Re B. (D.A.), 2026 CanLII 53928

Re: B. (D.A.)

ORB File No: 1606

Hearing held on: Monday, March 16, 2026

Place of hearing: Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences 700 Gordon Street, Whitby

Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code

Before: Alternate Chairperson: Ms. C. Finley Members: Dr. P. Prendergast Dr. W. Loza Ms. J. Greenwood Ms. R. MacIntyre

Parties Appearing: Accused: B. (D.A.) Counsel: Ms. J. Boissonneault

The person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. K. De Freitas

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. T. Hewitt

*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 June 1, 2026)

Introduction

1On April 26, 1993, B. (D.A.) was found not criminally responsible on account of a mental disorder (NCR) on charges of committing an indecent act x 3 and sexual assault, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. He is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (ORB/the Board) detaining him on the Secure Forensic Unit at Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Services (Ontario Shores/the hospital), with discretionary privileges up to and including the ability to exercise accompanied passes in the community for up to 12 hours.

2On March 16, 2026, the Board convened a hearing to conduct the annual review of Mr. B. (D.A.)’ disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. B. (D.A.) was present and represented by his counsel, Ms. Boissonneault. Mr. B. (D.A.)’ older sister also was in attendance.

3At the outset of the proceedings, the parties were canvassed as to their positions on the issues to be determined by the Board: whether Mr. B. (D.A.) remains a significant threat to the safety of the public and, if so, the necessary and appropriate disposition having regard to the criteria in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

4Dr. De Frietas, on behalf of the hospital, submitted that Mr. B. (D.A.) remains a significant threat to the safety of the public. In her submission, the necessary and appropriate disposition is a detention order in the Forensic Program and an expansion of Mr. B. (D.A.)’ ability to enter the community to allow for indirectly supervised passes. Mr. Hewitt, on behalf of the Ministry of the Attorney General, agreed with the hospital’s positions, ultimately agreeing at the conclusion of the evidence with the proposed expansion of the community privileges.

5Ms. Boissonneault indicated that Mr. B. (D.A.) does not believe that he represents a significant threat to the safety of the public and, therefore, is entitled to an absolute discharge. Should the panel find that the threshold for significant threat has been met, she agreed with the hospital’s recommended disposition.

Findings

6For the reasons that follow, the panel found that Mr. B. (D.A.) remains a significant threat to the safety of the public and the necessary and appropriate disposition is a detention order in the Forensic Program at Ontario Shores with the conditions as recommended by the hospital.

The Evidence

7The evidence at the hearing consisted of the Hospital Report dated February 12, 2026 (ex. 1), and the viva voce evidence of Dr. De Freitas, Mr. B. (D.A.)’ treating psychiatrist, and Mr. B. (D.A.).

The Index Offences

8The circumstances surrounding the index offences are taken from last year’s Reasons for Decision and Disposition, as follows:

“On October 6, 1992 the victim in this matter was a subway TTC operator. She was operating the northbound train from Union station. At the Davisville station the accused boarded the train. He then sat across from the female operator. After a few minutes’ past, the train reached the Lawrence station. The accused stood up and began to masturbate directly in front of the operator. She then phoned TTC control and had the police called. They were to meet her at the North York station. Upon arriving at the North York stop, the accused ejaculated and got off the train. The accused was no stranger to the victim, since a short time previous, he had exposed himself and masturbated in front of her. The victim's inspector re-attended the scene with her, and they spotted the accused. When he saw the inspector, the accused fled the scene and made good his escape.

The victim in this matter is a guard who blows the whistle on the TTC trains. On October 7, 1992 the victim was working as a TTC employee. She was operating the side car of the train at about 0815. She noted that the accused was inside her car. As the car stopped at the Museum station, the accused pulled out his penis from his pants and began to masturbate. The accused positioned himself in such a manner that the victim could see him. The accused was standing in the doorway area of the car. When the subway stopped northbound at the next stop, the accused fled out onto the platform and made good his escape.

On December 4, 1992 the victim in this matter boarded the southbound University subway train at Osgoode Subway at about 11:40 p.m. When the victim sat down inside the train, she noticed the accused sitting directly across from her. The accused was staring at her very intensely. The victim became nervous and moved down a few seats. The accused then followed her and again sat across from her. The victim became nervous and decided to get off the train. As she stood up the accused began to masturbate and grabbed the victim’s arm as she attempted to get away. The accused began to yell profanities at the victim and demanded she touch and grab his penis. In a fit of fear, the victim broke loose and pushed the emergency button inside the car. The accused then fled, running between the subway cars and made good his escape.

On Thursday, February 4, 1993 at 3:00 a.m., the accused was sitting at a table in Fran's Restaurant at 2275 Yonge Street, Toronto, alone. There were several customers male and female in the restaurant at this time. The accused was then seen to take hold of his exposed erect penis and commenced to masturbate in full view of the public. A nearby male customer complained to the management and the police were called. The accused was investigated and requested to be taken to hospital for treatment. Police took him to hospital. At the hospital the accused was interviewed by staff and then walked away. The accused could not be located and a warrant was issued for his arrest.

On March 23, 1993 the accused was arrested by TTC security for harassing a ticket taker at the Yonge Bloor station. He was then arrested for Trespassing. When the police arrived, they investigated and arrested the accused for Sexual Assault. The accused was then advised of his Rights of Counsel, and free Legal Aid. On March 23, 1993 the accused was arrested by TTC security for harassing a ticket taker employee and taken to the interview room. When the police arrived, they found that the accused was responsible for a number of sex related crimes.”

Background Information

9The Hospital Report contains details about Mr. B. (D.A.)’ personal history and psychiatric background and need not be reviewed in detail in these reasons beyond the following material points.

10Mr. B. (D.A.) is a 58-year-old man who first exhibited behaviour difficulties at the age of 12. He was frequently truant from school and was suspended after being aggressive towards staff and peers. He dropped out before completing Grade 8.

11By the time Mr. B. (D.A.) was 15, he required psychiatric care. He was admitted to the Hospital for Sick Children and then to the Clark Institute in 1983. He was noted to have auditory and visual hallucinations, paranoia, delusions of persecution, thought insertion, and thought broadcasting.

12Over the following years, Mr. B. (D.A.) was admitted to several hospitals across the Greater Toronto Area. When not admitted to hospital, he was largely homeless and living on the streets and financially supported by the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP).

13Mr. B. (D.A.)’ psychiatric history is primarily marked by severe mental illness, exacerbated by substance abuse, and non-compliance with treatment. He frequently displayed violent behaviour, poor impulse control, and resistance to treatment, including leaving hospital against medical advice. During longer admissions to hospital, Mr. B. (D.A.) displayed clear psychotic symptoms and also problematic behaviours that were considered more as a result of his personality construct. Despite periods of stability, his prognosis was considered poor due to his lack of engagement with treatment.

14Leading up to the time of the index offences, Mr. B. (D.A.) had repeated admissions to hospital due to threats, aggression, worsening mental state and non-compliance with medication. There were numerous assaults against staff and co-patients.

15Mr. B. (D.A.) has a criminal record with the majority of his convictions between May 1990 and February 1991. He has among other things two convictions for sexual assault, indecent act, and uttering threats.

16Since being found NCR, Mr. B. (D.A.) has been detained in various forensic hospitals, including the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health and Waypoint. He required transfers to Waypoint, a maximum secure forensic facility, following numerous assaults on staff and co-patients. Two assaults resulted in criminal convictions in 2011 and 2018.

17On August 27, 2018, Mr. B. (D.A.) was convicted of assault causing bodily harm arising out of an attack on a co-patient at Ontario Shores on May 20, 2018. He received a custodial sentence and spent time at the Central East Correctional Centre until his transfer back to the Hospital on November 8, 2018, after the Board held a dual status offender review and ordered his placement in the Hospital.

18From 2015 to 2021 at Ontario Shores, Mr. B. (D.A.) demonstrated significant stabilization in terms of psychotic symptoms, which remained largely in remission with consistent Clozapine compliance. However, his progress was limited by persistent lack of insight into his mental illness and past behaviors, along with rigid, repetitive, and concrete thinking, intrusive and impatient interactions, and ongoing sexually inappropriate behaviors such as staring, boundary violations, and occasional incidents of exhibitionism or inappropriate contact.

19Despite engaging in multiple treatment and educational programs, Mr. B. (D.A.) showed minimal internalization of therapeutic content. He continued to minimize his index offences and past conduct and consistently sought to justify his assaults on other patients, maintaining that he was provoked each time by their behaviour or the way that they looked at him.

20Mr. B. (D.A.) was discharged from the Ontario Shores in 2023 to reside at Powell Residence. This is a 24-hour supported group home assisting with medication administration, transportation and supports for activities of daily living. In August 2023, Mr. B. (D.A.) assaulted a co-resident by punching him in the head several times. Canadian Mental Health Association staff who were on site had to intervene to prevent Mr. B. (D.A.) from continuing the attack. Following the assault, the home operator searched Mr. B. (D.A.)’ bedroom and found three opened packages of edibles containing THC. Another co-resident reported he had given Mr. B. (D.A.) two rolled joints of marijuana. Mr. B. (D.A.) was immediately readmitted to hospital.

21Mr. B. (D.A.) remained an inpatient until his discharged from Ontario Shores to Halsey Lodge on August 20, 2024. This is a fully supervised boarding home in Jacksons Point, Ontario. However, the next day he asked to be readmitted, to hospital, telling the treatment team that he did not feel safe at the residence.

22On October 8, 2024, Mr. B. (D.A.) committed a serious, unprovoked and unexpected assault on a co-patient. There was no obvious precipitant to the attack, though Mr. B. (D.A.) later said that the individual had bragged about being stronger than him. Mr. B. (D.A.) was transferred to the Forensic Transitional Unit (FTU), another general forensic unit. Of note, Mr. B. (D.A.) mental state remained at baseline, and he did not present as psychotic. Urine drug screens confirmed that he had not engaged in substance use.

23On November 4, 2024, Mr. B. (D.A.) suddenly and unexpectedly assaulted a peer on the FTU during evening snack. He was found by staff on top of the peer with the peer in a chokehold. Mr. B. (D.A.) told staff that the other resident had “looked at him the wrong way”. When interviewed by his treating psychiatrist at the time, Mr. B. (D.A.) minimized the severity of the assault, comparing it to “sucker punching someone in a hockey game” for which a player would only receive a penalty. He also minimized the physical and psychological harm caused to the coresident by the unprovoked assault.

24Following this second assault, Mr. B. (D.A.) was transferred to the Forensic Assessment Unit (FAU), a Secure Forensic Unit, for further observation and assessment, given that this was now his second act of unpredictable and unprovoked interpersonal aggression within a period of less than four weeks.¹

Course Since the Last Disposition

25Mr. B. (D.A.) current diagnoses are:

Schizophrenia Exhibitionistic Disorder Alcohol use disorder, Mild Antisocial Personality Disorder

He is currently deemed incapable of making treatment decisions. His sister is his Substitute Decision Maker (SDM).

26Following his transfer to the secure forensic unit, Mr. B. (D.A.) clozapine dose was increased. Unfortunately, Mr. B. (D.A.) committed two further violent assaults on co-patients while on the secure forensic unit. On March 9, 2025, he assaulted a co-patient because he felt that they gave him a “dirty look”. As a result of this assault, Mr. B. (D.A.) was placed in the Psychiatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU), the most secure area within the secure Forensic Assessment Unit (FAU). On March 13, 2025, he assaulted another co-patient, resulting in Mr. B. (D.A.)’ seclusion. Once again, Mr. B. (D.A.) reported that the co-patient had given him a “dirty look”.

27Mr. B. (D.A.) remained in PICU until his transfer to the Forensic Rehabilitation Unit (FRU). a secure forensic unit. In June 2025, Mr. B. (D.A.) assaulted another co-patient. Staff intervened, and Mr. B. (D.A.) attempted to hit the nursing staff. When discussing the incident with the treatment team, Mr. B. (D.A.) indicated that he believed that the co-patient was “harassing him”, although there had been no threats. He indicated that he would assault the co-patient again if he stayed on the same unit. Mr. B. (D.A.) was transferred back to the secure FAU on July 4, 2025.

28On September 18, 2025, Mr. B. (D.A.) attempted to punch a co-patient, seemingly unprovoked. Staff intervened and Mr. B. (D.A.) was moved to the PICU. Soon after he was moved, he behaved aggressively towards another co-patient in the PICU.

29On September 24, 2025, Mr. B. (D.A.) attempted to punch his psychiatrist, Dr. DeFreitas following an interview. His punch did not land, and staff were able to retreat safely. He was placed in seclusion at this time and was observed masturbating while looking at a female co-patient soon thereafter. Once out of seclusion, Mr. B. (D.A.) reported that the assault was justified because his psychiatrist told him he would not be moved to a general unit.

30As a result of his unpredictable violent behaviour, Mr. B. (D.A.) was held in the PICU. During this time, when out of the PICU, he was accompanied by a security guard. On January 8, 2026, Mr. B. (D.A.) was moved out of PICU into the general milieu within the secure forensic unit, with increased monitoring. Over the following weeks, his privileges were slowly increased, allowing for passes on hospital grounds accompanied by staff and other patients.

31Dr. De Freitas testified before the panel. She advised that Mr. B. (D.A.) had undergone neuropsychological testing. Results indicated that he has a mild neurocognitive disorder with a constellation of deficits. The assessment made note of his low average intelligence and Dysexecutive Syndrome, which includes distractibility, perseveration, psychomotor slowness and disinhibition. The report also refers to Mr. B. (D.A.)’ inability to make risk-averse decisions, i.e., he does not get deterred by negative consequences. The results will be used by the behavioural therapist to modify their treatment plan. Dr. De Freitas indicated that Mr. B. (D.A.) was cooperating with the treatment plan. She advised that it could take a few years before any meaningful results would be achieved.

32Dr. De Freitas indicated that there has been no aggression since September 2025. She noted, however, that there have been numerous assaults, in the past, pointing to eight in the last year alone. Mr. B. (D.A.)’ diagnosis of schizophrenia and his personality characteristics play a role. She referred to Mr. B. (D.A.)’ disinhibition, impulsivity, lack of remorse, and negative attitudes to violence. These personality factors play a significant role.

33Dr. De Freitas also identified substance use as a factor in some assaults. In particular, the assault that occurred in the residence in the community in 2023. She also identified that Mr. B. (D.A.) poses a risk for sexual assault, referring to his diagnosis of paraphilia, an exhibitionist disorder. This would be more of a concern, should Mr. B. (D.A.) have unsupervised passes in the community.

34Dr. De Freitas testified that Mr. B. (D.A.)’ lack of insight into his risk, his illness, the need for treatment, and his risk to others remains a concern.

35Dr. De Freitas testified that, in her opinion, given Mr. B. (D.A.)’ progress to date, that it is reasonable that he could move to a regular secure forensic unit within the next month, and, if all goes well, to a general forensic unit within the next six months.

36With respect to the recommendation for community passes indirectly supervised, Dr. De Freitas indicated that this is something that may not be likely but could prove motivating for Mr. B. (D.A.). The team anticipated that those passes would only be granted if Mr. B. (D.A.) were accompanied by someone from a community agency or his brother or sister. The doctor agreed that specifying the requirement that indirectly supervised passes include the requirement that he be accompanied by someone approved or deemed suitable by the person in charge would be reasonable.

37Mr. B. (D.A.) testified that, in his view, he is not a violent person. All he has done is throw a few punches at people. No one has ever been hurt or gone to the hospital. No one has suffered broken bones.

Submissions

38Dr. De Freitas maintained the hospital’s position that Mr. B. (D.A.) remains a significant threat to the safety of the public and the necessary and appropriate disposition is a detention order in the Forensic Program, to allow for a possible transition to a general forensic unit within the next year. She also recommended that the disposition include the ability to exercise passes in the community indirectly supervised with the added requirement that he be accompanied by a person deemed suitable by the person in charge. Mr. Hewitt concurred in the hospital’s positions, including the community passes with a person deemed suitable.

39Ms. Boissonneault reminded that Mr. B. (D.A.) has been under the jurisdiction of the Board for a significant period of time and there is concern that Mr. B. (D.A.) may become institutionalized. She concurred in the hospital’s proposed disposition without the added requirement that the passes require Mr. B. (D.A.) be accompanied. In her submission, that added requirement is not necessary as Dr. De Freitas testified that any passes would be assessed wisely and gradually.

Analysis and Conclusion

40The panel carefully considered the Hospital Report and the evidence of Dr. De Freitas and Mr. B. (D.A.) and unanimously found that Mr. B. (D.A.) remains a significant threat to the safety of the public. Mr. B. (D.A.) has had a chronic severe mental illness, schizophrenia, that historically has been difficult to treat. He has a long history of noncompliance with treatment and substance use, both of which exacerbate his psychotic symptoms, requiring frequent hospitalizations. When unwell, Mr. B. (D.A.) experiences auditory and visual hallucinations, paranoia, delusions of persecution, thought insertion, and thought broadcasting. Even when optimally treated and residing in the most secure forensic unit, Mr. B. (D.A.) is violent in ways that are unpredictable. As such, he remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.

41Having found that Mr. B. (D.A.) represents a significant threat to the safety of the public, the panel must consider the necessary and appropriate disposition having regard to the criteria found in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

42The panel recognizes that Mr. B. (D.A.) has been under the jurisdiction of the Board for a significant period of time. Still, he has required multiple transfers to high secure forensic units to manage his violent behaviour towards staff and co-patients. This behaviour is attributable to a combination of his major mental illness and his personality construct.

43Mr. B. (D.A.) last act of aggression was in September 2025. Since then, he has worked cooperatively with the treatment team and the behavioural therapist, and the team has noted some small but discernable positive changes. Mr. B. (D.A.) is more open with the team, in particular about emotions that he is experiencing.

44The panel accepts Dr. De Freitas’ opinion that it is possible that Mr. B. (D.A.) could progress to residing in a general forensic unit. As a result, the disposition should allow for such a transfer.

45In addition, it is clear that Mr. B. (D.A.) continues to enjoy significant support from his brother and sister. His sister, who attended the hearing today, is his SDM and, as such, has a good understanding of her brother’s mental illness and risk factors. Dr. De Freitas and the treatment team are confident that Mr. B. (D.A.)’ brother and sister would both be suitable to accompany Mr. B. (D.A.) in the community for brief periods of time, should he achieve the ability to exercise such passes.

46In conclusion, the panel finds that Mr. B. (D.A.) remains a significant threat to the safety of the public and the necessary and appropriate disposition is a detention order in the Forensic Program at Ontario Shores with ability to exercise passes in the community indirectly supervised if accompanied by a person deemed suitable by the person in charge.

47In arriving at our conclusion, the panel has considered the paramount factor of the safety of the public, Mr. B. (D.A.)’s mental condition, his community reintegration, and his other needs, all as required by s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

DATED this 1^st day of June 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.

Ms. C. Finley Alternate Chairperson

____________________________ Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board

Footnotes

1. 1Following a restriction of liberty hearing on November 29, 2024, the Ontario Review Board concluded that the decisions of the hospital to significantly increase the restrictions on the liberty of Mr. B. (D.A.) were warranted. Further, Mr. B. (D.A.) was ordered detained with in the Secure Forensic Unit at Ontario Shores.