Ontario Review Board
Re: S. (E-H.)
ORB File No: 8235
Hearing held on: Friday, April 24, 2026
Place of hearing: Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences 700 Gordon Street, Whitby
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. P. Capelle Members: Dr. M. Attia Dr. S. Wiseman Ms. M. den Haan Mr. T. Wall
Parties Appearing:
Accused: S. (E-H.) Counsel: Ms. M. Addie
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Szabo
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. N. MacDonald
*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 29, 2026)
Introduction
On December 14, 2024, S. (E-H.) was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder a charge of sexual assault, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (the "Criminal Code"). Mr. S. (E-H.) is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the "Board") dated June 18, 2025, detaining him at the Forensic Program of Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (“Ontario Shores” or ‘’’the Hospital”)), with privileges up to and including passes for up to seven days to enter the community within a 150-kilometre radius of Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences, indirectly supervised.
On April 24, 2026, a panel of the Ontario Review Board (the "ORB" or the "Board") convened a hearing pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada. Mr. S. (E-H.) was in attendance and was represented by his counsel, Ms. Addie.
Without Prejudice Position of the Parties
Ms. Szabo, for the hospital, indicated that no changes were recommended to the current detention disposition but for the addition of:
- community living in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
Ms. MacDonald, for the Attorney General, advised she would have questions regarding the necessity of adding the word “supervised” to the community living provision so as to read:
- community living in supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge
Ms. Addie, on behalf of Mr. S. (E-H.), advised that she agreed with the Hospital recommendation and concedes the ongoing presence of significant threat. She added that Hospital expertise will determine the level of supervision required, such that there is no need to specify supervised accommodation within the proposed community living provision.
Background & Index Offences
Since May 27, 2020, Mr. S. (E-H.) has been found to lack the mental capacity to make decisions about his own psychiatric treatment. As a result, his mother was appointed as his Substitute Decision Maker (SDM). During the past reporting year, concerns arose about his mother's ability to continue in this role due to questions about her own cognitive functioning. As a result, the treatment team began the process of transferring the SDM role to Mr. S. (E-H.)'s sister.
During the past reporting year, one change was made to Mr. S. (E-H.)'s psychiatric medications. His daily dose of clozapine was incrementally increased from 300 mg to 475 mg. This cautious approach was necessary because Mr. S. (E-H.) is sensitive to a heart-related side effect known as a prolonged QTc interval; an abnormality in the heart's electrical activity that can increase the risk of serious heart problems. While Mr. S. (E-H.) tolerated the dosage increase without significant difficulty, the improvement in his psychiatric symptoms was minimal.
The circumstances of the index offences are taken from last year’s Reasons for Disposition as follows:
“On March 8, 2020, the victim was walking in the area of Oakwood Avenue and Rogers Road with her two-year-old child and her partner. The victim and her partner walked eastbound on Rogers Road and then proceeded to go southbound on Oakwood Avenue. As the victim had her phone out and was occupied with it, her partner was helping the child on a scooter. While the victim was looking at her phone, she suddenly felt a hand grab the left side of her buttocks and squeeze it for a couple of seconds. The victim was momentarily shocked with what happened as Mr. S. (E-H.) had approached her from the rear. As Mr. S. (E-H.) walked away, he grunted something that was inaudible to the victim. The victim yelled at Mr. S. (E-H.) who kept walking away. The victim alerted her partner who then proceeded to go after Mr. S. (E-H.) and managed to confront him. Police were called and arrived on scene. Mr. S. (E-H.) attempted to flee from the police but he was caught a short distance away from the scene. He was placed under arrest for an outstanding bench warrant.”
Current Diagnoses
Schizophrenia (vs. Psychotic Disorder Due to Traumatic Brain Injury)
Mild Neurocognitive Disorder (Unspecified)
Cannabis Use Disorder (in sustained remission in a controlled environment)
Evidence at Hearing
Dr. Wong gave evidence on behalf of the hospital and advised that there were no material updates to the Hospital Report.
Medication changes will continue, likely with gradual increases of the clozapine dosage. Mr. S. (E-H.) is now less disorganized. However, due to a traumatic brain injury, less improvements have been noted than in a patient solely diagnosed with Schizophrenia. Mr. S. (E-H.) exhibits clear clinical deficits and will need ongoing support. Therefore, independent living is considered unlikely. The specification of “supervised” to community living is unnecessary as the Hospital can make recommendations on information available to it. Dr. Wong nonetheless expects a high level of supervision will be warranted, subsequent to an occupational therapy assessment, anticipated to be received one to three months after it has been ordered. Thereafter, an investigation of appropriate housing will be initiated.
Ms. MacDonald put to Dr. Wong that there is no air of reality that the hospital would approve a non-supervised setting for this patient. Dr. Wong agreed, adding that the insertion of “supervised” to community living would have a neutral impact. He added that the nature of the index offence and Mr. S. (E-H.)’s ongoing sexually inappropriate behaviours make it more difficult to place him in the community. Therefore, he may require a single, rather than a shared room.
Ms. Addie noted that a neurological assessment was conducted earlier this year. Dr. Wong confirmed that the findings of that assessment reaffirm what the team was already aware of regarding Mr. S. (E-H.)’s day-to-day needs as well as the appropriate risk management approach. Dr. Wong agreed with the suggestion that by leaving the Disposition to read “accommodation approved by the hospital” rather than “supervised accommodation approved by the hospital” it would be left to the treatment team’s expertise to find the most appropriate housing.
Responding to a panel member’s question, Dr. Wong stated that if Mr. S. (E-H.)’s response to clozapine was to stall, transition to an injectable medication would be considered. An MRI has not been ordered because it seems clear that Mr. S. (E-H.)’s neurological deterioration is tied to a motor vehicle accident from several years ago.
Closing Observations
Ms. Szabo submitted that insertion of “supervised” to the accommodation provision is unnecessary to meet the least onerous and least restrictive criteria. There is almost no scenario where Mr. S. (E-H.) would live independently and therefore there is no justification to the addition of “supervised” in his Disposition as it is not based on a risk calculus.
Due to the shortage of housing and enabling maximum flexibility, absent risk concerns, is what is necessary and appropriate to assist with Mr. S. (E-H.)’s reintegration to the community. Ms. Szabo added that there may be housing that is not identified as “supervised” where in fact there is supervision, or the hospital has arranged for supplemental supports.
Ms. MacDonald submitted that the risk to public safety is the Board’s primary responsibility such that specifying “supervised accommodation” should be included within a community living provision.
Ms. Addie stated that she adopts and supports the hospital recommendation. She characterized including the term “supervised accommodation” as a term of art, as its meaning differs between jurisdictions and housing providers. The Hospital states that insertion of “supervised” is not required to ensure public safety. The occupational assessment will determine what supports are needed for Mr. S. (E-H.) to live safely in the community. This enables Mr. S. (E-H.) to potentially be discharged to housing that is not identified as “supervised” because other agencies will be brought in to ensure his risk can be adequately managed. Therefore, inclusion of the term “supervised accommodation” is unnecessary.
Ms. Addie added that Mr. S. (E-H.) has had an excellent year. He has been cooperative with the treatment team and appropriately exercised independently supervised hospital grounds passes.
Analysis and Decision
(a) Significant Threat
Ongoing significant threat to the safety of the public cannot be speculative. It must entail a real risk of serious physical or psychological harm arising from conduct that is both serious and criminal in nature.
In determining whether Mr. S. (E-H.) continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public the Board carefully analyzed the evidence as it relates to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Winko, 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625.
The Board unanimously finds that Mr. S. (E-H.) continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public. In arriving at this determination, the Board considered the joint position of the parties and accepted the uncontroverted evidence of Dr. Wong that Mr. S. (E-H.) continues to pose a significant threat. The Board also relies on the Hospital Report and Summary of Clinical Status contained therein in determining that Mr. S. (E-H.) suffers from Schizophrenia complicated by an unspecified Mild Neurocognitive Disorder as well as a Cannabis Use Disorder. The Summary of Clinical Status, extracted from page 26 of the Hospital Report, is reproduced below for ease of reference:
Although Mr. S. (E-H.)’s mental status remained stable over the past year, at this baseline, he continued to evidence significant ongoing residual psychosis and substantial cognitive deficits:
Responding to internal stimuli including command hallucinations to harm others, though did not follow through with same (e.g., “they’re telling me to cut people’s feet off”, instructing him to approach young boys, etc.)
He remained consistently paranoid (e.g., “somebody is trying to kill me”, believing others were entering his room at night and assaulting him, etc.)
Substantial thought form disorganization and executive dysfunction.
The Board therefore accepts that absent an ORB Disposition, Mr. S. (E-H.) would likely become non-compliant with prescribed medications which would lead to decompensation, the use of substances and the re-emergence of behaviours similar to those seen at the time of the index offences. We are satisfied that absent an ORB Disposition, it is likely that Mr. S. (E-H.) will cause serious physical or psychological harm to members of the public and such conduct will likely be criminal in nature.
(b) Disposition
Flowing from the Board’s finding that Mr. S. (E-H.) continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public it must shape a Disposition for the year ahead. Its paramount consideration in doing so must be the safety of the public while also considering Mr. S. (E-H.)’s needs pursuant to s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
The necessary and appropriate disposition for Mr. S. (E-H.) provides him as much freedom as possible without subjecting the community to a real risk of dangerous behaviour.
In considering Mr. S. (E-H.) needs, the Board was attentive to the unanimity between the parties of adding community living to Mr. S. (E-H.)’s Disposition for the upcoming clinical year.
Ms. Szabo, buttressed by Ms. Addie, submitted that the broader wording of “accommodation approved” should recognize the expertise of the hospital in identifying appropriate housing for its patients. Further, that community housing, which is not formally identified as “supervised”, may nonetheless be sufficiently supervised or involve a situation where the Hospital can put in place supplemental supports. Ms. Szabo’s contention is that given the shortage of community placement options, maximum flexibility should be accorded to the Hospital absent risk concerns.
This panel of the Board is unable accept Ms. Szabo’s recommendation, or the rationale advanced in support of it. Dr. Wong’s testified that there was no air of reality to the suggestion that a non- supervised setting would be approved for Mr. S. (E-H.). Dr. Wong also testified that Mr. S. (E-H.) may require a single room because of the nature of the index offence and because of his ongoing behaviours. As a result, specifying that Mr. S. (E-H.) will require supervised accommodation will have little impact on his placement options.
Dr. Wong agreed with Ms. MacDonald’s pointed suggestion that a non-supervised setting for Mr. S. (E-H.) is unrealistic. As a result, the panel finds that there is no air of reality to Ms. Szabo’s speculative position that a potential community placement, not categorized as “supervised accommodation” can be tweaked to meet the needs of a patient when his attending psychiatrist testifies that “supervised accommodation” is required. Dr. Wong testified and the panel accepts that there is no basis to presume that anything other than high levels of supervision can meet Mr. S. (E-H.)’s community housing needs. This finding is supported by the conclusory comment found on the last page of the Hospital Report and reproduced below for ease of reference:
Finally, should the board grant him privileges of living in the community, the team will begin finding appropriate housing, in which he will almost certainly require the highest levels of supervision available[emphasis added].
This panel is also unable to accept Ms. Addie’s suggestion that “supervised accommodation” is a term of art because its meaning differs between jurisdictions and housing providers. What is clear in this instance is Dr. Wong’s uncontested expert opinion that his patient will require community housing that provides an elevated level of supervision. Given that requirement, this panel cannot grasp the rationale for seeking to describe Mr. S. (E-H.)’s community living needs as anything less than supervised accommodation. If Mr. S. (E-H.)’s community placement can be facilitated, as suggested by Ms. Szabo, with the addition of supplemental Hospital supports, the rationale for his community placement is undermined by his unsuitability to transition to the community absent a degree of forensic involvement which effectively mirrors his ongoing Hospital detention.
Given the foregoing, if and when the Hospital identifies a specific community accommodation, that with additional Hospital supports, can adequately oversee Mr. S. (E-H.)’s risk to public safety, then an early hearing can be requested. Until then, supervised accommodation is the necessary and appropriate descriptor for the type of community placement that Mr. Shun requires.
Conclusion
Therefore, the Board unanimously determines that the necessary and appropriate Disposition required to manage the threat Mr. S. (E-H.) poses to the safety of the public while still meeting his needs, remains a Detention Disposition with the addition of:
- community living in supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge
In making this Disposition, the Board carefully considered the positions and submissions of the parties and the evidence of Dr. Wong and is satisfied that this determination is both necessary and appropriate. The Board reviewed the provisions of s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code and carefully considered the need to protect the public from dangerous persons, Mr. S. (E-H.)’s mental condition, his reintegration into society and other needs.
DATED this 29^th^ day of May, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. P. Capelle Alternate Chairperson Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board