Re: Jeffrey Keddy
ORB File No: 8187
Hearing held on: Thursday, May 14, 2026
Place of hearing: St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton, West 5th Campus Hamilton, Ontario
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. S. Clapp
Members: Dr. J. Kis Dr. G. Nexhipi Ms. N. Nathanson Mr. S. Duffy
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Jeffrey Keddy Counsel: Mr. A. Rai
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. L. Barney
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. S. Wollaston
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated June 5, 2026)
Introduction:
On November 25, 2022, Jeffrey Keddy was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on charges of conveying false information with intent to injure or alarm, repeatedly communicating with intent to harass, and failing to comply with probation, all contrary to the Criminal Code.
Mr. Keddy is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB” or “the Board”) dated May 29, 2025 whereby he is detained at the Forensic Psychiatry Program of St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton, West 5th Campus (“SJHCH” or “the hospital”), with privileges up to and including living in the community of Southern Ontario in accommodation approved by the person in charge. He is also required to abstain from substances, report to the hospital not less than four times per month, and refrain from contacting certain individuals.
On May 14, 2026, a panel of the Board convened at SJHCH to conduct Mr. Keddy’s annual review pursuant to section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Keddy attended the hearing and was represented by counsel, Mr. Rai.
The Hospital Report dated April 10, 2026, was marked as Exhibit 1. In addition to the documentary evidence, Dr. L.O. Tan gave oral evidence. Dr. Tan is a resident in forensic psychiatry under the supervision of Mr. Keddy’s attending psychiatrist, Dr. Y. Alatishe.
The issues to be decided at the hearing were whether Mr. Keddy continues to meet the test of posing a significant threat to the safety of the public as set out in section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code, and if so, what is the necessary and appropriate Disposition, taking into account the four factors set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
Positions of the Parties:
At the outset of the hearing, the parties were asked for their initial without prejudice positions. On behalf of the hospital, Ms. Barney took the position that Mr. Keddy continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public, and that a continuation of the existing Detention Order remained necessary and appropriate.
Ms. Wollaston supported the position of the hospital on behalf of the Attorney General.
Mr. Rai stated that the issue of significant threat was not contested; however, Mr. Keddy was seeking a Conditional Discharge with a residence condition (a specific address was provided) and a consent to treatment condition. When asked specifically, Mr. Rai stated that his client did not consent to a Young clause requiring attendance at the hospital upon request.
Findings:
- For the reasons that follow, the panel found that Mr. Keddy continues to pose a significant threat to public safety. The panel concluded that the necessary and appropriate Disposition, which is also the least onerous and least restrictive in the circumstances, is a continuation of the existing Detention Order.
Index Offences:
The circumstances of the index offences are set out in detail in the Hospital Report at pages 2-4 and can be summarized as follows. On February 14, 2017, the bodies of two teenage girls were discovered near the Monon High Bridge Trail in Delphi, Indiana, after the girls had disappeared from the same trail the previous day. The murders garnered national level media coverage and was an open “cold case.” The grandparents (and legal guardians) of one of the girls provided dozens of televised interviews after the incident occurred.
Between August and September 2021, Mr. Keddy called the grandparents more than 30 times, and many were recorded on their answering machine. Mr. Keddy identified himself as “the bridge guy” or “the troll under the bridge” and would essentially terrorize the grandparents by telling them they would be going to jail, that their granddaughter was seen in Canada a year after the murders, and that the murders were a hoax. During one of the phone calls, Mr. Keddy stated, “I am never going away, I am never going to stop.”
The grandparents sought the assistance of police and Mr. Keddy was ultimately identified as the caller. Mr. Keddy was noted to have a history of making repeated calls to both law enforcement and family members who had been victimized by violent crimes, and espoused conspiracy based theories. Mr. Keddy was arrested for the index offences on September 15, 2021.
Background:
Mr. Keddy’s personal history is outlined in detail in the Hospital Report and last year’s Reasons for Disposition (“Reasons”), and will only be summarized here. Mr. Keddy is currently 60 years old. He was 55 years old at the time of the index offences. He has been in an “on again/off again” relationship with Brenda McKenzie for some 30 years. They have two adult children, and Mr. Keddy described having a close relationship with them. Mr. Keddy has two older brothers and two younger sisters; however, they are not particularly close.
Mr. Keddy described himself as being “too smart for [his] own good” in school and was often bored with the pace of his studies. He left school after grade 10 because he felt he was not being taught anything helpful and he wanted to make money and obtain hands-on experience. He reportedly completed Basic Training with the Canadian Forces but then lost interest in pursuing a military career.
Mr. Keddy was last employed as a construction worker until becoming hurt at work in 2009. He was supported by WSIB and later Employment Insurance until briefly returning to work in 2013. Mr. Keddy was financially supported by the Ontario Disability Program (ODSP) from 2014 until approximately 2020, when the sale of his home disqualified him from receiving support payments.
Mr. Keddy reported that he began using marijuana in high school, and was smoking three to six joints a day at the time of the index offences.
Criminal History:
Mr. Keddy’s criminal history was carefully summarized in last year’s Reasons as follows. Mr. Keddy’s criminal record can be divided into two main segments. The first set of convictions were from 1986 until 1994, consisting primarily of drug offences along with escaping custody and obstructing a peace officer. The second set were in 2021 and 2022 and were for breaches of recognizance, failure to comply with a release order, and two counts of criminal harassment (the 2022 convictions were not included in the criminal record in the Hospital Report). Mr. Keddy was charged twice for the harassment of his neighbours, leading to no-contact orders. Following one conviction, he had to sell his house, as he was forbidden to enter the town as a condition of his probation.
Between September 28, 2022, when the NCR assessment was completed, and November 25, 2022, when the NCR verdict was rendered, Mr. Keddy was charged with failure to comply with the conditions of his release. He had made calls to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) regarding a murder. He had previously been convicted for calling media outlets with false information about this crime. This new charge was stayed upon the NCR finding.
Psychiatric History:
The Hospital Report outlines Mr. Keddy’s psychiatric history both before and after the index offences and will not be repeated here. In summary, health records from the Canadian Mental Health Association (CMHA) stated that Mr. Keddy was diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder, Depressive Disorder, and Schizoaffective Disorder in 2014. Mr. Keddy had endorsed having premonitions such as that in 1978 he “knew that the Challenger spacecraft would explode on takeoff” and contacted NASA to warn them. Probation records indicated that Mr. Keddy was initially receptive to taking medication; however, his willingness diminished after he came to believe that he had been taken advantage of by the medical system.
During the psychological assessment conducted as part of his NCR assessment in 2022, Mr. Keddy reportedly stated, without prompting, that he possessed important information about, or had been involved in, several high-profile criminal investigations that had received significant media attention, claiming that he began encountering such information at the age of 12. It was noted that Mr. Keddy started contacting police and other law enforcement agencies with these types of beliefs in 2008.
During Mr. Keddy’s first few years under the jurisdiction of the Board, he was active in recreational programs and participated in off-unit groups. He was compliant with medication but did not believe that he had a mental illness or that the medication benefited him. He was found incapable of consenting to treatment and Ms. McKenzie was made his substitute decision-maker. He attended substance use programming but his insight remained poor. It was noted that Mr. Keddy’s beliefs regarding the matters that led to the index offences remained unchanged.
A Community Living Assessment conducted in May 2023 determined that Mr. Keddy could be discharged to an independent apartment with staff on-site to supervise medication compliance, mental status, and substance use.
Mr. Keddy was granted extensive indirectly supervised passes (up to 12 hours daily), as well as weekly 48-hour passes to Ms. McKenzie’s home. Following his first pass to the home, Mr. Keddy tested positive for cannabis (he reported that his son uses cannabis); however, this did not occur again.
Ms. McKenzie’s apartment was approved for discharge planning in February 2025 (it was noted that the Probation Order that prevented Mr. Keddy from returning there ended in January 2025), and it was hoped that a gradual transition would be completed so that Mr. Keddy could live there by the summer of 2025.
Mr. Keddy’s current diagnoses are Schizophrenia and Cannabis Use Disorder. He is incapable of consenting to treatment. He is capable of managing his finances.
Evidence at the Hearing:
The Hospital Report stated that Mr. Keddy was discharged to the community (approximately one hour away from the hospital) on June 29, 2025. He lives in a small apartment with Ms. McKenzie, his son, and daughter-in-law. He was seen by his case managers weekly and reported to the Outpatient Clinic biweekly for his injection of antipsychotic medication.
Mr. Keddy’s mental status remained stable during the reporting period. He attended his outpatient appointments regularly and was generally pleasant and cooperative with the Forensic Team. The Hospital Report stated that while Mr. Keddy remained adherent to prescribed medications, he explicitly stated a desire to stop medication once he is absolutely discharged. There have been no confirmed positive urine drug screens and Mr. Keddy denies any cravings.
Mr. Keddy lives in a small rural town where there are extremely limited activities for him to attend. He has been reluctant to travel 15 minutes to the nearest town to attend programming offered through the CMHA, and has not attended any family gatherings. Mr. Keddy spends his day binge watching television and sees no issues with this.
The Hospital Report noted that a full risk assessment was completed in the winter of 2024, at which time Mr. Keddy’s risk for violent recidivism was estimated to be in the low-moderate range under a Detention Order. In the absence of professional supports, the likelihood of violence was estimated to moderately high over time (i.e., weeks to months). While it was opined that these conclusions remain valid at the current time, the Hospital Report stated that Mr. Keddy’s psychological risk profile should be updated through a comprehensive assessment and recommendations in preparation for his 2027 ORB hearing.
The Hospital Report stated the following about Mr. Keddy’s risk to the public and the issue of significant threat (at pages 47-48):
“Mr. Keddy’s risk to the safety of the public is linked to his Schizophrenia and particularly to his lack of insight. Although he has not reported any new delusions related to crimes or paranoia, he continues to hold the same beliefs that led to the index offences (i.e. that he has some unique knowledge regarding historical high-profile crimes). Mr. Keddy also maintains that if it were his choice, he would no longer take his antipsychotic medication. He remains incapable of consenting to antipsychotic treatment. Furthermore, Mr. Keddy currently has no professional supports outside of the Forensic Outpatient Program (FOP), with no family physician or local community agency involvement. Other risk factors relevant to Mr. Keddy are his history of substance use and poor response to less restrictive supervision, as well as his employment and financial instability.
Given these factors, as well as the recency of Mr. Keddy’s transition to the community, it is the treatment team’s unanimous opinion that he continues to meet the threshold for significant threat to the community. Absent the oversight provided by the Ontario Review Board and the support provided by the Forensic Outpatient Program, it is highly likely that Mr. Keddy would discontinue his antipsychotic medication, his psychotic symptoms would intensify, and there would then be a moderately high risk of violent recidivism over time. In the event of decompensation, given Mr. Keddy’s history of psychiatric instability, substance misuse, and lack of insight, the civil Mental Health Act would be insufficient to manage his risk in a timely manner.”
The Hospital Report noted that if Mr. Keddy maintains stability and abstinence, and demonstrates meaningful progress in reintegrating back into the community, the team would then be in a position in the future to consider the appropriateness of a less restrictive disposition.
Dr. Tan testified that he has been involved in Mr. Keddy’s care since January 2026. He stated that Mr. Keddy had a relatively positive trajectory over the past year. This included a transition to live in the community with his partner, son, and daughter-in-law with no significant incidents or concerns. The treatment team continues to work on getting Mr. Keddy to be more engaged in the community and develop some local supports, including a family doctor. While Mr. Keddy has expressed some interest in certain activities, he has not followed through on them.
Dr. Tan had a recent update regarding Mr. Keddy’s urine drug screens. On May 1, 2026 it was noted that his urine was negative for Lorazepam, which is a prescribed medication to help with sleep. Mr. Keddy’s explanation was that he must have dropped the pill. He was ambivalent to provide the urine drug screen that day (most times he is ready and willing to provide it); however, there was no change in his mental status (although Mr. Keddy did report that he had some difficulty sleeping). Mr. Keddy’s prior 21 urine drug screens showed that he was taking Lorazepam, so this raised some concerns about potential tampering with the urine sample. The urine drug screens will likely be increased in the coming months.
When asked further about this issue, Dr. Tan explained that there is no direct visualization when Mr. Keddy provides a urine sample; however it is assessed after the fact. He stated that Lorazepam stays in a person’s system for at least 14 hours. When asked why this incident was concerning, Dr. Tan responded that sleep is important for Mr. Keddy’s mental status and nonadherence would be a concern, and the issue of potential tampering speaks to the issue of Mr. Keddy’s cooperativeness with prescribed medications.
Dr. Tan testified that the treatment team had considered whether a Conditional Discharge would be appropriate for Mr. Keddy at the current time, and it was the unanimous opinion that it was not. Mr. Keddy does not have any professional supports in the community, and he lives one hour away from the hospital. This means there are less enforcement mechanisms close to him, and it is more difficult to act quickly. Mr. Keddy has limited engagement in the community and has therefore not been challenged with any stressors or encounters with people in the community (which is also where the index offences occurred). Mr. Keddy’s lack of insight into his mental condition is also a significant factor, especially because he only agrees to take psychiatric medications because of the ORB. Mr. Keddy also does not believe that alcohol and cannabis impact his mental state.
Dr. Tan testified that it is important for the treatment team to be able to use a Warrant of Committal to bring Mr. Keddy to the hospital quickly and admit him for acute stability in the event of any substance use and/or decompensation in his mental status. Dr. Tan did not think that the Mental Health Act (“MHA”) (including the Box B criteria) would be sufficient for this purpose, as it requires that a physician examine the person within 7 days for a Form 1, and would require an acute threat as a result of mental illness (as opposed to substance use). Dr. Tan testified that the threshold for the civil system under the MHA is different than that for significant threat in the forensic system. When asked whether Mr. Keddy would return to hospital voluntarily, Dr. Tan stated that although Mr. Keddy has cooperated as an outpatient, he had significant difficulties with authority and response to supervision in the past.
Dr. Tan also raised concerns about the fact that Mr. Keddy lives approximately one hour away from the hospital, and the hospital does not have a close relationship with the local authorities in his area. This could cause some delay if there was a need to bring Mr. Keddy to the hospital.
Dr. Tan testified that the treatment team does not have any significant concerns about Mr. Keddy’s residence at the current time. Although it is small space, his family is important to him and provide positive social support, and vice versa. Dr. Tan described it as “bidirectional support.” While Mr. Keddy’s son continues to use cannabis, it is understood that he is now more likely to use outside.
In response to questions from Mr. Rai, Dr. Tan agreed that Mr. Keddy had been living in the community for 10 months and had no readmissions to hospital, or concerns that he had been contacting anyone inappropriately. He is compliant with his long-acting injectable medication and takes oral mediations (Benztropine for side effects and Lorazepam for sleep) independently. Mr. Keddy picks the blister pack up from the pharmacy and the treatment team checks it.
Dr. Tan acknowledged that if Mr. Keddy was subject to a Conditional Discharge, his reporting frequency could remain the same or be increased to ensure regular assessment. However, he noted that it may be considered more restrictive if Mr. Keddy was required to be assessed by a physician every week, as opposed to his current situation where he sees a physician every six to eight weeks.
In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Tan stated that Ms. McKenzie is a reliable support and is able to work well with the team. Dr. Tan believed that she and Mr. Keddy are currently in a stable relationship. Ms. McKenzie agrees that Mr. Keddy requires psychiatric medications and provides her consent. When asked whether the family would report any substance use or decompensation to the team, Dr. Tan provide a guarded “yes” response. He noted that when discharge planning was occurring it took a lot of work to get the family on the same page when discussing Mr. Keddy’s risk factors.
It was noted by the panel that the harm caused to the victims of the index offences was psychological harm through telephone communications. Dr. Tan testified that this makes it harder to manage Mr. Keddy’s risk because the harm could simply be “one phone call away.” These behaviours can be done easily and from a distance, to an unknown person. Dr. Tan stated that Mr. Keddy has access to his own telephone and electronic devices, and the treatment team cannot control Mr. Keddy’s communications. Dr. Tan did not believe that his family monitored his communications or online activities.
Dr. Tan was asked whether Mr. Keddy’s reporting could be decreased over the coming year under a Detention Order. He responded that that is always a consideration, but the treatment team wants to maintain regular contact with Mr. Keddy in order to encourage engagement in activities and establishment of professional community supports, and also to send consistent messaging.
Analysis and Conclusions:
Based on the Hospital Report and the evidence of Dr. Tan, the panel concluded that there was clear evidence that Mr. Keddy remains a significant threat to public safety. The panel accepted the reasoning of the hospital set out in the quote at paragraph 30 above, which highlights his major mental illness, history of psychiatric instability, lack of insight, substance use, and lack of professional supports in the community. It is also significant that Mr. Keddy continues to hold the same beliefs that led to the index offences. This is in the context of a clear history of harassing and psychologically harming behaviours as a result of his delusional beliefs over many years. Absent the oversight of the Board and the support and monitoring provided by the treatment team, it is likely that Mr. Keddy would discontinue his medication and engage in cannabis use. This would result in an intensification of his psychotic symptoms and criminal behaviours similar to those at the time of the index offences, causing serious psychological harm to members of the public.
The panel concluded that a continuation of the existing Detention Order was necessary and appropriate, and the least onerous and least restrictive Disposition for Mr. Keddy at this time. Mr. Keddy has been living in the community with his family for less than one year, and has yet to engage in the community or establish professional supports there. He is exposed to his son’s cannabis use, and this is also where the index offences (and some similar prior offences) occurred. More time is required to test Mr. Keddy’s ability to maintain stability and abstinence in the community, and to ensure that the housing situation continues to work. There is also a recent concern about tampering with urine samples and/or nonadherence to prescribed medication that warrants further careful monitoring.
The panel recognized that overall Mr. Keddy had a positive year; however, we were satisfied on the evidence that the hospital requires the ability to return Mr. Keddy to hospital quickly in order to manage his risk to the public. Mr. Keddy lives a good distance from the hospital, and is not seen by a physician on a weekly basis. The MHA and breach provisions of the Criminal Code would be insufficient in his case, and it is unclear whether he would return to the hospital voluntarily given that he does not believe that he requires psychiatric treatment (and consent for inclusion of a Young clause in a Conditional Discharge was specifically not provided). For all these reasons, the panel concluded that it would be premature to grant a Conditional Discharge at the current time.
DATED this 5th day of June 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. S. Clapp Alternate Chair
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board