles the pass ladder. The question or issue before us is not, is he ready today, but what is the least onerous and least restrictive provisions for the coming reporting year.
The decision reached in Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre versus Ontario (Attorney General) [2004] 1 SCR 498, 2004 SCC 20, confirmed that: “the least onerous and least restrictive requirement in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code applies not only to the choice of disposition but also to the conditions attached to that disposition.”
Parliament intended the Board to apply the full s. 672.54 analysis, including public safety, mental condition, reintegration and other needs at every stage, including when crafting a condition. Conditions must take into consideration the accused’s liberty interests. This jurisprudence requires when considering appropriate privileges that the Board ensure that restrictions of liberty of a patient are minimally impairing.
Dr. Eid has made it quite clear that the hospital’s procedures and process do take into consideration the safety of the public as well the mental condition of Mr. Calvo, his reintegration into society and his other needs. This decision to include indirectly supervised passes was supported by Dr. Eid and OPIC.
These are early days, and Mr. Calvo is learning the process and procedures of the forensic system. The treatment team is also learning, and their ability to assess Mr. Calvo’s risk, and his capability to utilize the pass ladder system, will improve with time. There is always uncertainty about how any patient will progress, but such uncertainty is not a legal reason to restrict his liberty interests, especially as the evidence is that Mr. Calvo is “likely,” if all goes well, to be in a position to exercise some limited form of indirectly supervised passes. Such passes will be utilized in such a manner to protect the safety of the public. These passes are essential for Mr. Calvo’s reintegration into society and his other needs.
As set out in the evidence, the treatment team will be proceeding in a very cautious, stepwise process with many oversights to ensure both the safety of the public and Mr. Calvo’s liberty interests. Accordingly, the necessary and appropriate Disposition is to allow the privilege of entering into the community of the Greater Toronto Area, indirectly supervised.
While the Board appreciates the profound loss, grief and trauma sustained by the friends and family of the victim (as eloquently and emotionally detailed in the four VIS), the Board’s decision-making is governed by the jurisprudence of those found not criminally responsible. As noted below, public safety is paramount but only one of the factors we must consider.
In consideration of all the evidence, submissions of the parties and criteria set forth in s. 672.54, the paramount consideration being the safety of the public, in addition to the mental condition of Mr. Calvo, his reintegration into society and his other needs, the necessary, and appropriate, Disposition is a Detention Order, upon the terms set out in our formal Disposition.
DATED this 11^th^ day of May, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Mr. J. Weinstein Alternate Chairperson
__________________
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board