Re: Akil Skeete
ORB File No: 6878
Hearing held on: Thursday, April 23, 2026
Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. M.D. Segal
Members: Dr. T. Verny Dr. M. Green Ms. A. Israel Mr. K. McMillan
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Akil Skeete Counsel: Mr. A. Rai
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. S. Rosales-Zelaya
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. A. Dimiskovska
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated June 2, 2026)
Introduction
1On December 11, 2015, Akil Skeete was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on a charge of aggravated assault, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (the “Criminal Code”).
2On April 23, 2026, a panel of the Ontario Review Board (“Board” or the “ORB”) convened to review Mr. Skeete’s current Disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. At the time of the hearing, Mr. Skeete was ordered detained at the Forensic Service of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (“CAMH” or the “Hospital”).
3Mr. Skeete was present throughout his hearing. He was represented by counsel, Mr. Rai, throughout the proceedings.
4A Hospital Report dated April 8, 2026, was entered as Exhibit 1.
5The issues to be determined are whether Mr. Skeete continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public, and if so, the necessary and appropriate disposition to manage that risk having regard to the criteria set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
6For the reasons set out below and based on the evidence and opinions before us, the Board found that Mr. Skeete continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board finds that a continuation of the Detention Disposition is the necessary and appropriate order having regard to the safety of the public, which is the paramount concern, and also having regard to Mr. Skeete’s mental health, reintegration into society, and his other needs.
Current Psychiatric Diagnoses
7Schizophrenia; Cannabis Use Disorder, in sustained remission in a controlled environment; Borderline Intellectual Functioning; Antisocial Personality Traits.
Position of the Parties
8At the commencement of the hearing, the parties were canvassed for their without prejudice positions. All parties took the position that Mr. Skeete continues to represent a significant threat to the public and the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a continuation of the current Detention Order on the same terms as last year.
9Therefore, there was a joint submission on all issues.
Index Offence
10The details of the index offences are contained within the Hospital Report. The details are summarized as follows:
“On September 4, 2014, Mr. Skeete and the victim were living in an apartment with the accused’s grandmother. At about 6:20 a.m., Mr. Skeete entered the victim’s bedroom and stabbed him repeatedly with a kitchen knife. The victim managed to escape the apartment and sought help from a neighbour in an adjacent apartment. When the police arrived, Mr. Skeete had left the building. He was subsequently located and arrested.”
Background and History
11The Hospital Report contains extensive information regarding Mr. Skeete’s background and history, the entirety of which need not be repeated here in detail. However, the following particulars are noteworthy.
12Mr. Skeete was born in Bridgetown, Barbados and moved Canada in 2012. He is financially supported by the Ontario Disability Support Program. He did not complete high school and has had persistent difficulty maintaining employment. His two young sons, both born while he has been detained under the forensic system; one child resides with or is in the care process involving his mother in Barbados, and the other remains in foster care with supervised access. He is currently subject to a deportation order to Barbados, which complicates community housing and discharge planning.
13Mr. Skeete sustained traumatic brain injuries in childhood. At age 11 he was struck by a motor vehicle while riding a bicycle, resulting in a two-week coma. He sustained a second head injury shortly thereafter when struck by a heavy metal object. Subsequent psychological testing has consistently placed his intellectual functioning in the borderline range, with associated attention and memory deficits. These cognitive limitations have been recognized as clinically relevant to his judgment, impulse control, and rehabilitation needs.
14Mr. Skeete has a longstanding diagnosis of schizophrenia, along with cannabis use disorder, borderline intellectual functioning, and antisocial personality traits. His schizophrenia has been responsive to antipsychotic medication, with prolonged periods of remission and structured settings. However, his history demonstrates that psychotic decompensation has coincided with cannabis use and medication noncompliance, both of which are recognized risk escalators. He is consistently found capable of consenting to treatment, managing finances, and consenting to sexual activity.
15Following his NCR finding, Mr. Skeete has spent most of the past decade detained with forensic hospital settings. His course has been marked by:
long periods of psychiatric stability and compliance;
recurrent interpersonal conflict, partially when feeling disrespected;
a persistent pattern of inappropriate sexual behaviour and boundary difficulties, especially toward lower functioning females (though no paraphilic disorder has been identified); and
episodic impulsivity and aggression, typically in response to stress, substance use or relationship conflict.
16Despite these issues, he has completed extensive programming and has shown improved behavioural control in recent years, particularly since becoming a father.
Course Since Last Disposition
17At the time of last year's Reasons for Disposition a Detention Order was continued, with planned transfer to CAMH to facilitate access to specialized programming and broader housing options. As of April 2026, Mr. Skeete has been detained at CAMH general unit C. He is psychiatrically stable, medication compliant, free of active psychotic symptoms, and engaging appropriately in programming. Structured risk assessments characterize his risk for future violence as moderate overall with low imminent risk while supervised. However, clinicians emphasize that absolute discharge would significantly elevate risk due to housing instability, immigration uncertainty, and the likelihood of disengagement from treatment and substance abstinence without ORB oversight.
Evidence at the Hearing
18The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Hospital Report, and oral evidence of Dr. Woodside, Mr. Skeete’s psychiatrist and author of the Hospital Report.
19Dr. Woodside testified that since Mr. Skeete’s transfer to CAMH in November, he has generally done well on the unit, has had no significant behavioural management concerns, remains treatment capable and medication compliant, and is engaging in programming including substance relapse prevention.
20On admission to CAMH, Mr. Skeete had a positive urine drug screen for cannabis; while he initially denied use, he later acknowledged regular cannabis use while at Ontario Shores, which he had not disclosed due to concerns about consequences for access to his child. Since transfer, he has been subject to more frequent testing (three times weekly) and all subsequent tests have been negative, with no observed evidence of intoxication. However, Dr. Woodside noticed cannabis use has been associated in the past with fleeting paranoia and remains an ongoing concern absent close monitoring.
21Dr. Woodside emphasized that Mr. Skeete’s stability is occurring within a highly structured environment with external controls, including a secure residence, oversight and testing, and limited community access through the CAMH pass ladder. Following transfer, Mr. Skeete’s privileges were reduced due to the cannabis finding but have since been rebuilt to approximately level 6 with a monthly review.
22Dr. Woodside identified a significant barrier to discharge planning is Mr. Skeete’s lack of immigration status and consequent inability to access OHIP-funded community psychiatric care, and indicated efforts are underway to obtain legal advice through Parkdale Legal Services.
23Dr. Woodside supported the continuation of the existing Detention Disposition, while noting that the current terms would permit visits with Mr. Skeete's grandmother when she completes the approved person process.
24In response to questions from the panel Dr. Woodside indicated that he understood Mr. Skeete would anticipate greater stigma associated with mental illness and ongoing psychiatric treatment in Barbados, while acknowledging Mr. Skeete's lack of status in Canada raises the possibility of removal and that Mr. Skeete remains motivated to pursue avenues to stay in Canada given family and children here.
25The panel also sought to clarify Mr. Skeete’s placement and behavioural issues on the unit. Dr. Woodside testified he is on a general male unit and reported no significant management concerns noting only isolated privacy related incidents that were addressed; he further advised that although past information includes concerning sexualized behaviours, there has been no recent charged sexual offending, and the specialist opinion was not recommending treatment at this time.
26When asked about what the team hopes to see in the year ahead, Dr. Woodside identified continued gradual process through the privilege ladder, resumption of family supports including visits with the grandmother when she completes the approved person process, continued focus on contact with his children, and exploration of volunteer opportunities given Mr. Skeete’s inability to work without status.
Analysis and Conclusion
27Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence as well as the submissions from the parties, the Board independently finds that Mr. Skeete remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.
28In Winko, the Supreme Court outlined that, in coming to the conclusion on the issue of significant risk, a Review Board should closely examine a range of evidence, including: the circumstances of the original offence; the past and expected course of the accused’s treatment; the present state of the NCR accused’s medical condition; The NCR accused’s own plans for the future; the support existing for the NCR accused in the community; and most importantly, the recommendations provided by experts who examined the NCR accused.
29Mr. Skeete continues to present a significant threat to public safety primarily due to his history of serious violence committed in the context of untreated psychosis. The index offence involved severe, unprovoked stabbing behaviour while he was experiencing paranoid and religious delusions. The Hospital Report emphasizes that this history of violence, directly linked to psychotic decompensation, remains a key predictor of future risk.
30Mr. Skeete has a diagnosis of schizophrenia, which has been responsive to antipsychotic medication in structured settings. However, his illness has repeatedly decompensated in the context of medication noncompliance and psychosocial stress. The clinical scheme notes that if his mental state were to deteriorate, he would be likely to experience delusions, agitation, and behavioural dyscontrol, significantly increasing the risk of aggression and violence towards others.
31Mr. Skeete also has a cannabis use disorder that meaningfully exacerbates his psychotic symptoms. Despite conditions prohibiting substance use, he has engaged in repeated cannabis use while detained, including admitted use shortly before his transfer to CAMH. The report identifies substance use as a major dynamic risk factor, as it reliably worsens paranoia and increases the likelihood of psychiatric relapse and associated violence.
32Additionally, antisocial personality traits, borderline intellectual functioning, and limited coping capacity further elevate risk. These factors impair his judgment, impulse control, and ability to consistently apply treatment strategies outside of a highly structured environment. Risk assessments conclude that while his imminent risk is low under detention, removal of ORB oversight - particularly given housing instability and immigration related stressors - would significantly increase the likelihood of relapse and harm, supporting the conclusion that he continues to meet the threshold for a significant threat to public safety.
33In light of the Board’s finding of significant threat, it is charged with shaping a disposition for the coming year.
34A Detention Order is necessary to ensure that the Hospital is able to approve Mr. Skeete’s housing and return him promptly to hospital should the need arise. To manage his risk to the public in the least onerous and least restrictive way, Mr. Skeete currently requires highly supportive housing to monitor his mental state, ensure compliance with medications, monitor relapse to substance use, monitor behaviours, and provide structure.
35The Board finds that there is ample evidence to accept the joint submissions of the parties.
36The Board finds that the necessary and appropriate, least onerous and least restrictive disposition is a continuation of the current Detention Order including detention at the Forensic Service at CAMH.
DATED this 2nd day of June, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. A. Israel Legal Member
__________________ Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board