Ontario Review Board
Re: Clinten Walker
ORB File No: 8217
Hearing held on: Wednesday, April 15, 2026
Place of hearing: Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care St. Thomas ON
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. S. Kert
Members: Dr. S. Simpson
Dr. S. Wiseman
Ms. K. Tomaszewski
Ms. C. Plyley
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Clinten Walker
Counsel: Mr. J. Langlois
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Zamprogna
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. J. Huber
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated May 25, 2026)
Introduction
On January 16, 2023, Clinten Walker was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCR) on charges of mischief under $5000 (x5) and fail to comply with release order all contrary to the Criminal Code. He is subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the Board) dated April 11, 2025, ordering his detention at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care (the Hospital) with privileges up to and including residence in the community of Southwestern Ontario in accommodation approved by the person in charge, and a pass to attend a residential substance use treatment program in the Province of Ontario as approved by the person in charge.
On Wednesday, April 15, 2026, the Board convened a hearing to review Mr. Walker`s disposition pursuant to section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Walker was present and represented by counsel, Mr. Langlois. The issues to be determined at the hearing were whether Mr. Walker continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and, if so, what was the necessary and appropriate disposition that was also the least onerous and least restrictive taking into account the factors set out in 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
At the commencement of the hearing the parties were requested to provide their initial without-prejudice positions with respect to the issues before the Board. Counsel for the Hospital indicated that it was the Hospital’s position that Mr. Walker continued to represent a significant threat to the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition was a continuation of the current detention order with the removal of the abstain and residential treatment clauses, and a reduction in the frequency of reporting from a minimum of four times per month to a minimum of two times per month.
Counsel for the Attorney-General and counsel for Mr. Walker both supported the Hospital’s recommendations.
The evidence at the hearing consisted of a Hospital Report dated March 16, 2026 (Exhibit 1) and the oral evidence of Dr. N. Mokhber, Mr. Walker’s psychiatrist.
For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that Mr. Walker continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a detention order with terms and conditions as recommended by the parties.
Index Offences
- The circumstances surrounding the index offences as summarized in last year’s Reasons for Disposition are as follows:
……on April 6, 2022, Mr. Walker’s next-door neighbour, his aunt, reported he had broken windows at her residence. When police approached him and he told them he broke her windows because she deserved it, he was arrested for two counts of mischief. Further investigation revealed he had attended the residence in an irate state and, in trying to gain entry, threw a metal rack situated outside the front door onto the windshield of the vehicle of his aunt’s roommate, damaging its antenna.
Mr. Walker had attempted to gain entry to his aunt’s residence by yelling outside the residence and kicking at the front door. He threw a coffee mug through the kitchen window and a large rock through the sliding screen and door of the residence. He also broke the mailbox post and mailbox. Mr. Walker was located on the deck of his residence with a hammer and a beer can in his hand. At the time he was subject to judicial interim release conditions, one of which prohibited him from being outside his residence with alcohol in his body. Upon arrest the police noted a very strong odour of alcohol on his breath.
Background
Mr. Walker is currently 42 years of age. He has held several different types of employment and also receives a disability pension. He owns his own home which is located next door to the property of his aunt, one of the complainants in the index offences.
Mr. Walker’s father reports that his son developed issues with anger after a head injury in 2006 and that he would “fly off the handle for no identified reason and could appear paranoid with concerns that someone had been in their home”. His mother reported that he had difficulty with anger dating back to childhood including starting fires at age eight.
Mr. Walker began using alcohol when he was 15 or 16 and his consumption increased after his head injury in 2006, and he was drinking up to ten beers a day. He also started smoking marijuana at the age of 15 or 16 and was smoking two joints per day until his arrest with respect to the index offences.
Mr. Walker’s CIPIC reveals the following criminal history:
In 2006, Mr. Walker was convicted of Criminal Harassment.
In 2007, Mr. Walker was convicted of Fail to Comply with Probation x4; and Driving with more than 80mgs of Alcohol in Blood.
In 2008, Mr. Walker was convicted of Fail to Comply with Probation; Criminal Harassment; and Fail to Comply with Probation x2.
In 2009, Mr. Walker was convicted of Mischief Under $5000.
Mr. Walker was found Not Criminally Responsible in 2009 for Criminal Harassment and Fail to Comply Probation regarding repeated unwanted contact with a former girlfriend. He later received an Absolute Discharge from the Ontario Review Board on June 12, 2012.
In 2018, Mr. Walker was convicted of Driving while Ability Impaired.
Mr. Walker’s first admission to hospital with respect to mental health related issues was in May 2009 when he was admitted to hospital under the provisions of the Mental Health Act (MHA) after breaking windows at his mother’s apartment and believing that strangers were wanting to break into his home after he had been consuming alcohol. Discharge diagnosis was noted to be “psychosis disorder due to medical condition” and “acquired brain injury.”
In June 2009 Mr. Walker was again admitted to hospital for a court ordered NCR assessment on charges of criminal harassment and breach of probation for which he was eventually found NCR. On admission he was noted to be angry, irritable, suspicious and paranoid and initially required seclusion. During the admission he developed a belief that he had a special connection to a female nurse and was experiencing delusional perceptions. Cognitive testing revealed that Mr. Walker presents with a fairly strict area of deficit in terms of his ability to more broadly analyze, abstract, to draw interference and to enable himself to draw reasonable conclusions from visually presented information.
With treatment his symptoms diminished, and he was discharged with diagnoses of atypical psychosis, substance abuse disorder (cannabis and alcohol), closed head injury and antisocial personality disorder. Mr. Walker was granted an absolute discharge on June 12, 2012, and his care was transferred to a community psychiatrist.
Mr. Walker was admitted to hospital in January 2020 after presenting himself to hospital and reporting suicidal ideas. It was noted that he had been prescribed risperidone for the last nine years but had been noncompliant. He was treated with aripiprazole and risperidone and discharged with diagnoses of adjustment disorder with depressive reaction, history of cannabis abuse disorder with substance induced acute psychotic episode, and autism spectrum disorder.
His next admission to hospital was subsequent to the index offences. He was first admitted to the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care and was transferred to Southwest on August 8, 2023. Mr. Walker absconded from Waypoint in July 2023 and used alcohol. Mr. Walker absconded from Southwest in August 2023 during a compassionate visit to see his dying sister. Mr. Walker was returned to the hospital three days later.
According to the Hospital Report, Mr. Walker’s current diagnoses are Schizophrenia, Alcohol Use Disorder (in remission in a controlled setting), Cannabis Use Disorder (in remission in a controlled setting), Antisocial Personality Traits, and Acquired Brain Injury (by history).
Mr. Walker remained an inpatient at the Hospital until July 21, 2025, at which time he transferred to a residence in St. Thomas, Ontario. He was discharged from inpatient care to the Forensic Outreach team on September 23, 2025. On November 1, 2025, he moved to his own residence in Ingersoll. His psychiatric care was transferred from Dr. Quinn to Dr. Mokhber.
Evidence at the Hearing
- Dr. Mokhber provided the following evidence:
Mr. Walker has shown significant improvement since 2023 and has been symptom free during the reporting period. His last substance use was in 2025, which was not during this reporting period.
He cooperates with the outreach team for visits and medication. He is prescribed only one antipsychotic medication, administered as a long-acting injectable, so there is no problem with adherence.
Mr. Walker still experiences situational anxiety, but he does not meet the full criteria for an anxiety disorder which could be treated with medication. He has started psychological work with respect to anxiety, and he needs to continue this work.
His insight into his mental illness and his need for medication has improved. However, his insight is dependent upon his mental state. Substance use would trigger psychotic episodes, and his insight would deteriorate significantly.
He has good intellectual insight into his illness and his need for treatment, but he has not yet been assessed in the community to determine whether he has developed full behavioural and emotional insight. To assess this the Hospital recommends removing the abstain clause, and reducing the minimum number of monthly reports. The idea is to assess whether, when he knows the abstain clause is no longer in the disposition, he will continue to abstain.
Initially, the team will continue to schedule weekly visits, and if he maintains abstinence and stability, the number of visits will gradually be reduced. This all depends on Mr. Walker’s willingness to continue to cooperate with the forensic outreach team, and his willingness to participate in non-pharmacological therapeutic programing.
This is his second time in the forensic system. At this time the MHA would not be sufficient to manage his risk to the safety of the public.
The key to risk management is prompt intervention and immediate response to any sign/symptom of relapse. Mr. Walker also needs the help of the forensic outreach team to help structure his life.
Mr. Walker is at an early stage of well-being. It is appropriate at this time to introduce fewer restrictions without losing recourse to the warrant of committal, should he decompensate and need to be expeditiously returned to the Hospital.
He has a dual diagnosis of schizophrenia and substance use disorder plus acquired brain injury. This increases the likelihood of relapse with symptoms of schizophrenia. This risk is likely to be higher, with rapid deterioration of his mental state. Mr. Walker is at risk for impulsive violence. In this context, the Hospital wants to move Mr. Walker forward with slow steps.
It is hoped that with more psychoeducational programs and participation in CMHA programming, Mr. Walker will develop further insight into the impact of substance use.
Notably, Mr. Walker stopped CMHA programs for substance use relapse and refused to continue despite the request of the outreach team that he continue.
The forensic outreach team believes they can continue working with Mr. Walker to help him manage stressful situations e.g. financial strain resulting from the cost of home repairs and maintenance; and to encourage him to find employment which will alleviate his financial stressors.
The outreach team can provide support to help Mr. Walker structure his days, and to provide support for housing if Mr. Walker is unable to continue to afford to own his home.
At this point a detention disposition, as opposed to a conditional discharge, is necessary. In the past, Mr. Walker absconded from the hospital twice while in forensic system. It is unlikely that if he decompensates, he will return to the Hospital voluntarily. He has a history of non-adherence to medications when he is unwell, and his insight will diminish if he uses substances and/or decompensates. The interplay of schizophrenia, substance use disorder and acquired brain injury is complex and increases the risk of rapid and serious decompensation.
He has no professional psychiatric supports in the community other than the forensic outreach team. His family doctor now provides the long-acting injectable, but he has yet to be educated fully on Mr. Walker’s risk factors.
Mr. Walker’s aunt is now his approved person. She is also one of the victims of the index offences.
In Dr. Mokhber’s opinion, the no-contact clause can be removed with respect to Mr. Walker’s aunt. He does not meet the criteria for anti-social personality disorder and does feel sympathy for others. He cares about his two dogs. He has a good relationship with his father and his aunt. His aunt wants to support him and volunteered to become an approved person.
- In response to questions, Dr. Mokhber indicated that:
In 2025 he used substances and had drug paraphernalia on the unit and shared it with others, but this was in the context of a New Year’s celebration and peer pressure. He did not use alcohol or substances during this year’s New Year's celebrations. It is important to assess his ability to remain abstinent while still subject to a detention disposition.
He has no structure to his days except caring for his dogs, fixing his house, and part-time seasonal work. The outreach team can propose a plan to structure his time which he can follow. The outreach team will increase the frequency of visits as is necessary.
The diagnosis of “in remission in a controlled setting” continues to apply because Mr. Walker is considered to be in a controlled setting while drug testing continues.
Mr. Walker does not want non-pharmacological interventions at this time because he believes he is cured, and he sometimes minimizes the risk of relapse into substance use. He cannot afford the cost of a private psychologist. The plan is for the team to continue to provide one-on-one anger and stress management strategies.
Mr. Walker at times has acknowledged that he engaged in programs to influence the team’s impression of him. This relates to his insight. The next step is to assess whether he can maintain emotional and behavioural well being in the context of foreseeable stressors including financial problems, and his dogs getting older and less healthy. The index offences occurred when he was dealing with the stress of losing his mother and using alcohol to deal with stress and grief.
Dr. Mokhber agreed that the intellectual aspect of insight influences impression management, and the removal of the legal impediment to using substances (including alcohol) will reveal whether Mr. Walker is internally motivated to remain abstinent.
Analysis and Conclusion
Although the issue of significant threat was not contested at the hearing, the Board nevertheless makes an independent finding that Mr. Walker does represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. He suffers from a major mental illness, schizophrenia, as well as having further diagnoses of antisocial personality traits, and cannabis and alcohol use disorder, and a history of acquired brain injury.
Mr. Walker has not yet demonstrated that he can remain abstinent in the context of living in the community without a legal restriction to prevent him from doing so. Substance and alcohol use are serious risk factors for Mr. Walker. Mr. Walker has not yet completed psychoeducational programing to help him deal with anger and stress. He has no psychiatric support professionals in the community, apart from the forensic outreach team.
In addition to the evidence provided by Dr. Mokhber, the Board relies on the reoffence scenario found on page 48 of the Hospital Report:
In the absence of forensic supervision, there is concern that Mr. Walker would be unlikely to consistently engage with professional supports to maintain his treatment plan in the community. He has historically demonstrated difficulties to manage independently when structure and monitoring are reduced. There is a significant concern that he would become non-adherent with his prescribed treatment regimen. In prior periods, reduced structure, medication nonadherence and substance use have preceded clinical decompensation. In such contexts, Mr. Walker’s psychotic symptoms have re-emerged, including grandiose and persecutory delusions, disorganized thinking, and behavioural dysregulation. When symptomatic, his impaired judgment and distorted beliefs have increased his risk of antisocial or potentially violent behaviour in response to perceived threats or delusional interpretations.
- The Board also relies on the risk factors set out on pages 49-50 of the Hospital Report, which the Board finds are well-supported by the evidence:
Mr. Walker has a diagnosis of schizophrenia; a major mental disorder associated with episodic relapse. Historically, during periods of untreated psychosis, substance use, and significant psychosocial stress, Mr. Walker has engaged in violent behaviour. While he has remained stable during the current reporting period, this stability has occurred within the context of consistent supervision, structure, and professional support, and therefore does not fully mitigate the underlying risk associated with his illness.
Substance use remains a central risk factor for future violence. Mr. Walker has previously identified cannabis and alcohol use as key triggers for psychiatric deterioration and loss of judgment. Although he has maintained abstinence during the reporting period, it has only been for a short period, and he continues to remain vulnerable to relapse. Given the well-established link between substance use, psychiatric destabilization, and past violent behaviour, relapse into substance use would significantly increase the risk to public safety.
Mr. Walker continues to face ongoing psychosocial stressors, including financial obligations, housing transitions, and environmental stressors within his living environment. These stressors have historically contributed to periods of instability and increase the likelihood of relapse when combined with reduced structure or substance exposure.
Mr. Walker’s stability remains closely tied to external structure and monitoring. His ability to maintain routine, abstain from substances, and engage in treatment has occurred in the context of ongoing professional involvement and structured expectations. In the absence of consistent monitoring and support, there is a risk that he may disengage from structured activities, experience increased stress, and revert to maladaptive coping strategies. Historically, such circumstances have led to substance relapse and psychiatric deterioration, which in turn increases the risk of violence.
Mr. Walker demonstrates fair and improving insight into his illness, substance use, and index offence; however, this insight remains developing. At times his responses appear rehearsed and influenced by impression management, which limits the Outreach team’s ability to fully assess the depth and reliability of his understanding of risk. Further demonstration of sustained insight and independent risk management is required before the team can be confident that he can maintain stability without the current level of forensic oversight.
The Board finds that the evidence also amply supports the conclusion that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a continuation of the current detention order with the changes recommended by the Hospital and by the parties.
While Mr. Walker has made meaningful progress in his recovery and is currently functioning well in the community, a conditional discharge would not provide a sufficient level of oversight to safely manage his ongoing risk. Mr. Walker’s current stability has developed within the context of a structured forensic framework that includes regular monitoring, clear expectations, and the ability for the treatment team to intervene promptly should concerns arise. Transitioning to a conditional discharge at this stage would significantly reduce the immediacy of clinical oversight and the team’s ability to respond quickly to early indicators of destabilization.
Mr. Walker’s history demonstrates a clear relationship between substance use, loss of structure, and disengagement from treatment and periods of psychiatric deterioration and increased risk. Although he has demonstrated sustained abstinence and engagement with addiction treatment during the current reporting period, the risk of relapse remains clinically relevant. This risk is heightened by ongoing psychosocial stressors, including financial pressures, environmental exposure to substances, and the demands associated with maintaining independent living.
The removal of the abstain clause and the reduction of minimum report requirements will provide the outreach team with the opportunity to assess whether Mr. Walker is internally or only externally motivated to maintain abstinence. It will also provide the outreach team with the opportunity to assess whether Mr. Walker is able to develop coping mechanisms that will enable him to deal with financial stressors and possible issues with the health of his dogs without relapsing into substance/alcohol use or decompensating.
Given the complex interplay between his diagnoses and the acquired brain injury, and the potential speed with which Mr. Walker is likely to decompensate if he uses substances or alcohol, as well as keeping in mind that this is Mr. Walker’s second time in the forensic system, the Board finds that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a detention disposition. The removal of the abstain clause and reduction in reporting requirements will give Mr. Walker the opportunity to demonstrate his ability to maintain stability and abstinence while at the same time enabling the outreach team to return Mr. Walker to Hospital expeditiously if necessary. The residential treatment clause is considered by the outreach team to no longer be necessary.
In closing submissions, counsel for the Hospital urged the Board to exercise caution in removing the no-contact clause as it applies to Mr. Walker’s aunt. She noted that this clause does not affect Mr. Walker’s liberty or impede the relationship between Mr. Walker and his aunt. The Board has no evidence about whether Mr. Walker’s aunt wishes to have this clause removed or retained.
Mr. Walker lives next door to his aunt. She is one of the victims of the index offences. Mr. Walker is beginning a period of increased stress with less structure and supervision than was provided for him in the Hospital. This is a period with the potential for increased risk of substance use and/or decompensation. In the Board’s opinion, it is still too early in Mr. Walker’s transition to living in the community to remove the no-contact clause as it applies to his aunt. While his aunt is currently involved with supporting Mr. Walker’s progress, she should retain the right to revoke consent to contact if she feels unsafe. The Board declined to remove the no-contact clause (applicable to both the aunt and the aunt’s roommate) from the disposition.
Counsel for Mr. Walker mentioned in his closing submissions that Mr. Walker has joined AA in Ingersoll and volunteered at the Salvation Army. While this could be an encouraging development, this information was not provided as evidence and was not considered as such by the Board. Dr. Mokhber did not appear to have been aware of this.
In consideration of all the evidence, submissions of the parties and the criteria set forth in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, the paramount consideration being the safety of the public, in addition to the mental condition of Mr. Walker, his reintegration into society and his other needs, the necessary and appropriate disposition is a detention disposition with the clauses as discussed above.
DATED this 25th day of May 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Ms. K. Tomaszewski
Legal Member
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board