Ontario Review Board
Re: Connor Z. Cobbold
ORB File No: 8470
Hearing held on: Tuesday, March 31, 2026
Place of Hearing: Brockville Mental Health Centre
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. C. Flanagan
Members: Dr. Y. Alatishe
Dr. W. Loza
Ms. M. Chamberlain
Mr. S. Duffy
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Connor Z. Cobbold
Counsel: Ms. F. Beaubien
The person in charge of hospital: Representative Dr. R. Linthorst
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. K. Schultz
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated May 20, 2026)
1. On January 19^th^, 2024, the accused, Connor Z. Cobbold, was found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder on a charge of public mischief - false report, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“the Criminal Code”). Mr. Cobbold is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated April 25^th^, 2025, which detains him at the Secure Forensic Unit of the Brockville Mental Health Centre with privileges up to and including to live in the community of Brockville or Ottawa, in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
2. On March 31^st^, 2026, a panel of the Ontario Review Board (“the ORB” or “the Board”) convened a hearing at the Brockville Mental Health Centre (“BMHC”) pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada. Mr. Cobbold attended his hearing and was represented by counsel, Ms. F. Beaubien. Also in attendance were hospital staff and Mr. Cobbold’s mother, Ms. Crystal Zazulak. A hospital report dated February 27^th^, 2026, was entered as Exhibit No. 1. A CPIC Response Report was entered as Exhibit No. 2.
3. The issues for this hearing are whether Mr. Cobbold continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and, if so, to determine the Disposition that is necessary and appropriate and least onerous and least restrictive in the circumstances.
4. For the reasons set out below, the Board finds that Mr. Cobbold continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board further finds that Mr. Cobbold should remain detained in Hospital with an amendment to condition 2(h) to read: “passes for up to 7 days within 150km of the Brockville Mental Health Centre – Member of the Royal Ottawa Health Care Group, and within Ontario, accompanied by staff or person approved by the person in charge”
Position of the Parties
5. Dr. Linthorst, on behalf of the hospital, recommended no change to Mr. Cobbold’s current Disposition. This position was supported by Mr. Schultz, on behalf of the Attorney General.
6. Ms. Beaubien conceded the issue of significant threat but advanced the position that her client should be conditionally discharged.
Index Offences
7. The circumstances giving rise to the charges on the index offences is set out in the hospital report and summarized as follows:
“According to the Crown Brief Synopsis, since February 2023, Mr. Cobbold attended Ottawa police stations, specifically at 211 Huntmar Drive and 474 Elgin Street, numerous times. Each time, Mr. Cobbold spoke to police officers, claiming that he committed criminal offenses. All of these reports were unfounded. He was warned several times against giving false statements, but continued making these statements. The Ottawa police service (OPS) have believed that Mr. Cobbold's mental health issues were "the driving force behind these interactions."
On April 21, 2023, Mr. Cobbold attended the Ottawa police station at 211 Huntmar Drive and reported several criminal offenses, including that he had possibly killed someone while "taking a hit off a bong" but could not articulate any other details about the event. He also said he believed he had sexually assaulted another child when he was young, but again could not provide any other specific details. When the police at that no further investigation would be conducted, he became verbally aggressive, saying that he wanted to go to jail as he did not have anywhere else to live. Therefore the alleged offenses were believed to be falsified.
On June 17, 2023, Mr. Cobbold was verbally trespassed from the Ottawa police station at 211 15 of 26 Huntmar Drive. The following day at 8:40 PM, Mr. Cobbold again attended this location, and entered a prohibited area of the property. He again provided statements to police, which were found to be unfounded after investigation. He was arrested for trespassing, and charged with public mischief and breach of probation. A psychological assessment was requested.
On June 17, 2023, Mr. Cobbold was at the front desk of the police station, and wanted to report that he had committed thefts, which he wanted to report to the police. Two civilians in the station were becoming concerned about his behaviour. Mr. Cobbold was agitated while talking to OPS staff. The OPS staff feared for these in their safety, and alerted officer Desormeaux, who spoke with Mr. Cobbold. Mr. Cobbold was verbally aggressive and said the police were constantly following him. He also reported wanting to steal in order to get arrested. He was felt to be becoming a safety threat due to his aggressive behavior.
On June 18, 2023, Mr. Cobbold was near the staff entrance of the Ottawa clinic station at 211 Huntmar Drive, and walked toward a police officer with his arms in the air, stating that he needed to turn himself in. Mr. Cobbold reported having multiple criminal offenses to report, and that he needed to be arrested and brought to jail. He reported stealing many items from different stores including groceries, toys, etc., over the prior two years. He was not able to provide more specific details. When another officer mentioned that Mr. Cobbold had been trespassed the previous day for attempting to report similar offenses, Mr. Cobbold became verbally aggressive with the OPS staff, saying that he would commit further thefts in order to be arrested.
On June 18, 2023, Mr. Cobbold reported to police that he had been living on the streets around Kanata, as he was not welcome at either of his parents’ homes. He also reported that he had stayed at the shelters in downtown Ottawa, however he was scared to return as he believed that someone would kill him. He reported communicating with his mother through telepathy and being able to figure out certain things (examples and details not provided). During the conversation he was calm, and was not felt to be intoxicated on drugs or alcohol. Mr. Cobbold did not want to go to the hospital, saying that someone would kill him there as well”.
Background History
8. Mr. Cobbold grew up in the Ottawa area, with his biological parents and two older brothers. His parents separated when Mr. Cobbold was four years old, after which his parents shared legal custody of him.
9. His mother described that when Mr. Cobbold was a child, he had a temper, where he would get quite frustrated if his brothers teased him. He enjoyed sports, hockey in particular. He graduated from high school but did not pursue any postsecondary education.
10. Mr. Cobbold’s only romantic relationship was a girlfriend he briefly dated in high school. He does not have any children.
11. Mr. Cobbold has worked at a Beer Store for approximately nine months and later was employed in his brother’s landscaping business for a summer.
Legal History
12. According to the CPIC Response Report, Mr. Cobbold was charged with impaired driving in January 2023 and fail to comply with undertaking in March of 2023.
Psychiatric History
13. Mr. Cobbold began to experience psychosis and was hospitalized in 2018 at the age of 22. He was initially started on aripiprazole monthly injections by Dr. Pityk, and seemed to do quite well on this medication, including being able to work at the Beer Store part-time. His care was transferred to Dr. Levesque, and his medication was changed to the 3-month Paliperidone injections.
14. Leading up to the index offence, Mr. Cobbold's mental health worsened progressively. He was paranoid, believing that police cars were following him and that his father was tampering with the Internet in the home. He seemed to be experiencing hallucinations, as he would often laugh to himself. He engaged in bizarre and disorganized behavior, including cutting up all of his clothes and shoes. He also burned his hands on the stove, saying that he "had to coil them." He was verbally aggressive towards his mother, and damaged property in the home. By May 2023, Mr. Cobbold’s mother felt that she could no longer live with him.
15. Mr. Cobbold's mental health deteriorated further after he became homeless. He would often call his parents, but was paranoid and refused to stay at shelters or get support from the Canadian Mental Health Association or other services. He would wander around outside without shoes on, and on one occasion completely naked. On another occasion, he was found unconscious by emergency services and was extremely dehydrated. He continued to cut up his clothing, and cut the heels off all of his shoes. He never explained why he was doing this.
Current Diagnoses
Schizophrenia, treatment resistant
Cannabis Use Disorder
Alcohol Use Disorder, in sustained remission, in a controlled environment
Evidence at the Hearing
16. The hospital’s evidence was presented through its report as well as through the oral testimony of Dr. Rhys Linthorst, Mr. Cobbold’s attending psychiatrist.
17. Dr. Linthorst testified that he agreed with the contents of the Hospital Report as well as the recommendation contained therein.
18. Dr. Linthorst noted that, initially, Mr. Cobbold had been doing well, but he stopped taking his clozapine medication and his symptoms intensified. Mr. Cobbold became more violent and required to be restrained. He had been residing on the Hospital’s B4 unit but after his decompensation he was transferred to the Hospital’s most restrictive unit.
19. Mr. Cobbold has since restarted taking his medication but has had to start at a low dose and be titrated up to his previous level. Mr. Cobbold is gradually improving, and his paranoia has decreased although he continues to experience positive symptoms of his illness at his current dose. Despite this, Dr. Linthorst believed that Mr. Cobbold could be ready for a transfer back to a less secure setting at this next case review.
20. There is still more room for Mr. Cobbold’s medication to be increased but the Hospital will only do this in consultation with Mr. Cobbold. The Hospital would want to mitigate his side effects so that he will be more likely to agree to taking an increased dosage. Mr. Cobbold has not been willing to engage in ECT or take mood stabilizers.
21. Dr. Linthorst stated that a detention order is required to manage Mr. Cobbold and ensure the safety of the public. He explained that the Hospital would like to see Mr. Cobbold successfully progress through the Hospital’s pass level system and move to a less restrictive unit before a conditional discharge would be considered.
22. Dr. Linthorst acknowledged that Mr. Cobbold had shown some increased insight into his illness and that he had expressed grief around this awareness. Despite this insight, however, Mr. Cobbold’s understanding of his need for medication continues to be an issue. The doctor stated that the risk to the public given Mr. Cobbold’s lack of insight into the need for his medication could not be managed if he were to be living in the community. The doctor advised that, given the risk factors, the Hospital needed to approve Mr. Cobbold’s accommodation in the community to mitigate his risk.
23. Dr. Linthorst agreed with Mr. Shultz that the Mental Health Act would not be effective in protecting the public from the risk posed by Mr. Cobbold as it only responds when one has deteriorated and does not catch them as they are deteriorating.
24. The doctor was asked if Mr. Cobbold would benefit from substance use counselling. He stated that the primary issue for Mr. Cobbold was his psychosis and that this would need to be better managed first before substance use counselling could be effective.
25. Mr. Shultz asked what a positive year would look like for Mr. Cobbold. Dr. Linthorst stated that he would like to see medication adherence; increased insight, especially into the need for medication; management of psychotic symptoms and possibly substance use programming.
26. Dr. Linthorst stated that Mr. Cobbold’s insight had fluctuated over the past year. He has been fairly consistent that there is not a relationship between substance use and his mental illness. The treatment team feels that this is a big risk factor as there have been multiple Hospital admissions after substance use.
27. The doctor agreed with Ms. Beaubien regarding the following:
Mr. Cobbold’s symptoms had improved over the previous month. The treatment team would be meeting to review his case within the next four to six weeks at which point, he could return to his former unit at the Hospital.
The Hospital policy is that no passes are available to Mr. Cobbold on his current unit. When he returns to his old unit, he will be able to work towards obtaining privileges.
If Mr. Cobbold went through the Hospital system to gain privileges, he could eventually obtain day passes to visit his mother.
Mr. Cobbold had improved since resuming clozapine. Dr. Linthorst stated that he could continue to experience improvement for up to 12 months.
Mr. Cobbold had not used any substances in the past reporting year.
28. Dr. Linthorst stated that Mr. Cobbold is polite and cooperative with staff but also has periods of irritability, especially when he is experiencing nicotine cravings.
29. No other evidence was presented
Submissions of the Parties
30. At the conclusion of the hearing the parties were asked for their closing submissions. Dr. Linthorst stated that the Hospital’s initial position remained with a minor modification to allow for travel passes for up to seven days.
31. Mr. Shultz on behalf of the Crown joined with the Hospital. He submitted that Mr. Cobbold had not progressed to a level where a Conditional Discharge would be appropriate. Mr. Cobbold continued to experience positive symptoms of schizophrenia and had refused medication in the last reporting year. Mr. Shultz noted that Mr. Cobbold remained on a more restrictive unit at the hospital and he would need to move through the Hospital’s pass level system before he would be ready to move into the community.
32. Further, Mr. Shultz submitted that Mr. Cobbold would not return to the Hospital voluntarily and the Mental Health Act would not be sufficient to return him quickly in the event of a further decompensation.
33. Finally, Mr. Shultz noted that if Mr. Cobbold were to be conditionally discharged, the Hospital would not have the power to approve accommodation. Mr. Cobbold and the Hospital had not looked for community housing and therefore there was no address that could be included as a condition of discharge. Mr. Shultz submitted that the other option available for a conditional discharge, to have no address listed, would not be sufficient to adequately protect the safety of the public.
34. Ms. Beaubien submitted that her client was requesting a conditional discharge and that all the terms that the Hospital was requesting could be included in the conditions. Ms. Beaubien stated that, if the Board was unwilling to grant a conditional discharge, that her client wanted to be moved to a less restrictive unit within the Hospital at his next case conference.
Conclusion and Disposition
35. Having considered all of the evidence tendered at the hearing, and the submissions of the parties, the Board does find that Mr. Cobbold 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.
36. 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.
37. In arriving at this determination, the Board considered the position of the parties and accepted the uncontroverted evidence of Dr. Linthorst. The Board also relies on the Hospital Report which notes the following:
“Over several months, Mr. Cobbold’s symptoms of mental illness fluctuated and more recently, nursing has raised consistent concerns of Mr. Cobbold demonstrating intense symptoms and also engaging in assaultive behaviour. He continues to have several current risk factors for future violence, as outlined in the violence risk assessment.”
38. The Board accepts that absent an ORB Disposition, Mr. Cobbold would likely experience a return of his psychotic symptoms similar to those seen at the time of the index offences. This would be caused by either aggression linked to psychotic misinterpretation when under stress, relapse into stimulant use or medication non-compliance.
39. The Board notes that Mr. Cobbold has not had any instances of substance use in the past year and that, when he regularly takes his medication, he demonstrated an improvement in his psychotic symptoms.
40. Despite these limited gains, the Board agrees with the Hospital and the Crown that a Conditional Discharge is premature at this juncture. Mr. Cobbold has yet to be discharged to the community and given the existing risk factors, the Hospital needs the ability to approve his accommodation to properly mitigate and manage his risk. The Board accepts (as outlined in the Hospital Report) that Mr. Cobbold’s risk would increase to moderate-high if granted a Conditional Discharge. Mr. Cobbold continues to experience positive psychotic symptoms, even while taking his medication. His insight remains limited into his need for medication. In this regard, approximately three months before the hearing, he abruptly stopped his clozapine medication and began to engage in threatening behaviour towards another patient. The Board agrees that the MHA would not suffice to manage his risk on a Conditional Discharge.
41. 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 detention order on the same terms and conditions remains necessary and appropriate and least onerous and least restrictive Disposition in all of the circumstances.
DATED this 20^th^ day of May, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. M. Chamberlain
Legal Member
__________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board