Ontario Review Board

Re: D.P. (J.C.)

ORB File No: 7319

Hearing held on: Wednesday, April 1, 2026

Place of Hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre

Pursuant to: Sections 672.81(2.1) and 672.81(2) of the Criminal Code

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Ms. M. Labrosse

Members: Dr. R. Kunjukrishnan

Dr. G. Nexhipi

Ms. R. Louis

Ms. B. Naegele

Parties Appearing:

Accused: D.P. (J.C.)

Counsel: Ms. M. Munsterman

Person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. J. Gojer

Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. M. Dufort

*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 DECISION & DISPOSITION

(Dated May 5, 2026)

Introduction

1. On March 16, 2018, D.P. (J.C.), was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on charges of indecent acts, failure to comply with probation order, and breach of recognizance of bail, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada.

2. D.P. (J.C.) is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated July 3, 2025, which detains him within the Secure Forensic Unit of the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, Ottawa, with privileges up to and including to live in the community in 24-hour a day supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge.

3. By way of letter dated February 4, 2026, the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, hereinafter referred to as “the Royal” or “the hospital”, notified the Ontario Review Board (“ORB”) of D.P. (J.C.)’s readmission to hospital for a period exceeding seven days thereby providing official notification pursuant to s. 672.56(2)(b) of the Criminal Code of the significant increase in the restriction of D.P. (J.C.)’s liberty.

4. On February 4, 2026, the hospital provided a Rule 13 Notice to the Brockville Mental Health Centre advising of its intention to request to transfer D.P. (J.C.)’s care to the Brockville Mental Health Centre.

5. On February 18, 2026, the hospital received a letter from the Brockville Mental Health Centre advising of their willingness to place D.P. (J.C.) on a waitlist for admission.

6. On April 1, 2026, the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing at the Royal to review the significant increase in the restriction of D.P. (J.C.)’s liberty and as well to conduct an early hearing for the review of his last disposition pursuant to ss. 672.81(2.1) and 672.81(2) of the Criminal Code.

7. The following documents were entered as Exhibits for the hearing:

8. Hospital Report dated March 6, 2026

9. Queensway-Carleton Psychiatric Discharge Summary dated January 2, 2026

10. At the commencement of the hearing, the parties provided their preliminary without prejudice positions on both the restriction of liberty and the early hearing at which time the Board was informed of a likely joint position on the issue of the transfer to Brockville. With respect to the restriction of liberty, counsel for D.P. (J.C.), Ms. Munsterman, indicated her client’s objection to the initial admission, however acknowledging that, at this time, he currently has no where else to go.

11. In closing submissions, the parties confirmed their preliminary positions on both the issue of the ROL and the transfer to Brockville.

12. For the reasons set out below, the Board finds that the hospital’s decision to significantly increase the restriction of D.P. (J.C.)’s liberty by admitting him to the hospital on January 28, 2026, was reasonable and warranted and represented the least onerous and least restrictive course of action available to the hospital to deal with the increased risk to the public.

13. The Board finds that the ongoing restriction also remains necessary and appropriate in the circumstances given that D.P. (J.C.) cannot be discharged to the community of Ottawa and given the proposed imminent transfer to Brockville Mental Health Centre.

14. Finally, the Board finds that the transfer to Brockville is necessary and appropriate, and a new disposition shall issue providing for that transfer with the Royal maintaining residual authority pending the transfer.

Index Offences

13. The details of the index offences are set out in the hospital report as follows:

“On 07 Jun 17, 2017, Cst. Peach observed a male in front of 1311 Cumberland Street, walking in circles on the sidewalk and driveway portion of the residence. Upon getting closer to the male, Cst. Peach observed him to have no shirt on with black baggy jogging pants. The pants were down slightly, exposing the male’s pubic hair and penis. The male looked at police as the cruiser passed him and made no effort to pull up his pants, until he saw the cruiser turn around in a next door neighbour’s driveway. Upon driving back to the male’s residence and exiting the cruiser, the male, whom police recognized from previous dealings as D.P. (J.D.) began talking and his pants again, fell down, exposing his pubic hair and entire penis.”

Background History

14. D.P. (J.C.)’s personal, legal and psychiatric history are set out in detail in the hospital report. Briefly summarized, D.P. (J.C.) is currently 40 years of age and was born in Montreal. He is the youngest of three children.

15. The family moved to Lancaster, Ontario, when he was three. His mother worked on a chicken farm, and his father has worked as a truck driver.

16. D.P. (J.C.)’s parents separated when he was around eight years old. After the separation, his sister lived with their mother and his brother lived with their father. D.P. (J.C.) went back and forth between his parents’ homes.

17. D.P. (J.C.)’s mother reported that his brother sexually abused him on a single occasion when he was four years old. His brother, C., who was fourteen at the time, was caring for D.P. (J.C.) at home one day when his parents were away. They watched an erotic adult film on television and C. asked D.P. (J.C.) to touch his genitals and he complied. D.P. (J.C.) told his mother about this incident a week after it occurred. His mother indicated that the event did not recur, and child protection authorities were not involved.

18. D.P. (J.C.) reported being truant from school from age twelve to seventeen. Records from the Royal indicate that D.P. (J.C.) lived in a tent on his father’s or mother’s property for several periods in his late adolescence and early twenties. He moved to his own apartment for about one year around the age of 21, however he had difficulty managing on his own and had paranoid beliefs that someone was following him. He returned home to live with his father around age 22.

19. His parents said that he was hyperactive and impulsive from a young age. His mother reported that he was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (“ADHD”) around age five and treated with Concerta (psychostimulant medication) for two weeks; it is not clear why the medication was stopped.

20. A psychological assessment report from 2011 indicates that he was suspended twice in primary school for behavioural problems.

21. D.P. (J.C.) reported that he began putting more effort into his studies when he started high school, because he had decided to attend college. He achieved marks in the 70% range in high school but started hearing voices around this time which made it very difficult for him to continue school. He completed grade 10 before leaving high school.

22. D.P. (J.C.) said that he worked part-time at various jobs from age twelve to sixteen. He collected golf balls at a golf course and shoveled snow in his community. In adolescence, he spent his summers working bailing hay, helping his mother at the chicken farm, and working at a warehouse. After leaving high school, he was employed in a manufacturing job. His mother reported that he was a hard worker in his youth, but that he stopped working around the age of seventeen because of complaints that “his head wasn’t right.” He has been on ODSP since the age of eighteen for mental illness.

Criminal History

23. D.P. (J.C.) has a considerable criminal record including a break and enter conviction as a young offender and more notably, convictions for sexual assault, forcible confinement and three counts of failure to comply regarding an incident that occurred in December 2008. At that time D.P. (J.C.) underwent an inpatient assessment for fitness to stand trial regarding these charges by Dr. Booth. D.P. (J.C.) was previously charged with sexual assault in 2005 and there appears to be two separate sets of charges, one of which was eventually withdrawn, and the other set of charges were resolved though this does not appear on the CPIC.

24. In relation to the 2008 charges, D.P. (J.C.) was convicted on April 7, 2017, and was sentenced to three months on each charge. He served a federal sentence at Archambault Institution in Laval and served his full sentence. Due to concerns about D.P. (J.C.)’s risk of committing a sexual offence in the community, he was placed on an order under s. 810.2 of the Criminal Code of Canada which was ordered for a period of two years. D.P. (J.C.) was also placed on the Sex Offender Registry. A second order was made under s. 810.2 which expired in February of 2018. There were subsequent charges for consuming alcohol, missing curfew, and not keeping the peace which occurred on April 9, 2017, and he was convicted of all of these charges. A new order under s. 810.2 was made requiring him to provide receipts for his injectable medication.

Psychiatric History

25. D.P. (J.C.) was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder – bipolar type while in his late teens. The hospital report recounts several attempts at death by suicide including attempting to jump off a water tower at the age of 14, attempting to commit suicide by hanging and by injecting air into his veins with a syringe at age 21. The hospital report sets out several admissions to psychiatric hospitals going back to 2005.

D.P. (J.C.)’s current diagnoses include:

• Schizoaffective Disorder

• Personality Disorder with antisocial traits

• Stimulant Use Disorder – predominantly cocaine

Evidence at the Hearing

26. The hospital’s evidence was presented through its report and through the oral testimony of Dr. J. Gojer, D.P. (J.C.)’s current attending psychiatrist.

27. D.P. (J.C.) has had a difficult year since his last ORB hearing. He has continued to use drugs, including cocaine and crystal methamphetamine. According to Dr. Gojer, D.P. (J.C.)’s life revolves around drug use, pan-handling and failure to stay in his group home.

28. Over the course of the months since his last disposition, D.P. (J.C.) has frequently not kept appointments with the hospital, has not attended for urine screens, and has attended late for the administration of his long-acting injectable (“LAI”) antipsychotic.

29. Given that D.P. (J.C.) was not presenting with acute psychotic symptoms, he continued to be managed as an outpatient throughout the fall of 2025.

30. On or about mid-December of 2025, it was reported to Dr. Gojer that D.P. (J.C.) had visited his parents, that he had assaulted his father and tried to steal his mother’s handbag. D.P. (J.C.) disputes that these events occurred. As a result, Dr. Gojer completed a Form 1 and was expecting to have D.P. (J.C.) admitted to the Montfort Hospital but instead he was brought to the Queensway-Carleton Hospital on December 16, 2025. The Mental Health Act Form 3 expired on January 1, 2026, at which point D.P. (J.C.) decided that he did not want to stay voluntarily and was discharged back to his group home.

31. Following his discharge D.P. (J.C.) returned to his group home. The Kimberlane Group Home, where he has been staying, recently informed the hospital that they could no longer manage his behaviour and were looking to evict him. Upon his return, D.P. (J.C.) resumed his normal activities which allegedly involve selling drugs, being aggressive to other residents in the group home and not abiding by the group home rules.

32. Given his impending eviction, Dr. Gojer decided to admit D.P. (J.C.) to the Forensic Assessment Unit with the exercise of the Form 49 of his current disposition. D.P. (J.C.) was admitted on January 27, 2026, according to the hospital report, however the ROL Notice to the ORB states that he was admitted January 28, 2026.

33. Initially upon admission, D.P. (J.C.) refused to take medication. Dr. Gojer characterized this as being a form of protest. After several days D.P. (J.C.) agreed to resume taking his medication.

34. At this time, D.P. (J.C.) is stable and not experiencing any psychotic symptoms. The hospital is of the view that he requires a longer period of hospitalization and needs to be redirected to a healthier lifestyle.

35. According to Dr. Gojer, D.P. (J.C.) would prefer to be discharged to a group home in Ottawa on Merivale Road which adopts a harm-reduction approach, as he wants to be able to continue to use substances.

36. The hospital is of the view that he cannot be managed safely while continuing to use drugs as he can become aggressive when using them, including exhibiting sexual aggression. In Dr. Gojer’s opinion, the sexual aggression is triggered by his illness rather than by a paraphilia.

37. When D.P. (J.C.) is medicated, his risk is better managed, however it has proven difficult over time to convince D.P. (J.C.) to give up the regular use of stimulant drugs which makes it difficult to manage him safely in the community.

38. According to Dr. Gojer, D.P. (J.C.) has been given “lots of rope” for some time. The allegation of recent aggression towards his parents and the reports of the group home of drug dealing and aggressive behaviour prompted the group home’s decision to evict him. The hospital believes that the transfer to Brockville is necessary to address these ongoing issues which are making it impossible to manage him safely in the community.

39. D.P. (J.C.) currently has no privileges on the FAU and is considered a high risk of elopement. He is not exhibiting any acute psychotic symptoms and is now compliant with treatment which includes the LAI Invega Sustenna. He had been switched to the three-month formulation Trinza, but due to pain at the injection site, which is not uncommon, he asked to be switched back to the Invega Sustenna.

40. D.P. (J.C.) was previously taking Lithium to address mood symptoms which impacted his thyroid gland. Thyroxine was prescribed to mitigate these side effects. D.P. (J.C.) is currently refusing to take Lithium and Dr. Gojer is accepting of this. Dr. Gojer believes that the mood symptoms could be related to drug use.

41. In the opinion of Dr. Gojer, D.P. (J.C.)’s aggression is on the low end of the spectrum when he is properly medicated and not using drugs.

42. Dr. Gojer does not believe that any group home in Ottawa would currently accept D.P. (J.C.). There is a high risk of reoffence, particularly if D.P. (J.C.) goes back to his old ways.

43. According to Dr. Gray, the clinical director at Brockville, they are prepared to take on D.P. (J.C.) as soon as a bed becomes available.

44. Dr. Gojer stated that the two hospitals are now considering “a patient swap” which could happen in a matter of days if an expedited disposition can be obtained from the Board. One of Dr. Gojer’s patients is waiting to be transferred back to the Royal and with the consent of the person in charge, Dr. Gojer believes that the exchange of patients could happen shortly after the long weekend.

45. Dr. Gojer does not believe that D.P. (J.C.) needs to be on antiandrogen medication at this time as he does not see him having a paraphilia. Though the antiandrogen could attenuate those behaviours when D.P. (J.C.) is unwell and using drugs, Dr. Gojer believes that that is not necessary and could give rise to further side effects. Dr. Gojer believes that there will likely be tweaking of D.P. (J.C.)’s medications once he is transferred to Brockville.

46. In response to questions posed to him by counsel for the Attorney General, Ms. Dufort, Dr. Gojer testified as follows:

(a) The admission to the Queensway-Carleton Hospital under the Form 1 was due to the aggressive incident towards his parents and sister. D.P. (J.C.) denies that this happened and says that his sister was not present at the time. In addition to the alleged incident with the family, D.P. (J.C.) was exhibiting more antisocial behaviours complicated by his non-compliance with treatment and drug use.

(b) D.P. (J.C.) has often been late for his injections for up to one week or two requiring constant prompting. This is particularly relevant because medication is an important feature of D.P. (J.C.)’s risk management. Without it he is extremely difficult to manage in the community.

(c) Dr. Gojer agreed that there may be increased monitoring required in the community.

(d) D.P. (J.C.) was in a good group home that has a good relationship with the hospital but unfortunately the group home got “burnt out” by his ongoing problematic behaviour.

(e) Dr. Gojer agreed that there is no intention to place D.P. (J.C.) in the community of Ottawa pending his transfer to Brockville such that there would be no need for community living in the residual authority of a disposition that would transfer him to Brockville.

(f) Dr. Gojer believes it would be “overkill” to impose any non-contact provisions between D.P. (J.C.) and his family, even with their written revocable consent.

(g) D.P. (J.C.) is required to report annually as he is on the National Sex Offender Registry.

47. In response to questions posed to him by counsel for D.P. (J.C.), Ms. Munsterman, Dr. Gojer testified as follows:

(a) The hospital anticipates a quick transfer to Brockville as well as a likely short stay on the FAU given that D.P. (J.C.) does not require stabilization.

(b) If D.P. (J.C.) gets on a positive trajectory after his transfer to Brockville, it is theoretically possible that he could be ready for discharge to the community over the course of the next year.

(c) Dr. Gojer agreed that there should be changes to the disposition to include privileges in the community of Brockville and up to 150 kms to include Lancaster, Ontario where D.P. (J.C.)’s family resides. The transfer to Brockville should not impede on the ability of D.P. (J.C.) to have contact with his family given the similar distance between Ottawa and Lancaster and Brockville and Lancaster.

(d) Community living should be in 24-hour supervised accommodation in the catchment areas of the Brockville Mental Health Centre or the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre.

(e) If Dr. Gojer gets permission from the management of the hospital, the transfer could happen after the long weekend with the proposed exchange of patients. The transfer coordinator of the hospital, Ms. Hartley, has been put on notice that this may happen.

(f) Dr. Gojer hopes that in Brockville D.P. (J.C.) will be able to establish a healthier lifestyle.

(g) D.P. (J.C.)’s last LAI injection was approximately three or four weeks prior to his admission to the hospital such that he was due for his next injection upon admission, which he accepted after refusing for a few days.

(h) Dr. Gojer confirmed that Lithium is not crucial for D.P. (J.C.)’s treatment but there will need to be re-assessment of whether the Thyroxine should be restarted to deal with the thyroid issues caused by having previously taken Lithium.

(i) D.P. (J.C.) is capable of consenting to treatment and is open to having discussions with his psychiatrist about medication. Dr. Gojer believes that D.P. (J.C.) is a pleasant person and that he will be well liked in Brockville.

48. In response to question posed to him by members of the hearing panel, Dr. Gojer responded as follows:

(a) Dr. Gojer confirmed that no charges had been laid as a result of the alleged altercation with the family and though D.P. (J.C.) has a different version of what happened, he was clearly unwell at the time.

(b) When he was admitted to the Queensway-Carleton Hospital, D.P. (J.C.) was on the verge of being evicted from his group home.

(c) Dr. Gojer believes that community living privileges should include both the Brockville and Ottawa areas, to keep the maximum options opened, even though placement in Ottawa might not be possible at this time. Reporting frequency, when living in the community should be not less than once every two weeks.

Closing Submissions

49. The hospital maintained its preliminary recommendations on both the ROL and the early hearing requesting a transfer to Brockville, with the Royal maintaining the residual authority pending the transfer.

50. Counsel for the Attorney General, Ms. Dufort, concurred with the hospital recommendation with the exception that she submitted that there should be no community living provision in Ottawa as part of the residual authority of the Royal. Ms. Dufort also submits that the reporting frequency of the new disposition should be not less than once per week.

51. Counsel for D.P. (J.C.), Ms. Munsterman, reiterated D.P. (J.C.)’s position that he does not agree with the initial admission to the Royal but that he now recognizes that he has nowhere to go. D.P. (J.C.) agrees with the transfer to Brockville. Finally, Ms. Munsterman submits that the residual authority of the Royal should be on the same terms as the previous disposition, which includes community living.

Analysis and Conclusion

52. Having considered all of the evidence tendered at the hearing, and the submissions of the parties, the Board finds that D.P. (J.C.) continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code of Canada and as further defined in the Supreme Court of Canada decision Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625.

53. According to R. v. Winko, a significant threat to the safety of the public means a real risk of physical or psychological harm to members of the public that is serious in the sense of going beyond the merely trivial or annoying. The conduct giving rise to the harm must be criminal in nature.

54. Our finding that D.P. (J.C.) continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public is based on a long history of major mental illness, exacerbated by severe stimulant drug use which has caused rapid psychotic decompensation and has led to aggressive, threatening, and violent behaviour, including sexual aggression. D.P. (J.C.) has a long history of criminal offending which includes a conviction for sexual assault. D.P. (J.C.) has had a difficult last year, maintaining a lifestyle that revolves around using cocaine and crystal methamphetamine, failure to keep his appointments, non-compliance with the rules of his group home and with the terms of his ORB disposition.

55. When he is treated and not using drugs, D.P. (J.C.) is described as a pleasant individual; however, he struggles to maintain the abstinence which is needed to alleviate the risk that he poses to others and to manage him safely in the community.

56. The evidence persuades us that without an ORB disposition, D.P. (J.C.)’s drug use will increase, that he will fall away from treatment, leading to rapid decompensation of his illness and the resurgence of behaviours such as those at the time of the index offences.

57. The transfer to the Brockville Mental Health Centre is the only way forward from D.P. (J.C.) who is currently on the FAU at the Royal with no reasonable prospect of discharge, given the absence of suitable group homes.

58. We have taken into consideration the factors at s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code of Canada, namely the protection of the public, which is the paramount consideration, the mental condition of the accused, his reintegration into society and his other needs in coming to the unanimous finding that a transfer to the Brockville Mental Health Centre, under a detention order, with residual authority to the Royal, on the same terms and conditions as the previous disposition, is the necessary and appropriate and least onerous and least restrictive disposition in all of the circumstances.

59. With respect to the disposition, we find that community living should remain as part of the residual authority of the Royal. Should the transfer be delayed and should D.P. (J.C.) progress sufficiently while remaining in Ottawa, the disposition would continue to permit community living in 24-hour a day supervised accommodation.

60. With respect to the ROL, we find that the admission to hospital and the corresponding significant increase in the restriction of D.P. (J.C.)’s liberty, was reasonable and warranted in the circumstances. He was engaging in persistent drug use, was allegedly selling drugs at his group home and was about to be evicted. Though the evidence around the reported incident of aggression towards his parents is not conclusive, D.P. (J.C.) could no longer be managed safely in the community due to his continuous drug use and reported aggression in the group home that was about to evict him.

61. We find that the ongoing restriction remains necessary and appropriate and is the least onerous and least restrictive alternative at this time as D.P. (J.C.) cannot otherwise be discharged. We hope that the “patient swap” will take place as expected. Because D.P. (J.C.) is currently stable, he could be ready for transfer out of the FAU at Brockville in relatively short order, such that he could start exercising some privileges which would help to gradually restore his previously enjoyed liberty norm.

62. We hope that this transfer will prove to be positive for D.P. (J.C.) and that it will enable him to get on a positive trajectory for the next year.

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

Ms. M. Labrosse

Alternate Chairperson

__________________

Office of the Registrar

Ontario Review Board