Ontario Review Board
Re: T. (M.)
ORB File No: 7943
Hearing held on: Monday, March 30, 2026
Place of Hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. M. Labrosse
Members: Dr. S. Lessard
Ms. R. Louis
Ms. B. Naegele
Parties Appearing:
Accused: T. (M.)
Counsel: Ms. M. Lord
Person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. M. Strike
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 DISPOSITION
(Dated May 5, 2026)
Introduction
On September 13, 2021, T. (M.), was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on charges of assault with a weapon, performing an indecent act in a public place and failure to comply with an undertaking to appear for fingerprints, contrary to the provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada.
T. (M.) is currently subject to an Ontario Review Board disposition dated March 11, 2025, which detains him within the Secure Forensic Unit of the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, hereinafter referred to as the hospital or “the Royal”, with privileges up to and including community living in the hospital’s catchment area in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
On March 30, 2026, the Ontario Review Board (“ORB”) convened a hearing at the Royal to conduct the annual review of T. (M.)’s disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. T. (M.) attended his hearing and was represented by counsel, Ms. M. Lord.
A hospital report dated February 26, 2026, was filed as Exhibit 1 at the hearing.
The issues for this hearing are whether T. (M.) continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public and, if so, to determine the necessary and appropriate disposition.
At the commencement of the hearing the parties provided their preliminary without prejudice positions for the hearing. The hospital indicated its recommendation that T. (M.) continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public and that a detention order remains necessary and appropriate to manage the risk. The hospital recommends that reporting frequency be increased from not less than once every two weeks to not less than once per week. Further, the hospital asked the panel to consider the possibility of varying the current disposition to require T. (M.) to reside in supervised accommodation.
Counsel for the Attorney General, Ms. Dufort, indicated her likely support of the hospital recommendation, subject to questions. Counsel for T. (M.), Ms. Lord, sought the maintenance of the current disposition without any changes.
For the reasons set out below, the Board finds that T. (M.) continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the maintenance of the current detention order, on the same terms and conditions, remains necessary and appropriate for the coming reporting period.
Index Offences
- The details of the index offences are summarized in the hospital report as follows:
“August 3, 2021, Incident
On Tuesday, August 3, 2021, the accused entered the Loblaws Supermarket located at R[…] Street, in the City of Ottawa. Having been banned by security the previous day for allegedly stealing a1cohol, the accused was immediately recognized by Loss Prevention Officer F. (J.). The accused proceeded to walk through the store to a display of beer in the northwest corner of the store. The accused began selecting numerous cans of 473 mL Laker ice beer and concealing these items in his pant pockets. The accused was confronted by F. (J.), who removed the cans of beer from his hands. The accused was instructed to leave and escorted towards the front entrance of the store while still in possession of two cans. of 473 mL Laker ice beer in his pants pockets. The accused proceeded down the front steps towards the exit, while FINELY and a female security officer monitored from the top of the stairs. The accused reached the bottom of the stairs, turned towards F. (J.), and intentionally removed his genitals from his pants with his right hand. He then intentionally exposed his genitals to F. (J.) the female security officer, and two adult customers entering the store. The accused proceeded to shake his genitals for approximately 2 seconds while staring at F. (J.) in a blatant attempt to insult and offend him before leaving the store. This offence took place in broad daylight and at a time when the store was heavily populated with families and customers of all ages, who had to both enter and exit the store through this main entry point leading on to R[…] Street. R[…] Street is a major artery for vehicular and pedestrian traffic within Ottawa coming in and out of the Byward Market area and was heavily populated at the time of the offence.
Incident August 21, 2021
On Saturday, August 21st, 2021, the accused, was laying in the road, a concerned citizen called Ottawa Paramedics, as the accused appeared to be malnourished and unwell. Paramedics arrived at the intersection of Queen Mary Street and North River Road. The victim, G. (N.), in the role of a paramedic, attempted to speak to the accused to assess him and provide aid if necessary. The accused provided his name to paramedics, and that he had missed his bus this morning to Quebec. Paramedics asked the accused where he resides, at which point he began shouting and getting upset. The accused began shouting in French and repeating his name multiple times. The accused began gathering his belongings on the street, one of them being a large pair of orange handled scissors. The victim immediately upon noticing the scissors, stepped back and avoided the first stabbing motion from the accused, however, the accused was successful with a second stabbing motion and struck the victim on the right thigh. The accused attempted to throw the scissors down a street drain, however, he was unsuccessful and the scissors were later recovered by Ottawa Police Services. The accused then ran away northbound on North River Road.”
Background History
T. (M.)’s personal, legal, and psychiatric history is set out in detail in the hospital report. Briefly summarized, T. (M.) is 34 years of age and is from La Malbaie, Quebec. He is the youngest in a sibline of two. His father worked as a coordinator for a business in La Malbaie while his mother was a nurse. He denies being a victim of childhood abuse. He reportedly had behavioral issues and did not complete high school but later returned as an adult.
According to T. (M.), he has lived on the streets since the age of 15. At 17, he worked for about two months as a day laborer on a construction site. At the time, he used speed and cannabis every day. He held other short-term jobs such as delivering newspapers or kitchen work. He left La Malbaie at the age of 20. He continued to see his family three to four times a year but then did not see them for several years.
T. (M.) says he suffered head trauma after being hit by a bus in 2014. He allegedly suffered an eye injury, facial fractures and a gash to the head. A few years later, while in Brampton, Ontario, he was hit by a car, resulting in a broken tibia. He underwent two surgeries. He eventually developed an infection behind the metal rod in his leg and had to undergo a third surgery to remove the metal rod.
There are no details in the hospital report or in last year’s Reasons for Disposition regarding T. (M.)’s criminal history. It would be relevant for this information to be produced for T. (M.)’s next ORB hearing.
Regarding T. (M.)’s psychiatric history, the Hospital Report references a long history of major mental illness. T. (M.) received his first diagnosis of psychosis at the age of 19 years. He reports that he has “always” suffered from hallucinations and has been repeatedly prescribed antipsychotic medication, including injectables, over the years. He reported several hospital admissions in Quebec and in Toronto.
T. (M.)’s current diagnoses are:
Bipolar disorder unspecified or related to consumption
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)
Mild neurocognitive disorder resulting from traumatic brain injury
Cannabis, alcohol, opiate, and amphetamine use disorder.
Evidence at the Hearing
The Board’s evidence was presented in its report and through the oral testimony of Dr. Melanie Strike who is T. (M.)’s attending psychiatrist. This evidence is summarized below.
Dr. Strike testified that T. (M.) has had a “fairly positive year,” that he has continued to reside in the community and that he has not been readmitted to hospital over the course of the past year. He has remained psychiatrically stable throughout the year and continues to be compliant with treatment which has remained consistent, except for a few minor modifications.
T. (M.) is now residing at the Grove Transitional Residence. He was recently transferred from the Kimberlane group home, a 24-hour supervised group home.
T. (M.) continues to struggle with substance use, namely cannabis and alcohol, though he continues to participate in addictions counselling. There has been no noted deterioration in his mental condition during instances where he has been using substances.
T. (M.) has travelled to visit with family on three occasions over the past year, including having spent Christmas at his sister’s home in Quebec. These travel passes have gone well, apart from the Christmas holidays. T. (M.) was staying with his sister who reported that he consumed considerable quantities of beer and was exhibiting aggressive behaviour. It was also reported that T. (M.) was frequently engaging in on-line gambling which continues to be a problem for him. Once he was back in Ottawa and was confronted with this information, T. (M.) denied having consumed alcohol, having gambled or having had any altercations with family during the trip.
T. (M.) has been engaged in psychotherapy to assist him primarily with emotional regulation and anger management. He appears to have benefited from this intervention. Unfortunately, the psychotherapist, Emily Proulx, has left the hospital and will no longer be available to pursue sessions with T. (M.).
Dr. Strike advised that T. (M.) has recently asked for a change in psychiatrist, though in the opinion of Dr. Strike, they have not reached a therapeutic impasse.
The treatment team recognizes the progress that T. (M.) has made over the course of the past year, even though he continues to struggle with cannabis. His urine drug screens have been positive at the maximum level of THC which is suggestive of regular cannabis use.
Dr. Strike made some changes to T. (M.)’s medications, all of which are oral medications at this time. T. (M.) tends to forget to take his medication, and the hospital is attempting to put in place a better system of recall for him to take it more regularly.
T. (M.) continues to struggle with on-line gambling and has reported himself to several casinos which will bar him from playing for the next year. According to Dr. Strike, the problem is quite severe. T. (M.) has found other means of pursuing his gambling activities, for example by playing pool in bars for money.
Dr. Strike advised that a video was obtained at the beginning of March which shows T. (M.) at a local billiard hall fighting with another man outside the bar. This happened on February 28, 2026. On that night, T. (M.) missed curfew and returned late to the Grove Residence. The staff at Grove had attempted to call him when he missed his curfew. When he showed up with obvious injuries, he claimed that he had fallen on the ice and denied that he had had a physical altercation. When confronted with the fact that there was a video showing him in an altercation with another person, T. (M.) claimed that this was a historic video from the previous year, though the staff was able to ascertain that that was not the case.
T. (M.) tells Dr. Strike that he believes that she is against him and he tends to say these things when limits are imposed upon him. For example, his ability to leave the Grove Residence and spend time in the community was limited after the physical altercation at the bar and because of incidents where he was vaping in the residence. T. (M.) complains that everyone is against him and that the Grove staff are out to punish him.
T. (M.) has been at the Grove Residence for about six months and according to Dr. Strike, believes that he will graduate from that program, receive a Salus Fisher subsidy and move into independent living. Though he has been told that this is not automatic and that the hospital may be looking for other supportive accommodation for him, T. (M.) continues to believe that he will be living independently.
In response to questions posed to him by counsel for the Attorney General, Ms. Dufort, Dr. Strike testified as follows:
(a) T. (M.) has good support from his family but his reported behaviours during a pass to his sister’s home over the Christmas holidays are concerning to the treatment team.
(b) The frequency of T. (M.)’s urine drug screens (“UDS”) is at the maximum level for an outpatient, namely twice per week. When notified, he has 24 hours to attend to provide a UDS sample. Dr. Strike acknowledged that it is difficult to detect alcohol and even stimulants as they do not stay in the system for very long.
(c) Following the February 28th altercation at the billiards bar, the treatment team does have concerns regarding the safety of other residents at Grove given the evidence of violence and substance use in which T. (M.) continues to engage. According to Dr. Strike, the treatment team is re-evaluating the appropriateness of the Grove Program for him.
(d) At the Grove residence T. (M.) is being supervised on a 24-hour basis and also is subject to medication supervision, though the intention at Grove is to prepare residents for independent living by transitioning them to be independent with their medication. At this time, T. (M.) is taking his medication independently and must demonstrate this to the residence staff.
(e) It is possible that T. (M.) could go to the Lebreton Program or to a Salus apartment or some other semi-supervised apartment. The hospital is attempting to determine what level of supervision T. (M.) will require given his ongoing substance use, impulsivity, and aggressive behaviour. T. (M.) has a tendency not to respect rules and when confronted with his behaviour, will deny having done anything.
(f) T. (M.)’s insight into his major mental illness and the need for medication and abstention from substances is limited.
(g) It is possible that the hospital will determine that independent living is not sufficient to manage the risk to public safety.
(h) With respect to vocational activity, Dr. Strike acknowledged that the hospital questioned whether T. (M.) was appropriately motivated to participate in the Bakeology Program for which there is typically a waitlist. He was deemed not to be suitable and therefore did not get a spot. He was instead referred to the John Howard Society for vocational supports.
- In response to questions posed to her by counsel for T. (M.), Ms. Lord, Dr. Strike responded as follows:
(a) Dr. Strike reviewed T. (M.)’s current list of medications which includes Acamprosate which is a medication that reduces cravings for alcohol. Though this medication is best taken three times a day, it was changed to twice per day in 2025 because T. (M.) was having difficulty remembering to take it.
(b) Dr. Strike confirmed that the telephone call from T. (M.)’s sister to the Grove Residence was made on January 2, 2026, at which time she reported that he had lost a lot of money on on-line gambling, that he was drinking and aggressively demanded to be taken to a bar.
(c) A Grove Residence staff member, Heather Bruce, followed up with T. (M.)’s sister but the hospital did not do any follow-up. Dr. Strike agrees that the treatment team should have followed up with the family.
(d) Increasing the reporting frequency to not less than once every week would be useful if T. (M.) transitions to a less supervised setting. This would allow for the treatment team to assess his mental condition, review his substance use and on-line gambling issues as well as any concerns regarding aggression. Overall, this is intended to allow the treatment team to ensure that T. (M.)’s risk factors are well controlled and that overall risk to public safety is being managed.
(e) Dr. Strike does not believe that T. (M.) is likely to move to an independent apartment in the next year. The treatment team might decide to look for another supervised residence, in which case weekly reporting may not be necessary, particularly if he is in a residence that liaises well with the hospital.
(f) If T. (M.) is evicted from the Grove Residence, the options are either to admit him to hospital or to find another supervised residence.
- In response to questions posed by members of the hearing panel, Dr. Strike responded as follows:
(a) It would be helpful for T. (M.) to be more engaged in physical activity as this might help to reduce his aggression and is good for emotional regulation. Dr. Strike advised that T. (M.) has stated that he would like to go to the gym more regularly and that he has access to the YMCA.
(b) Dr. Strike acknowledged that the Grove Residence has typically not tolerated any form of substance use. She explained that there has been some measure of relaxation of those rules understanding that it is not easy to maintain abstinence. The residence does have strict rules regarding the consumption of cannabis on the property but if patients are following their disposition and engage in programming, Grove will likely not terminate participation in the program, though this can affect a person’s progression through the program.
- No further evidence was presented.
Closing Submissions
The hospital submits that T. (M.) remains a significant threat to the safety of the public and that a detention order is the necessary and appropriate disposition. The hospital recommends that the Board could change the community living provision to an eight-hour supervised residence and that reporting be increased to not less than once per week. Dr. Strike acknowledged that T. (M.) successfully remained in the community over the course of the past year, that he has some prosocial goals but unfortunately that his bad habits continue to manifest from time to time. T. (M.) is in a very good program at Grove, and the hospital hopes that he will take advantage of this program to further progress his rehabilitation.
Counsel for the Attorney General, Ms. Dufort, indicated her agreement with the hospital recommendation and stated that with respect to frequency of reporting, if T. (M.) is in a supervised residence, it would be appropriate to maintain it at not less than once every two weeks, however if the Board orders that he needs accommodation approved, that it should be increased to not less than once per week.
Counsel for T. (M.), Ms. Lord, conceded the issue of significant threat to the safety of the public and the necessity and appropriateness of a detention order, however, submits that there is no need to change the community living provisions as the hospital has the full spectrum of accommodation available if it maintained as is. Ms. Lord also agreed that if T. (M.) was in a supervised accommodation, that the reporting frequency need not increase but that the Board could consider increasing it if he is in an approved accommodation. Finally, Ms. Lord highlighted the fact that T. (M.) has remained abstinent of any hard drugs.
T. (M.) also addressed the panel and advised that he had dealt with many difficult issues in his life, including having been sexually assaulted in prison and that he is doing his best.
Analysis and Conclusion
Having considered all of the evidence tendered at the hearing, and the submissions of the parties, the Board does find that T. (M.) 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.
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.
Our finding that T. (M.) continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public rests on the fact that T. (M.) suffers from a major mental illness and when inadequately treated, has caused him to act out aggressively and violently while experiencing psychosis. This is compounded by T. (M.)’s long history of using cannabis, alcohol and stimulants, which have aggravated his mental illness and his propensity to act out inappropriately and violently.
T. (M.) has clearly made some notable progress in the past year. He has maintained psychiatric stability and has abstained from using drugs other than cannabis and alcohol.
T. (M.)’s insight into his mental illness, the impact of substances and his risk for violence continues to be limited. It is unfortunate that he will no longer be able to continue in psychotherapy, which proved to be helpful for him. It is hoped that the hospital will take the necessary steps to engage a new psychotherapist for the Forensic Program.
The hospital provided evidence of some incidents over the past year. With respect to the existence of a video showing a physical altercation, the evidence provided was limited and did not clearly establish the circumstances of that incident. Furthermore, it is noted that T. (M.) disputes that this incident happened. Without needing to make a finding on what actually happened, the evidence is strongly suggestive of the fact that T. (M.) continues to engage in several problematic behaviours including ongoing cannabis and alcohol use, gambling, and aggression.
Turning to the disposition, the panel finds that maintaining the current community living provision provides the hospital with the necessary discretion to decide what type of community living might be required to manage risk. As well, a reporting frequency of not less than once every two weeks is sufficient given that the hospital can increase the reporting if needed.
The Grove Transitional Program is a unique and specialized program that offers extensive programming aimed at getting residents equipped and ready for community living. We encourage T. (M.) to take advantage of this opportunity to succeed in reaching his goals. It would be unfortunate for him to lose his place in this program.
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 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