Re Daniel Popov, 2026 CanLII 48356

Re: Daniel Popov

ORB File No: 8882

Hearing held on: Thursday, April 9, 2026

Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health

Pursuant to: Section 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Ms. C. Fromstein

Members: Hon. N. Kozloff

Dr. J. Kis

Dr. A. Kerry

Mr. S. Doherty

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Daniel Popov

Counsel: Ms. S. Feldman

The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. M. Warner

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. D. Brandes

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated May 21, 2026)

Introduction

1. On October 21, 2025, Mr. Daniel Popov was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on a charge of arson – disregard for human life, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”).

2. That finding was based on an assessment of Mr. Popov’s criminal responsibility, and the related report authored, by Dr. H. Meng, dated September 23, 2024, (“NCR Report”), marked Exhibit 10 in this hearing.

3. The Court did not make a Disposition and, pursuant to s. 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code, ordered that Mr. Popov appear before the Ontario Review Board (“ORB” and “the Board”) for an initial Disposition.

4. Mr. Popov has been living with his surety (family) in the community subject to a Release Order with conditions dated July 31^st, 2023.

5. On April 9, 2026, the Board convened a hearing at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto (“CAMH” and the “hospital”) to make an initial Disposition.

6. An ORB ordered Risk Assessment, also authored by Dr. Meng and dated March 18, 2026, (“Hospital Report”), was marked Exhibit 11.

7. Mr. Popov was present at the hearing and was represented by his counsel, Ms. S. Feldman.

8. The issues at this hearing were whether Mr. Popov is a significant threat to public safety, as defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code, and, if so, what is the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances, bearing in mind the factors enunciated in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

9. For the reasons set out below and based on the expert evidence and opinions before us, the Board unanimously concluded that Mr. Popov represents a significant threat to the safety of the public.

10. The Board was also unanimous in finding that the necessary and appropriate, least onerous and least restrictive Disposition to manage Mr. Popov’s risk is a detention order at the Forensic Service, CAMH, with community living in the Greater Toronto Area and subject to the terms and conditions set out in our formal Disposition.

Positions of the Parties

11. At the outset of the hearing, the parties were invited to provide their initial without prejudice positions.

12. Counsel for the hospital submitted that the issue of significant threat was made out on the evidence and recommended a Detention Order with privileges up to and including community living approved by the hospital in the Greater Toronto Area (Mr. Popov’s family lives in Richmond Hill) upon the terms set out in the Hospital Report. These terms include (among others) that while residing in the community Mr. Popov shall report to the person in charge at CAMH, or his or her designate, not less than once every four weeks; that he may travel within Canada for up to four weeks in duration while accompanied by an approved person and subject to the approval of the hospital; that he shall abstain absolutely from the non-medical use of alcohol or drugs or any other intoxicant and submit samples of his urine and/or breath to the person in charge at CAMH, or his or her designate, for the purpose of analyzing whether he has ingested alcohol, drugs, or any other intoxicant or non-prescribed medication; and, that he must refrain from having in his possession any firearm, ammunition or other offensive weapon, or incendiary device, or being in the company of any person possessing a firearm other than a peace officer.

13. Counsel for the Attorney General agreed with the hospital’s position.

14. Counsel for Mr. Popov advised that the issue of significant threat was not contested and asked for a condition permitting international travel while accompanied by an approved person and subject to the approval of the person in charge at CAMH.

Personal Background

15. Mr. Popov’s personal background is set out in detail in the Hospital Report. Relevant excerpts are set out below:

“At the time of the assessment, Mr. Popov was a 24-year-old single man who resided in the community with his parents and younger brother, aged 14, in a house in Richmond Hill.

Mr. Popov was born in Richmond Hill, Ontario to married parents. He was the product of a planned pregnancy. There was no maternal substance exposure in utero. There were no complications with his gestation or birth. He met his early developmental milestones on time.

Mr. Popov was the second in a sibline of 4 brothers. His parents, father Dmitri Popov, and mother Tatiana Popova, were originally from Russia. They immigrated to Canada in 1999 following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Both parents initially did not speak English on arrival, but they eventually adapted and settled into Canadian culture.

Mr. Popov obtained a high school diploma and graduated one year behind his peer group in 2020. He reported difficulties during his early academic years. By Grade 8, Mr. Popov was a straight A student. He was particularly good in math. He continued to perform well and remained an A student until Grade 11, when he again started to struggle. He ultimately graduated with marks in the 60s.

Mr. Popov obtained his first paid job at the age of 16. He worked as a lifeguard and swim instructor after school and during his summer breaks. Mr. Popov began working for his father in 2020 (age 19). He stopped working for his father in 2022 In retrospect, he believed that he was “kind of delusional” around the time that he decided to stop working for his father. This was the same time that he started to believe that his friend’s suicide had been faked. He also indicated that he was likely hearing voices during this time. Between 2022 and 2023, Mr. Popov worked short-term positions in factories. His jobs would last no longer than one to two months. He estimated that he worked at three or four different places during this period. He would “just say ‘I quit’” without notice on deciding to leave these positions. He opined that he was “kind of lazy” and lacked the drive to pursue goals. Mr. Popov was last employed around January or February 2023.

Mr. Popov resumed working for his father following the index offence. He helped his father rebuild their family home, where they now reside. He continued to work full-time assisting his father’s work as an electrician. He was also financially supported by ODSP. He was contemplating returning to school for further vocational training, possibly in nursing or as an electrician.

Mr. Popov had one previous romantic relationship. He dated a same-aged female peer for six months in Grade 11. The relationship ended on his terms. This was his only previous sexual experience. Mr. Popov previously had a large group of friends. He remained active within his social circle in 2021. However, by 2022, his social contacts decreased, and his friend group “just split up.” Presently, his non-familial social contact was limited to the younger brother of his deceased friend, Liam.”

Psychiatric History

16. Mr. Popov’s psychiatric history is outlined in detail in the Hospital Report. Relevant excerpts are set out below:

“Mr. Popov described a decline in his functioning and mental health starting around mid-2022. In 2020, Mr. Popov’s mother informed him that his friend, Liam, had died by suicide. He had doubts that Liam had really killed himself because Liam died by hanging, and Mr. Popov himself would not have committed suicide in this manner. Mr. Popov also noted that Liam had been on antidepressants and drank some alcohol, which somehow “did not seem real.”

By mid-2022, Mr. Popov started to experience “thoughts in my head” of Liam’s older sister telling him that Liam was not actually dead and that his suicide had been faked. Mr. Popov emphasized that this was “not really a voice, just a thought” and that “I don’t really hear voices, I just have thoughts.” However, when asked to elaborate, he described obtaining information foreign from his own thoughts in a manner that sounded like someone speaking to him. He described these experiences as “telepathy.” When asked to differentiate telepathy from thoughts, he then conceded that they “may” have sounded like voices.

Mr. Popov proceeded to relay an elaborate account of systemic persecution related to the faking of his friend’s death. He came to believe that “the whole world was in on it,” and that “all these people,” including his friend and his friend’s sister, had “betrayed” him. He eventually came to believe that he was “the chosen one,” and that he had been selected for a special purpose. He believed that this process of selecting a “chosen one” had been done for many generations and that “they’ve done it before to someone in the 70s [1970s] – now it’s me.” He started to believe that when people died, their brains could be hooked up to a machine that kept them alive. He referenced the case of a Russian scientist that had severed a dog’s head and circulated its blood through a machine so that “the dog came back to life after 24 hours.” He believed that something similar would happen to himself and that “really evil people” who were “like rock stars or something” were behind it. These people wanted him to train for a sword fight that would take place in 20 years and be broadcast on television. If he lost the fight, he would be hooked up to the machine for eternity. Conversely, if he won, these people would leave him alone or possibly provide him with rich rewards.

On February 26, 2023, Mr. Popov went missing from his residence. He had gone to see his probation officer on Tuesday (February 28) as scheduled during the intervening period, but his whereabouts during that time were otherwise unknown. The family filed a missing person report. He was found by police on March 4 and taken to Mackenzie Health Hospital.

His mother reported that he had been using cannabis (for a number of years) as well as mushrooms. His substance use seemed to wax and wane. Although he denied hearing voices to the assessing psychiatrist, his mother reported that he had told her that cannabis helped to “calm down the voices in his head.” Mr. Popov’s mother reported a decline in his functioning over the preceding 1-2 years. He had been very invested in the Army reserves but then lost interest over the last two years. He stopped working for his father as an electrician and started to go from job to job, at times quitting, while at other times, being fired. He appeared to have less direction in life. He complained of different sensory sensitivities, such as sounds being too loud or lights being too bright. He lost contact with high school friends and stopped going on social media.”

Substance Abuse History

17. Mr. Popov’s substance abuse history is set out in detail in the Hospital Report. Relevant excerpts are set out below:

“Mr. Popov reported a history of cannabis use dating back to Grade 10. His cannabis use increased in Grade 11 but was still limited to weekends. In 2021, he began to use cannabis almost every week. This increased to daily by 2022 when he started “experimenting” with cannabis as a way to soothe the emotional pain of his friend’s death. By early 2023, his cannabis use reportedly decreased to about once per week, as he worried that the drug was contaminated with poison.

Of note, Mr. Popov’s self-reported pattern of cannabis use conflicted with his mother’s collateral report that his cannabis use started to increase again in December 2022.

Mr. Popov denied any adverse effects related to his use of cannabis, stating that it just made him feel “very relaxed” and sometimes “very euphoric.” Despite this positive appraisal, he also reported incurring a driving conviction in 2022 in relation to his use of cannabis. Mr. Popov initially denied any cannabis use in the week leading up to the index offence. He then reported possibly smoking cannabis on the night before the offence. He also reported smoking cannabis the day after the index offence while he was missing from his residence. He denied any substance use since that time.

Mr. Popov reported drinking alcohol occasionally and drinking to the point of intoxication about once every few months. He denied any alcohol use in 2021, but in 2022, was consuming a few drinks per week. He sometimes felt very euphoric when he drank. He reported drinking minimally in 2023 because he believed everything was poisoned. When initially interviewed on April 12, 2024, he did not volunteer having used alcohol on the day of the March 20, 2023, index offence. However, he subsequently disclosed having done so to the BAU psychology team when they met with him in May 2024. During his follow-up psychiatric interview on June 12, 2024, he volunteered that he consumed half a bottle of vodka on the morning of the index offence. He indicated that this was unusual for him. He denied any alcohol use since the index offence.

Mr. Popov reported using mushrooms (psilocybin) on approximately eight occasions in the past. He estimated that he used mushrooms by himself about once or twice per year. He described an incident in April 2022 when he had been found climbing up the side of a church while high on mushrooms and marijuana. When interviewed on April 12, 2024, he indicated that he had not used mushrooms since 2022. However, during his follow-up meeting on June 12, 2024, he reported using mushrooms in early March 2023 and this having precipitated his decision to leave his residence and go “for a long walk” for several days. Mr. Popov denied any substance use since his arrest.”

Criminal History

18. According to the Hospital Report, Mr. Popov was found guilty of Dangerous Operation of a Conveyance on November 21, 2022. He was given a conditional discharge, placed on probation for 12 months, and prohibited from driving for 12 months.

19. Mr. Popov indicated that the incident occurred in early 2022 and that he was arrested after having used cannabis while driving. He was smoking a lot of cannabis at the time. He explained that prior to this arrest, he often drove places to smoke cannabis, as his parents did not permit him to use it at home.

20. Collateral health care records noted a previous police apprehension for aggressive behaviours while intoxicated in April 2022 that resulted in him being tasered. Health records also described significant agitation when brought to the emergency department by police in March 2023, such that chemical restraints were required to manage his behaviour. Collateral information from his family indicated that he had threatened his brother with a knife in the time leading up to the index offence.

Index Offence

21. The circumstances giving rise to the Index Offence are set out in the Hospital Report as follows:

“Mr. Popov was charged with Arson, Mischief Over $5,000, and Breach Probation in relation to a fire at his family home on March 20, 2023.

Synopsis

On Monday March 20, 2023, at approximately 1250 hrs, York Regional Police received multiple calls for an explosion and a fire at located at 62 Deerwood Crescent in the City of Richmond Hill.

The first officer on the scene arrived with multiple fire trucks. The home was fully engulfed with thick black smoke and large orange flames that appeared to be coming from the top storey of the home. The black smoke could be seen from quite a distance and was attracting a small crowd that had gathered on the street. 62 Deerwood Crescent can be described as a large, detached home on a residential street. It appears to be a two-storey home with a front and back yard. The first officer assisted by moving the crowd back and securing the scene for the fire crews on scene. The first officer spoke with the persons on scene and identified an independent witness, SH. This male resided across the street at D[…] Crescent. SH advised that at approximately 1245 hrs, he heard a very loud singular explosion. He came outside and observed a male running from 62 Deerwood in a westbound direction towards the trail. SH tried to speak to the male who just appeared blank and ran away. SH does not know the male by name but knows that he is resides at number 62 as he has seen him on multiple occasions. SH described the male as a younger white male, approximately 20 years-old, wearing a black or dark grey hooded sweatshirt. Shortly after, the homeowner, Dimitri Popov, arrived on scene. Dmitri confirmed that the only person who was supposed to be home was his son, Daniel Popov. The description provided by SH matches the descriptors of Daniel Popov. Dimitri tried to call his son multiple times but with negative results. Dimitri advised there should also be a younger German Sheppard dog at the house. At the time of this report, both Daniel Popov and the dog are outstanding. The residence at 60 Deerwood Crescent also suffered damage as a result of the fire.”

22. Mr. Popov was admitted to Southlake Regional Health Centre on March 24, 2023, after he was located by police wandering on the grounds of his former elementary school during school hours. School staff had become concerned about his presence and contacted police. It was noted that he had been missing and out of contact with his family since the March 20, 2023, fire. On April 11, 2023, Mr. Popov was discharged from Southlake Regional Health Centre into custody at CECC. As noted above, he was released from custody on a Recognizance with Surety on July 31, 2023.

Current Psychiatric Diagnoses

23. Mr. Popov’s diagnoses are set out in the Hospital Report:

a) Schizophrenia;

b) Substance Use Disorder (cannabis, alcohol, and psilocybin, in sustained remission.

Risk Assessment

24. The risk assessment is set out in considerable detail at pp. 30 – 36 of the Hospital Report and those details need not be reproduced here. Briefly summarized, Dr. Meng enumerates the various actuarial methods of risk assessment utilized in assessing Mr. Popov’s risk and the results thereof, and identifies the following criminogenic risk factors as being important in understanding Mr. Popov’s current and future risk:

A. Major Mental Illness (Schizophrenia)

B. Insight and Medication Compliance

C. Superficial Treatment Engagement and Deception

D. Coping with Stress

E. Substance Use

25. In the result, she opines that Mr. Popov represents a significant threat to the safety of the public based on the factors set out in R. v. Winko, and posits as follows:

“Violent reoffending would likely only occur while Mr. Popov is experiencing acute symptoms of his mental illness in the context of inadequate symptom control, such as that arising from medication non-compliance and/or exposure to stressors / destabilizers, including psychoactive substances. Mr. Popov has limited insight into his treatment needs. However, he is responsive to external controls and is motivated to avoid negative consequences to his liberties. His risk management is contingent on enforceable medication compliance, substance abstinence, and therapeutic engagement. A detention order with the provision for community living will ensure that Mr. Popov has access to adequately assertive management to compel his compliance with necessary interventions. Critically, this would include the ability to rapidly readmit him to hospital before his certifiability under the Mental Health Act.”

Risk Management

26. Dr. Meng addresses risk management in the Hospital Report as follows:

“The principal risk management intervention for individuals with schizophrenia is the continued administration of antipsychotic medication and the provision of adequate structure and support. Given Mr. Popov’s history of covert treatment non-compliance, ongoing long-acting medication would help ensure more reliable adherence.

Mr. Popov would benefit from follow-up with a dedicated forensic psychiatric team that understands his risk management needs, and that can ensure close, assertive follow-up.

Mr. Popov would benefit from therapeutic programming and psychoeducation to address stress and coping, illness management, and relapse prevention, and to improve his understanding of his risk management needs. He should also be supported in regular, meaningful structured activities within his daily routine, including his pursuit of vocational and educational goals. Strengthening of his social network would also mitigate his susceptibility toward social isolation and withdrawal when experiencing stress.

Mr. Popov should continue to abstain from substances and be subject to external monitoring (e.g., urine drug screens) to corroborate his abstinence. He would also benefit from ongoing psychoeducation and programming to support abstinence.

Finally, ongoing psychoeducation for Mr. Popov’s family to better understand his illness and risk management needs would assist their ongoing efforts to support his recovery.”

Recommendations

27. The Hospital Report concludes with Dr. Meng’s recommendations:

“It is my opinion that Mr. Popov represents a significant threat to the safety of the public, and that the necessary and appropriate, least onerous and least restrictive, disposition to manage his risk is a detention order with community living in the Greater Toronto Area in approved accommodations with the following terms and conditions:

While residing in the community, Mr. Popov should report to the person in charge of CAMH, or his or her designate, not less than once every four weeks.

Mr. Popov may travel within Canada for up to four weeks in duration while accompanied by an approved person and subject to the approval of the hospital.

Mr. Popov should submit samples of his urine and/or breath to the person in charge of CAMH, or his or her designate, for the purpose of analyzing whether he has ingested alcohol, drugs, or any other intoxicant or non-prescribed medication.

Mr. Popov must refrain from having in his/her possession any firearm, ammunition or other offensive weapon, or being in the company of any person possessing a firearm other than a peace officer.”

Evidence at the Hearing

28. The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and the testimony of Dr. H. Meng who, as noted above, is the assessing psychiatrist and author of both the NCR Report and the Hospital Report.

Dr. H. Meng

29. Dr. Meng has not had a treating relationship with Mr. Popov. She interviewed him on February 13, 2026, and authored the risk assessment (Hospital Report) dated March 18, 2026, which contents she agrees with.

30. Dr. Meng confirmed the diagnosis of schizophrenia, opining that the likely onset was in Mr. Popov’s early 20s i.e. a year or so prior to the index offence, and that there were probably prodromal symptoms before that. She also confirmed a substance use disorder, currently in remission.

31. Given the geographic location of his residence and its distance from CAMH, Mr. Popov has been receiving his injectable medication from his family physician whose office is 20 minutes from the family home. He goes to these appointments with his (surety) father. The doctor opined that Mr. Popov is currently being prescribed appropriate medication by his family physician: the long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication he receives is augmented with oral medication.

32. According to his self report, Mr. Popov’s compliance with medication has not been historically reliable. He did not receive his injectable medication consistently after the index offence. He went off that medication after the 2024 (NCR) assessment until just before the October 2025 NCR finding. In the interim he was taking a “daily” oral medication but only twice per week.

33. Dr. Meng posited that the reason for his variable compliance is that while Mr. Popov has fair intellectual insight, his internalized insight into his treatment needs is much more limited. While he says appropriate things regarding medication, Dr. Meng cautions that these are the same things Mr. Popov told her in 2024 just before he stopped taking his injectable medication regularly. His insight into the implications and impact of non-compliance on him are limited.

34. Dr. Meng said that the Forensic Outpatient (“FOPS”) team should focus on enforcing compliance long term and intervene if Mr. Popov is noncompliant by restricting his liberty and bringing him into hospital. She suggested that this would be a very important motivator for Mr. Popov as he has been clear that he never wants to return to a psychiatric hospital. She explained that was a big part of why it took so long to complete the NCR: he did not want to have long term psychiatric follow-up. She opined that in the absence of these controls his compliance would deteriorate as it has in the past.

35. Regarding Mr. Popov’s rehabilitation needs, he requires help in building insight into his illness, and with his ability to pursue prosocial goals to give him structure and routine, keep him engaged, organized and motivated. He needs substance use education: while he has remained abstinent, this has been enforced by his bail condition. The team would want to ensure that Mr. Popov’s insight into substance use is internalized.

36. Asked later in the hearing about his substance use disorder and specifically whether she is satisfied that Mr. Popov has not used since shortly after the index offence, Dr. Meng replied that there is no evidence confirming that he has used. He denies using and lives with his family who confirm that.

37. Asked how cannabis use impacts his psychosis, Dr. Meng observed that Mr. Popov was untreated and using heavily at the time of the index offence, that he was using substances to deal with his psychosis, and that because both his psychosis and drug use were simultaneously active it is difficult to tease out an answer. She explained that anyone with schizophrenia is strongly advised against substance use. It can trigger a relapse of psychosis and has an adverse effect on psychosocial functioning. When Mr. Popov uses alcohol and/or mushrooms it has a clear negative impact on his behavioural control and judgment.

38. Mr. Popov has a very supportive family network. While their understanding of his mental illness and the early warning signs of deterioration is limited, they are motivated to learn and understand.

39. Regarding what is likely to occur, Dr. Meng posited that an outpatient team will be assigned to Mr. Popov. His community psychiatrist has not been sufficient for his clinical needs as a patient who is early on in his illness. Their interaction has been perfunctory; the doctor was unaware that Mr. Popov was treatment noncompliant and never saw Mr. Popov in person. Under the ORB Mr. Popov’s treatment will be comprehensive with more dedicated and intensive support. A case manager will be assigned to him.

40. Dr. Meng noted that Mr. Popov requires the more robust care provided by the FOPS team. She observed that while in the past he has not been forthcoming about his symptoms and about the inconsistency of his compliance with medication, he has more recently volunteered that he had not been medication compliant and about his medication inconsistency because of his NCR finding and his fear of hospitalization.

41. Dr. Meng anticipated that rehabilitative programming for Mr. Popov could include the following: education about the forensic system and about the steps necessary for him to fully transition out of ORB jurisdiction; illness management; programs directed at substance relapse prevention; programs designed to provide more structure in his life and support his education and employment goals. He might also benefit from individual therapy because he is higher functioning and coming into system from a non-hospital setting.

42. Asked by a panel member whether FOPS would be able to accommodate Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (“CBT”) for Psychosis to address Mr. Popov’s psychosis, Dr. Meng replied that she thought Mr. Popov could benefit from it because he seems to have the necessary intellectual insight.

43. While a home assessment has not yet taken place Dr. Meng expects that his current housing will be the approved accommodation. Richmond Hill is part of the CAMH catchment area. The team will do outreach as necessary, and Mr. Popov will come to CAMH for medication, appointments, and psychotherapeutic programming as well as the provision of UDS samples to monitor drug use.

44. The doctor explained that there may eventually be some flexibility regarding the manner and frequency of his reporting and how best to support Mr. Popov’s programming needs. One factor is Mr. Popov’s willingness and motivation to move forward and to do what is required of him. Early on the FOPS team will want more in person contact with Mr. Popov to get to know him. It is more difficult to do that on camera. Over time as the team gets to know him well, it may be possible to do more virtually. especially if he returns to school. Regarding a condition that he provide UDS samples when requested to do so, these requests may be unscheduled i.e. random drug testing. She noted that marijuana (Mr. Popov’s historically preferred drug) stays in the system for a few days.

45. Asked how the FOPS team might work with his community psychiatrist, Dr. Meng replied that while patients have been both services if they want, Mr. Popov will no longer be seeing his community psychiatrist and both Mr. Popov and his family are prepared to fully transfer his care to CAMH which “we think is appropriate”. As Mr. Popov progresses the hospital team can help him in finding a more appropriate level of (community) services close to where he lives.

46. Regarding her recommendations for disposition, Dr. Meng opined that the proposed detention order (“DO”) is necessary and appropriate. Mr. Popov needs external control; he still lacks insight into his illness, and his judgment regarding treatment is not robust. He is a rule abiding individual who is very motivated by adverse legal consequences. Involuntary admission to hospital is a strong deterrent in his case and is an available option under a detention order. Mr. Popov could deteriorate quite suddenly. Because he can appear well and with good intellectual insight, it would be very difficult to rapidly readmit him to hospital and keep him there under the Mental Health Act (“MHA”). Dr. Meng noted that 2 weeks before the index offence Mr. Popov was at hospital in an agitated state, but he was not certifiable and was discharged. She posited that should he deteriorate in the absence of a DO the hospital’s ability to intervene in order to mitigate his risk would be limited.

47. Dr. Meng observed that Mr. Popov’s lack of insight is both significant and challenging because he can appear quite rational, which makes him difficult to manage under the MHA. Given the nature of his illness, Mr. Popov can be withdrawn, and it can be difficult to assess his mental state because he can mask his psychosis and his feelings. He has had a first episode psychosis. He is guarded about his psychotic symptoms, and his clinical trajectory is an unknown. Thus, the response to his illness must be proactive. That is a big part of why a DO is appropriate, even with him being on long-acting injectable medication. Behaviour as innocuous as Mr. Popov deciding not to eat with his family could be ominous.

48. Regarding the proposed travel clause, Dr. Meng noted Mr. Popov’s strong protective factors: he has a very supportive, involved, close knit family, and he is on long-acting injectable medication. The requirement of hospital approval will ensure that the proposed itinerary and timing are appropriate, and the requirement that he travel in the company of an approved person will ensure that he is effectively monitored. She envisions his family members applying for approved person status.

49. Dr. Meng acknowledged that Mr. Popov’s protective factors also include his level of empathy, his steady employment, and his realistic life goals. He works with his father. The social worker has informed her that they have spoken to her about a plan to work this summer at the family cottage near Bancroft.

50. Asked how long the approved person process takes, Dr. Meng replied that it depends on family engagement. It requires a “police check: and arranging an appointment. Given that Mr. Popov’s family is quite responsive she anticipated that it is likely to happen quickly i.e. before the summer.

51. Regarding whether international travel could be supported, Dr. Meng replied that she hadn’t turned her mind to that. Assuming Mr. Popov’s medication was up to date, a safety plan was in place, and the itinerary was approved, she said it was a reasonable request which aligns with his rehabilitation.

52. Dr. Meng was asked about including a clause in the disposition mirroring the release order condition prohibiting contact with various named individuals. It was noted that one of those individuals – Steven Sung – is a neighbour who regularly inquires about Mr. Popov’s well-being. Another one – Riccardo Pettica – was a neighbour who has moved and is now suing Mr. Popov. It was suggested that there be no contact with him except through counsel.

53. No other evidence was called.

Final Submissions

54. Counsel on behalf of the hospital said that the parties appeared to be ad idem on most of the issues. Dr. Meng highlighted in the Hospital Report and in her testimony the need to focus initially on oversight of Mr. Popov’s medication compliance and to support his insight development about his need for medication over the long term. Counsel stressed the importance of maintaining compliance, substance use abstinence and programing. She noted that while there are risk factors there are also protective factors, citing, his very supportive family and his prosocial goals. A DO is necessary and appropriate, primarily for the ability of the hospital to rapidly admit him at an earliest sign of decompensation because of medication noncompliance, substance use, the impact of stressors, or some combination thereof. The MHA has not proven in the past to be sufficient to manage his risk.

55. Regarding international travel, she had no instructions from the hospital but noted that Dr. Meng supported it with prior approval and an approved person.

56. Counsel on behalf of the Attorney General supported the hospital position, noting the reasonableness of the proposed DO with its various privileges. He concluded with the observation that Mr. Popov is blessed to have a very supportive family.

57. Counsel on behalf of Mr. Popov noted Mr. Popov’s strong protective factors and the fact that he has been living in the community without incident since July 2023. She agreed that the proposed terms and conditions are reasonable.

Analysis and Conclusions

a. Significant Threat

58. Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence as well as the submissions from the parties, the Board finds that Mr. Popov is a significant threat to the safety of the public.

59. 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.

60. In coming to our conclusion in this matter, the Board relies on the uncontroverted expert evidence of Dr. Meng, in addition to the documentary evidence before us. On the totality of the evidence, it is clear that Mr. Popov meets all the criteria of a significant threat to the public safety. The doctor’s evidence is that there is a real and foreseeable risk of serious harm to the public, should Mr. Popov stop his medication or resume substance use. This risk is not considered trivial or speculative; it is based on Mr. Popov’s past behaviour and the nature of his illness. Mr. Popov’s relative mental stability is attributed to the medication that he is getting and to his abstinence from substance use. He needs the support of an outpatient treatment team, which his community psychiatrist cannot provide.

61. The Board has no difficulty in finding that Mr. Popov satisfies the test set out in Marmolejo (Re), 2021 ONCA 130, wherein Chief Justice Tulloch reviewed the relevant test at paragraph 37:

"The threshold for significant risk is "onerous": Carrick (Re) (2015), 128 O.R. (3d) 209, [2015] O.J. No. 6524, 2015 ONCA 866, at para. 17. A significant threat to the safety of the public means a foreseeable and substantial risk of physical or psychological [page195] harm to members of the public: R. v. Ferguson, [2010] O.J. No. 5138, 2010 ONCA 810, at para. 8. The conduct must be of a serious criminal nature: Ferguson, at para. 8. A very small risk of grave harm will not suffice, nor will a high risk of trivial harm: Ferguson, at para. 8. The threat must be more than speculative in nature; it must be supported by evidence: Winko, at p. 665 S.C.R.; Pellett (Re) (2017), 139 O.R. (3d) 651, [2017] O.J. No. 5025, 2017 ONCA 753, at para. 21.”

b. The Necessary and Appropriate Disposition

62. While Mr. Popov’s current relative mental stability is both notable and commendable, the evidence clearly establishes that when his illness was untreated and he was using substances that combination resulted in a significant risk of serious physical or psychological harm to the public.

63. Mr. Popov’s current mental status is conditional on strict adherence to treatment and abstinence and to the strictures imposed by his release order. Given his past intermittent non-adherence, his partial insight, his reliance on external supports, and the demonstrated inadequacy of the MHA to rapidly readmit him to hospital and to keep him there should that prove necessary, this Board agrees that a detention order disposition is both necessary and appropriate, as it is accompanied with close monitoring of his medication adherence, psychiatric follow-up and substance abstinence.

64. In consideration of all the evidence, the submissions of the parties, and the criteria set out in s. 672.54, the paramount consideration being the safety of the public, in addition to the mental condition of Mr. Popov, his reintegration into society and his other needs, the Board is unanimous in finding that the necessary and appropriate Disposition for Mr. Popov is a Detention Order on the terms and conditions recommended in the Hospital Report with the addition that he must refrain from having in his possession any incendiary device and with the addition of international travel with an approved person and subject to the approval of the person in charge or his or her designate, and, a no contact provision mirroring the one in the release order except for the removal of Mr. Sung from the list of named individuals and the addition of the words “except through counsel” with respect to Mr. Pettica.

DATED this 21^st day of May, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.

Hon. N. Kozloff

Legal Member

__________________

Office of the Registrar

Ontario Review Board