Re: A. (C.)
ORB File No: 8972
Hearing held on: Wednesday, May 6, 2026
Place of hearing: St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton Via Zoom Video Conference
Pursuant to: Section 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. C. Finley
Members: Dr. T. Verny Dr. G. Stones Hon. B. Durno Mr. A. Bouvier
Parties Appearing:
Accused: A. (C.) Counsel: Ms. L. Shafran
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Mr. S. O’Brien
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. C. Gzik
*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 25, 2026)
Introduction
1On February 20, 2026, A. (C.) was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCR) on charges of breaking and entering and sexual assault contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. The Honourable Justice declined to make a disposition and referred Mr. A. (C.) to the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board (ORB/the Board). Pending that hearing, Mr. A. (C.) was subject to a recognizance with conditions, including that he reside with his parents or notify police of any change in address within 48 hours.
2On May 6, 2026, the Board convened a hearing at St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton (St. Joseph’s/hospital) to conduct Mr. A. (C.)’s initial hearing pursuant to s. 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code. All parties participated by zoom technology. Mr. A. (C.) was not present. The panel was advised that he had left his parents’ residence and they were unable to contact him. The hospital advised that they had made multiple attempts to contact Mr. A. (C.) to no avail.
3Mr. A. (C.)’s counsel, Ms. Shafran, advised that she had met with Mr. A. (C.) the week prior to the hearing and she had expected him to be in attendance. When asked, Ms. Shafran indicated that she had discussed the hospital’s position as outlined in the Risk Assessment Report with Mr. A. (C.) and he was aware they were seeking to have him admitted to hospital. However, she had not had an opportunity to discuss the specific terms and conditions recommended by the hospital as they had not been formally provided to the parties until the day of the hearing. In the circumstances, she requested an adjournment.
4The panel ordered that the hearing proceed. Although Mr. A. (C.) was not aware of the specific conditions requested by the hospital, he was aware of the hearing date and that the hospital was seeking a detention order with discretionary privileges up to and including the ability to reside in approved accommodations. He also would have been aware that the hospital was requesting that the order be made with immediate effect due to his escalating risk to the safety of the public.
5At the outset of the proceedings, all parties were canvassed as to their positions on the two issues to be determined by the Board: whether Mr. A. (C.) represents a significant threat to the safety of the public, and if so, the necessary and appropriate disposition having regard to the criteria set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
6Mr. O’Brien, on behalf of the hospital, submitted that Mr. A. (C.) represents a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a detention order with discretionary privileges up to and including the ability to reside in the community. Ms. Gzik, on behalf of the Ministry of the Attorney General, concurred in the hospital’s positions. Ms. Shafran initially took no position. At the conclusion of the evidence, she agreed that the evidence supported the hospital’s positions.
Findings
7For the reasons that follow, the panel found that Mr. A. (C.) represents a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a detention order with the terms and conditions as jointly recommended by the parties.
The Evidence
8The evidence at the hearing consisted of the Hospital Risk Assessment Report dated April 23, 2026 (ex. 1), and the viva voce evidence of. Dr. Chaimowitz.
The Index Offences
9The following is a summary of the index offences as described in the Risk Assessment Report at pp. 6-7. In the late hours of October 7-8, 2021, Mr. A. (C.) attended My Wellness Centre on multiple occasions demanding sex from the victim, YD. YD worked at that establishment. On each occasion the victim told Mr. A. (C.) to leave. At approximately 1:30 am, Mr. A. (C.) gained entry into the establishment by smashing the front glass door. At the time, YD was alone and hiding in the basement. Mr. A. (C.) discovered her and pulled down her pants and underwear. He also pulled down his pants. YD was able to escape from Mr. A. (C.)’s hold and flee the building. Mr. A. (C.) was arrested at the scene by police and taken to hospital for injuries sustained to his hand.
Background Information
10The Risk Assessment contains details of Mr. A. (C.)’s personal background and psychiatric history and need not be reviewed in detail in these reasons but for the following material points.
11Mr. A. (C.) is a 36-year-old man who was born in Oakville, Ontario. Shortly after his birth his family moved to Ecuador where they resided until Mr. A. (C.) was seven. Upon their return to Oakville, Mr. A. (C.) experienced significant difficulties. When he was 13, he was placed under the care of the Children’s Aid Society following allegations that his father was physically abusive. He resided in various group homes until, at the age of 16, he returned to his parents’ residence.
12Mr. A. (C.) was expelled from his parents’ home on a number of occasions due to conflicts related to his substance use and deteriorating mental health. His parents were frightened of him and, on occasion, contacted police to have him removed.
13Mr. A. (C.) has a criminal record that commenced at the age of 13 and includes multiple convictions for assault, failing to comply with court orders, both as a youth and as an adult. Mr. A. (C.) has a long history of problematic substance use, including alcohol, cannabis, crack cocaine and crystal methamphetamine.
14Mr. A. (C.) first started experiencing mental health difficulties at the age of four. His first psychiatric assessment was when he was nine and again at the age of 13. Since then, he has had multiple admissions to hospital. Some were pursuant to a court proceeding and some pursuant to the Mental Health Act following police intervention at the request of his parents. Upon admission, he presented with delusional beliefs and auditory hallucinations and his affect was often described as labile, with episodes of anger and emotional dysregulation. On each occasion, Mr. A. (C.) was treated with antipsychotic medication and ultimately discharged back to the community.
15In April 2021, Mr. A. (C.) attended the Emergency Department at Oakville Trafalgar Memorial Hospital on the recommendation of his community psychiatrist, Dr. De Sousa. He appeared hostile, exhibited grandiose delusions and was actively expressing delusional beliefs. His mental status had been deteriorating as a result of his nonadherence to treatment. There is no indication what, if any, treatment he received or when he was discharged back to the community.
Course Since the Index Offences
16Following his arrest on the index offences, Mr. A. (C.) was found unfit to stand trial in January 2022 and placed at Ontario Shores pursuant to a Treatment Order. He was treated with antipsychotic medication and ultimately found fit to stand trial. Upon discharge back to the correctional facility, his diagnosis was schizoaffective disorder, or schizophrenia, query cannabis use disorder and query antisocial personality disorder. On March 21, 2022, Mr. A. (C.) was released on a recognizance with his parents acting as sureties.
17Between 2023 and 2025, Mr. A. (C.) had two admissions to hospital resulting from progressive worsening of symptoms resulting from his major mental illness. He was transitioned to long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication administered every two weeks. During one of his admissions, in April 2025, he destroyed the unit piano and threatened staff. He also attempted to physically assault a co-patient. On each occasion Mr. A. (C.) was discharged back to his parents’ home and directed to follow up with his outpatient psychiatrist, Dr. De Souza, and the Community Support Team.
Course Since the NCR Verdict on February 20, 2026
18Following the NCR verdict, Mr. A. (C.)’s bail was changed to his own recognizance with conditions that he have no contact with the victim, not possess any weapons, and reside with his parents unless he notified the police within 24 hours of any change in his address. His parents were each experiencing their own health issues and were not in a position to act as sureties. He continues to be subject to that release pending a disposition of the ORB.
19On March 24, 2026, Mr. A. (C.) was brought to Oakville Trafalgar Memorial Hospital by police after he had been found kicking another apartment door in his parents’ apartment building while holding a knife. He reported auditory hallucinations and paranoia. He refused to provide a urine drug screen. Mr. A. (C.)’s Community Support Team indicated that he had presented as “somewhat pressured and grandiose with some elements of delusionality” during his recent contacts with the team. He was stabilized and his paranoia substantially diminished. After seven days, he was discharged to a shelter in Toronto and told to follow-up with Dr. De Sousa.
20On April 4, 2026, Mr. A. (C.) was brought to hospital by police at the request of his father due to concerns about a deterioration in his son’s mental health. Mr. A. (C.) reported daily cannabis use and also the use of crystal methamphetamine and cocaine. He reported feeling paranoid and fearful and was experiencing religious and persecutory delusions. On April 8, 2026, he was discharged to a shelter in Hamilton.
21On April 13, 2026, Mr. A. (C.) was brought to St Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton (SJHH) by police. He had been placed on a Form 1 under the Mental Health Act following an interview with a forensic psychiatrist who was to provide the Board with an assessment of his risk. Unfortunately, the next day the non-forensic psychiatrist determined that the grounds for the Form 1 were no longer present and Mr. A. (C.) was discharged to reside with friends in Oakville.
22On April 20, 2026, Mr. A. (C.) attended the Forensic Outpatient Clinic at SJHH. He mistakenly believed that he had an appointment for an assessment at that time. Fortuitously, Dr. Chaimowitz was able to interview him. Although Mr. A. (C.) denied drug use or any symptoms of psychosis, he expressed delusions and was exhibited concerning behaviour.
23Dr. Chaimowitz testified before the Board. He conducted the NCR assessment for the Court and authored the Risk Assessment Report for the Board. The doctor advised that Mr. A. (C.) has a major mental illness, Schizoaffective Disorder, and is probably not receiving treatment. Following the interview on April 20, Dr. Chaimowitz contacted Dr. De Sousa. Who advised that she had not seen Mr. A. (C.) in a year. He has missed his last two appointments for administration of his injectable antipsychotic medication.
24In Dr Chaimowitz’s opinion, Mr. A. (C.) currently is extremely unwell. This is a result of both his untreated mental illness and his ongoing substance use.
25Dr. Chaimowitz reported that leading up to the day of the hearing, the hospital had tried to contact both Mr. A. (C.) and his parents on a number of occasions, to no avail. The team considered contacting the police due to fears for Mr. A. (C.)’s parents’ safety. Mr. A. (C.)’s behaviour in March, kicking a door while in possessions of a knife, could have resulted in criminal charges. In Dr. Chaimowitz’s opinion, Mr. A. (C.) currently is disconnected from anything that would provide stability and his delusions “appear to have overtaken his entire being”. The doctor stressed that Mr. A. (C.) is a significant threat to the safety of the public and that threat is escalating. It is imperative that he be admitted to hospital as soon as possible.
26Once admitted, Mr. A. (C.) will be treated with antipsychotic medication and will be precluded from consuming substances. Dr. Chaimowitz anticipates that Mr. A. (C.) will stabilize in due course. He will then be granted increasing privileges to test his ability to abstain from the use of substances. Should Mr. A. (C.) be successful, he will have the opportunity to gradually reintegrate into the community.
27Dr Chaimowitz testified that, without the support and supervision of the forensic treatment team, Mr. A. (C.) would likely fall away from treatment and reoffend. The Mental Health Act has been insufficient to manage Mr. A. (C.)’s risk in the community, as reflected in his discharge from hospital on April 14, 2026, even after his risk was flagged by a forensic psychiatrist at the same hospital. Further, when Dr. Chaimowitz contacted Dr. De Sousa on April 22, 2026, she indicated that she was going to make her best efforts to find Mr. A. (C.) and admit him to hospital. When the two doctors spoke more recently, Dr. De Sousa advised Dr. Chaimowitz that she had been unable to locate Mr. A. (C.) to bring him into hospital.
Analysis and Conclusion
28The panel carefully considered the Risk Assessment Report and the evidence of Dr. Chaimowitz and unanimously found that Mr. A. (C.) represents a significant threat to the safety of the public. He currently suffers from symptoms of Schizoaffective Disorder and Cannabis Use Disorder. He is nonadherent to treatment and continues to consume substances such as cannabis, cocaine and crystal methamphetamine. When unwell, he experiences auditory hallucinations, delusions and paranoia. Of heightened concern is his recent behaviour, in kicking an apartment door while holding a knife. This behaviour required police intervention. No one has been able to contact him or determine his current location. Understandably, the hospital is concerned for the public’s safety, particularly Mr. A. (C.)’s parents. As such Mr. A. (C.) remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.
29Having found that Mr. A. (C.) represents a significant threat to the safety of the public, the panel must consider the necessary and appropriate disposition taking into consideration the criteria set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, which includes the need to protect the public from dangerous persons, the mental condition of the accused, the integration of the accused into society and the other needs of the accused.
30Clearly the Mental Health Act and the civil mental health system have been insufficient to manage Mr. A. (C.)’s risk to date. Even when alerted by a senior forensic psychiatrist, the hospital did not have the grounds to keep Mr. A. (C.) in hospital. The panel accepts Dr. Chaimowitz’s opinion and agrees that Mr. A. (C.) needs to be admitted to hospital immediately.
31Therefore, Mr. A. (C.) will be subject to a detention order with discretionary terms and conditions up to and including the ability to reside in the community in approved accommodations. In addition, the order will require Mr. A. (C.) to abstain from alcohol and non-medically prescribed substances and submit random urine and/or breath samples upon request. Mr. A. (C.) will be prohibited from contacting YD, attending the location of the index offences, and from possessing weapons.
32This disposition, together with a Warrant of Committal, is to be issued as soon as possible.
33In arriving at this conclusion, the panel has considered the paramount factor of the safety of the public, Mr. A. (C.)’s community reintegration, his mental condition, and his other needs as required by s. 672.5 of the Criminal Code.
DATED this 25th day of May, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Ms. C. Finley Alternate Chairperson
____________________________
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board