Ontario Review Board
Re: Corey Allen
ORB File No: 7986
Hearing held on: Tuesday, April 14, 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: Corey Allen Counsel: Mr. S. Gehl
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)
Overview
[1]. On December 9, 2021, Corey Allen was found unfit to stand trial on a charge of attempted murder. Ms. Allen was charged with that offence on June 25, 2021, after allegedly repeatedly stabbing a staff member at the group home where she was living.
[2]. Following the finding of unfitness, Ms. Allen was admitted to the Southwest Centre. She has remained an in-patient since that time, most recently subject to an Ontario Review Board disposition detaining her at the Southwest Centre, with privileges extending to living anywhere in Ontario in accommodation approved by the person in charge. While Ms. Allen may be permitted indirectly supervised hospital and grounds privileges, the disposition does not allow for any indirectly supervised community privileges.
[3]. On April 14, 2026, this panel of the Review Board convened at the Southwest Centre to hold a hearing to review Ms. Allen’s fitness to stand trial and her disposition. Ms. Allen attended represented by her lawyer, Mr. Gehl. The evidence at the hearing consisted of an updated hospital report and the oral testimony of Dr. Malka, Ms. Allen’s attending psychiatrist.
[4]. The issues to be decided are whether Ms. Allen remains unfit to stand trial, if she is likely to remain permanently unfit and, if so, whether she poses a significant threat to the safety of the public. We are also required to decide the necessary and appropriate disposition for the coming year based on a consideration of the factors in s.672.54 of the Criminal Code.
[5]. At the conclusion of the hearing the parties jointly submitted that: i) Ms. Allen remains unfit at this time, although not necessarily permanently unfit to stand trial; and ii) the current detention disposition remains necessary and appropriate, with minor non-substantive changes.
[6]. For the reasons outlined below, we agree with the joint position of the parties. As we did not find based on the evidence that Ms. Allen is likely permanently unfit, we have not addressed the issue of significant threat.
Background
[7]. Ms. Allen is a 30-year old woman. Early in life she was identified as having developmental delays, and she spent much of her childhood under the care of the Children’s Aid Society (CAS). She was placed in more than ten foster homes and was frequently moved due to caregivers not being able to manage her behaviours and outbursts. At the age of 10 she became a Crown ward. She was diagnosed with global developmental delay, was accommodated in special education classes and had individual education plans throughout her time in school. She can only read at a rudimentary level.
[8]. File information indicates that although Ms. Allen had no criminal record prior to her arrest on the current outstanding charge, there were incidents when she was aggressive and violent and was taken to hospital. She had previous diagnoses of bipolar mood disorder, cognitive developmental disability and multiple hospitalizations due to psychosis and/or manic episodes. Between 15 and 19 years of age (while she remained in CAS care), she was placed in three different group homes. The third group home is where the index offence is alleged to have occurred.
[9]. Following the finding of unfitness, Ms. Allen was admitted to Southwest Centre on January 11, 2022. While she generally presented as pleasant and cooperative, she also exhibited mood lability, impulsivity, and unpredictable behaviours. At times she endorsed auditory hallucinations and was observed responding to unseen stimuli. Staff described her as requiring ongoing encouragement to leave her room or attend programming. She began working with a behaviour analyst and over time her socialization and engagement improved. She was also adherent with prescribed treatment, under substitute consent.
[10]. In 2023, Ms. Allen was supported in visiting her aunt at her home in Kingston on two separate occasions. Both visits went well. She was also supported by staff on various outings in the community. In the summer of 2023 she was gradually introduced to the Community Living Elgin (CLE) day program through Developmental Services Ontario (DSO), and began attending regularly starting in the fall of that year. She was also placed on the DSO registry and waitlist for a supervised group home. She frequently required support and reassurance from staff, and struggled with low self-esteem.
[11]. By the time of her last annual hearing (in April 2025), Ms. Allen’s clinical care had been transferred to her new psychiatrist, Dr. Malka. At that hearing Ms. Allen’s presentation over the previous clinical year was described as largely consistent with her baseline. Though Ms. Allen stated she would often hear voices, it was unclear whether she had symptoms of psychosis, and staff believed that her cognitive deficits and difficulties in social interactions were the primary factors impacting her development. Her mood was noted to be labile, and she was quick to anger when triggered, which sometimes led to aggressive behaviour.
[12]. In evidence at that hearing, Dr. Malka reported that Ms. Allen’s most meaningful and consistent personal support, her aunt, had passed away in January 2025 of cancer. This was very difficult for Ms. Allen, who was provided with grief support from the treatment team, the hospital’s spiritual care practitioner, and the psychologist. Staff accompanied Ms. Allen to a Celebration of Life event for her aunt in Toronto where she was able to connect with other family members. Ms. Allen continued to be fragile as a result of the loss, and there had been some outbursts and decreased engagement in programming as a result. Ms. Allen was also noted to be increasingly concerned about what happened to her when she was younger, and she worried that with the death of her aunt she may no longer be able to get answers about her past.
[13]. In describing her view on the question of fitness, Dr. Malka testified last year that she did not necessarily agree that Ms. Allen was permanently unfit. As set out in last year’s reasons for disposition (at para. 24),
Dr. Malka explained that severe neglect and deprivation in childhood can mimic developmental delay and intellectual disability, and it was her opinion that Ms. Allen had been misdiagnosed. Dr. Malka stated that a more appropriate diagnosis is query Other Specified Trauma or Stressor-Related Disorder. She explained that if a child does not have an environment where their brain can grow in the usual way, in a safe, supportive, and interactive environment, parts of their brain remain underdeveloped, including those that govern language, executive functioning, attachment, and emotional regulation. With appropriate treatment and support, research has shown that people can catch up and learn these skills. For these reasons, Dr. Malka stated that it was premature to state that Ms. Allen is permanently unfit, and she is hopeful that Ms. Allen will have the ability for more learning and regain fitness.
Course Since the Last Annual Hearing
[14]. Through June and early July 2025, Ms. Allen experienced multiple changes (i.e. medication changes, including the discontinuation of her antipsychotic medication; increased expectations of her on the unit) and stressors. On July 10, 2025, while attending a CLE program in the community, Ms. Allen absconded. Staff found her walking towards traffic in the middle of a busy street, and she assaulted a staff member who tried to escort her off the road, stating, “I want to die.” Police attended and, after she was medically cleared at the general hospital, returned her to the Southwest Centre. The view of the treatment team was that the incident may have been a reflection of the multiple changes and stressors at the time, leading to a buildup in her frustration.
[15]. At the time of the AWOL incident, Ms. Allen’s privilege level allowed her indirectly supervised hospital and grounds access, but she was only leaving the unit with staff. She also had community access supervised by staff. Due to the AWOL and safety concerns, her privilege level was initially reduced to zero. In early August she required seclusion for three days as she was throwing objects and making verbal threats to staff. Shortly after she began working with a behavioural analyst and participating in programming designed to build her emotional regulation skills and self-confidence.
[16]. By the time of the ROL hearing in late October 2025, Ms. Allen was engaged in a number of programs off the unit and had begun to exercise indirectly supervised hospital and grounds passes on her own. In the months that followed she continued to use her privileges to attend programming, the hospital cafeteria and variety store, and to go on walks. Her privileges were held again a few weeks before the current hearing after Ms. Allen attempted to leave the hospital without being allowed to do so. When stopped Ms. Allen became aggressive and required seclusion. On subsequent interview she advised that she had been feeling things that she had not been describing to staff, and the team is now learning about some of Ms. Allen’s internal beliefs that may drive some of her problematic behaviours.
[17]. At the current hearing, Dr. Malka explained the recent change of Ms. Allen’s diagnosis to unspecified dissociative disorder, replacing the earlier diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder. Throughout the reporting year, Ms. Allen continued to struggle with symptoms consistent with complex trauma and early childhood neglect. Due to the nature of her symptoms, historical CAS records were requested to further understand her presentation and diagnoses. Among the more than 7000 pages that the team has received (so far) from CAS about Ms. Allen’s history, there are descriptions of Ms. Allen that support the diagnosis of a dissociative disorder. These include descriptions of Ms. Allen taking on different personalities and different voices, depending on her emotional state at the time. Additionally, Ms. Allen did not respond to antipsychotic medication, and the removal of the antipsychotic medication does not appear to have changed anything in her presentation.
[18]. Ms. Allen’s diagnosis of intellectual disability continues, but is now characterized as being of unspecified severity, as opposed to moderate. Part of the reason for this is because Ms. Allen’s cognitive abilities seem to fluctuate, which raises questions of how significant her deficits really are. Recent psychological testing (in the nature of a cognitive and diagnostic assessment) did not help clarify these issues, as some of her results suggest that her general cognitive ability is less than what the team has observed on the unit. The team is hopeful that the materials that they are receiving from the CAS will provide some assistance, and that Ms. Allen will agree to participate in further psychological testing to “better characterize her dissociative and trauma-related symptoms.” (hospital report, p.26)
Fitness to Stand Trial
[19]. In her testimony, Dr. Malka advised that she had assessed Ms. Allen for fitness the day before to the hearing, and that in her view Ms. Allen remains unfit to stand trial.
[20]. Based on the evidence, we agree. Having been found unfit to stand trial, Ms. Allen remains presumptively unfit. Ms. Allen can answer some, though not all, of the ordinary fitness questions. She is able to name her charge and, as described by Dr. Malka, she has a reality-based understanding of the proceedings, but has difficulty with the roles of some of the court participants. Sometimes she is able to learn and retain information. At other times, particularly when she is flooded with emotion, Ms. Allen appears more confused and overwhelmed and does not, or cannot, answer fitness questions at the level that the team knows she is capable of. Dr. Malka posited, and we accept, that Ms. Allen’s cognitive challenges and her difficulties regulating her emotions would affect her ability to think clearly about, and participate meaningfully in, any court proceedings, and would impact her ability to understand, choose between and instruct counsel regarding her legal options.
[21]. We also agree that, at present, the evidence does not support a finding that Ms. Allen is likely permanently unfit. Dr. Malka described that there is still a significant question about Ms. Allen’s cognition and the different states of being in which she presents. When discussing fitness, Ms. Allen tends to revert to a regressed state, which complicates the assessment. On the day before the hearing, the more Dr. Malka delved into issues of fitness, the more confused Ms. Allen became and the less able she was to answer the questions. It may be that this inability is related solely to her cognitive deficits, or her fear of being found fit (Ms. Allen is aware she could go to jail) may be contributing to her becoming overwhelmed and unable to focus and respond. Given the lack of diagnostic clarity and/or the reasons underlying her unfitness, it is premature to find that Ms. Allen is likely to remain permanently unfit.
Necessary and Appropriate Disposition
[22]. With respect to disposition, we accept the joint submission that the current detention disposition (with only minor, non-substantive adjustments) remains necessary and appropriate at this time. While we recognize the progress that Ms. Allen has continued to make, we agree that she continues to require a high level of supervision and support by caregivers who are familiar with her both to sustain these gains and to manage her challenging and, at times, aggressive behaviours. To that end, the team’s plan for the coming year is to continue to work on Ms. Allen's ability to regulate her emotions, address her trauma and grief through appropriate treatment, and increase her social and community involvement toward the goal of community placement.
[23]. As of now, Ms. Allen is receiving the care and support that she needs in the safe and stable hospital environment. The privileges potentially available to her under the current disposition allow her the opportunity for further rehabilitation and community reintegration. We note that particularly given the years-long waitlists for DSO housing, allowing her to live anywhere in the Province of Ontario increases Ms. Allen's opportunities to live in appropriate, supported and hospital approved housing in the community, when the time comes.
DATED this 25th day of May, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto. Region
Ms. S. Kert Alternate Chairperson
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board