Re George Veerman, 2026 CanLII 53936

Re: George Veerman

ORB File No: 5038

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: Mr. S. Clapp Members: Dr. J. Kis Dr. G. Nexhipi Ms. N. Nathanson Mr. S. Duffy

Parties Appearing:

Accused: George Veerman Counsel: Mr. J. Chrolavicius

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:

1. On February 4, 2008, George Veerman was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on a charge of second-degree murder, contrary to the Criminal Code. Mr. Veerman has been subject to the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB” or “the Board”) for approximately 18 years. He has been under a Conditional Discharge since February 2019. Mr. Veerman was most recently subject to a Disposition of the Board dated June 2, 2025, whereby he is discharged from the Forensic Psychiatry Program of St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton, West 5th Campus (“SJHCH” or the “hospital”) with minimal conditions which include reporting to the hospital not less than once a month, and submitting samples for testing for substance use.

2. On May 14, 2026, a panel of the Board convened at SJHCH to conduct Mr. Veerman’s annual review pursuant to section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Veerman attended the hearing and was represented by Mr. Chrolavicius.

3. The following documents were marked as Exhibits: 1) Hospital Report dated April 9, 2026; and 2) Addendum to Hospital Report. In addition to the documentary evidence, Mr. Veerman’s attending psychiatrist, Dr. S. Baldeo, gave oral evidence. Mr. Veerman’s case manager, Messiah Bautista, gave very brief evidence (he was also the author of the Addendum to Hospital Report). Mr. Veerman also spoke to the panel briefly.

4. The issues to be decided at the hearing were whether Mr. Veerman 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:

5. At the outset of the hearing, the parties were asked for their initial without prejudice positions. Ms. Barney, on behalf of the hospital, took the position that Mr. Veerman remained a significant threat to the safety of the public, and that a continuation of the existing Conditional Discharge was appropriate.

6. Ms. Wollaston, on behalf of the Attorney General, supported the position of the hospital, as did Mr. Chrolavicius on behalf of Mr. Veerman. All parties maintained the joint position during submissions.

Findings:

7. For the reasons that follow, the panel found that Mr. Veerman continues to represent 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 Conditional Discharge.

Index Offence:

8. The circumstances of the index offence are outlined in the Hospital Report at pages 3-4 and can be summarized as follows. Mr. Veerman was being held on a remand on charges of robbery and breach of probation at the Hamilton Wentworth Detention Centre. He was 49 years old. On October 19, 2004, Mr. Veerman dragged his cellmate out of his lower bunk and wrapped a white towel around his neck. Mr. Veerman pulled on each end of the towel until the circulation of blood was cut off from the victim’s brain. The victim was pronounced dead the next day. The post-mortem examination cited preliminary findings on the cause of death as ‘consistent with ligature strangulation, no trauma to the body.’

9. Mr. Veerman’s personal background is set out in detail in the Hospital Report and will not be repeated here. In summary, Mr. Veerman is a 71-year-old single man who was born in the Dutch Indies. His family lived in Singapore and the Netherlands before immigrating to Canada when he was about 12 years old. Mr. Veerman left high school in Grade 11 and travelled to the Netherlands. He returned to Canada at age 18 and completed high school. He attended university for six months but was not able to continue. He has a limited employment history, and lived with his parents until approximately age 23, following which he led a transient lifestyle.

10. Mr. Veerman was involved in a common-law relationship and has two children from this relationship. He has not, however, been involved in their lives.

11. Mr. Veerman started using alcohol at the age of 17. His alcohol use was followed by a long history of polysubstance abuse including use of cannabis, cocaine, and various inhalants.

Criminal History:

12. Mr. Veerman’s lengthy criminal history was summarized in last year’s Reasons for Disposition (“Reasons”) as follows. Mr. Veerman has a long and significant criminal record spanning from 1976 (when he was 21 years old) to 2004. It includes more than 20 convictions, including seven for assault, six for robbery and theft-related offences, and others for mischief and failure to comply. He was incarcerated on many occasions, including receiving a two-years less a day sentence for aggravated assault in 1988 and a 30-month penitentiary sentence for the robbery charge in respect of which he was awaiting trial when the index offence occurred. He has had no convictions since his NCR finding.

Psychiatric History:

13. Mr. Veerman’s extensive psychiatric history prior to and after the index offence is outlined in detail in the Hospital Report, and was summarized in last year’s Reasons as follows. Mr. Veerman’s first contact with psychiatric services was in 1978 when he was psychiatrically assessed after his parents observed changes in his behaviour following a suicide attempt. He was not admitted to the hospital at that time. He was then admitted to hospital in 1980 because of aggressive behaviour toward his mother together with bizarre and inappropriate conduct. It was reported that he had been experiencing auditory and visual hallucinations for approximately a year before this admission.

14. This admission was followed by many other hospitalizations, often precipitated by aggressive behaviour towards his family. Mr. Veerman’s prevailing diagnosis over the years has been Schizophrenia compounded by various substance abuse disorders. Prior to his NCR finding, Mr. Veerman had been treated with numerous antipsychotic medications with limited success due to a history of noncompliance with medication and the abuse of illicit substances.

15. After being found NCR on February 4, 2008, Mr. Veerman was an inpatient at Oakridge in Penetanguishene until November 9, 2011, when he was transferred to SJHCH. After moving to the General Forensic Unit, Mr. Veerman was discharged to the community to live with his mother (who was also his substitute decision-maker (“SDM”)) on October 8, 2015. On February 19, 2019, the Board ordered Mr. Veerman be conditionally discharged. Mr. Veerman has not required readmission to the hospital since he began to live in the community in 2015.

16. Mr. Veerman’s mother died in February 2025, and his brother took over as his SDM. Mr. Veerman and his brother continue to live in the family home.

17. The Hospital Report stated that Mr. Veerman’s diagnoses are: Schizophrenia; Social Anxiety Disorder; and Alcohol Use Disorder, in full remission. He remains incapable of consenting to psychiatric treatment. He is treated with a long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication every 14 days and 350 mg of Clozapine nightly.

Evidence at the Hearing:

18. The Hospital Report provided the following description of Mr. Veerman’s reporting year in the Clinical Risk Summary on page 56:

“His current clinical presentation is stable. He is adherent to Clozapine and Risperidone Consta, and resides in the community with his brother, who also acts as his substitute decision-maker. Mr. Veerman continues to demonstrate only partial insight into his illness and the need for ongoing treatment. He is functionally dependent on his brother for daily living supports and medication supervision. Despite the stability of his presentation, he has been historically passive in his engagement with the treatment team and typically avoids therapeutic or recreational interventions unless mandatory. To his credit, he did engage in grief counselling over this reporting period.

Shortly after his mother’s passing, there was a noticeable withdrawal from previously tolerated activities and community participation. He states his intention is to get back to previously enjoyed activities such as attending the Sackville Senior’s Centre. He remains polite and cooperative but minimally engaged with care providers. There is no evidence of current delusions, hallucinations, suicidal or violent ideation, or significant substance use. His risk, however, remains conditionally managed and would increase significantly in the context of treatment non-adherence, caregiver fatigue, or loss of environmental supports.”

19. The Hospital Report stated that Mr. Veerman is currently being seen by the treatment team every two weeks for his injection. He takes his oral medications independently and his brother checks the blister pack at the end of the day.

20. Mr. Veerman has some medical issues, including getting short of breath and tired easily. It was recommended that he use a walker for longer distances which he has complied with. Mr. Veerman has a family doctor who supports him with these issues. A cardiac concern arose earlier this year, and Mr. Veerman’s cardiologist recommended a cardiac angiogram and lab work. Mr. Veerman was adamant that he was not willing to follow through with these recommendations. He stated that he is “willing to take the chance” and that “it won’t make a difference” (Mr. Veerman is presumed capable of making decisions about his medical treatment, although it is unclear whether or not this has been formally assessed). Mr. Veerman’s brother has reportedly agreed with Mr. Veerman’s approach. Health teaching will continue to be provided.

21. Mr. Veerman had a long-term care (LTC) assessment in July 2025 and it was concluded that he is in the 'grey area' in that he currently does not qualify for LTC but that, if there were changes to his living situation, he may be reassessed. A lower budget retirement home was suggested, but Mr. Veerman would like to live in the family home as long as possible. Mr. Veerman was also referred to the Hamilton Program for Schizophrenia in October 2025 and the Schizophrenia Outpatient Clinic in August 2025.

22. The Addendum to the Hospital Report provided recent information that Mr. Veerman had been using cannabis (which is not prohibited under his Disposition). On March 26, 2026, during a follow up meeting at the Forensic Outpatient clinic, Mr. Veerman indicated that he had smoked “a joint” the night before. He reported that it was precipitated by “curiosity” and he was “just relaxing.” When asked about his frequency of use, Mr. Veerman reported “not very often.” When the case manager followed up with him, Mr. Veerman denied engaging in further cannabis use.

23. On April 9, 2026, Mr. Veerman forgot about his appointment and did not come to the clinic. This was an unusual behaviour as Mr. Veerman attends his appointments consistently and had not missed any recent appointments. He is also generally aware when his next injection is due and when to complete his bloodwork. Although Mr. Veerman requested to move the injection date, he was agreeable to have the injection provided at his home that day. When the case manager arrived at his home, Mr. Veerman stated that he was tired, and appeared visibly tired. He denied consuming any cannabis. The urine sample provided was tested at point of care, and it tested positive for cannabis.

24. Mr. Veerman’s case manager spoke to Mr. Veerman’s brother (Frank), who indicated that Mr. Veerman had not been smoking cigarettes or cannabis. Frank was agreeable to monitor Mr. Veerman for cannabis use. Health teaching was provided regarding the lower-risk guidelines for cannabis use. Frank was not aware that Mr. Veerman did not attend his appointment.

25. On April 10, 2026, Mr. Veerman told his case manager that he could not attend for his bloodwork because he was tired and “it hurts.” The case manager provided Mr. Veerman with health teaching about Clozapine and the need to monitor blood work for efficacy. He was not receptive to this information. Mr. Veerman and his brother subsequently agreed to meet to discuss cannabis use. During this meeting, Mr. Veerman admitted that he does not finish one joint in one sitting. He endorsed that he finishes one joint over three days. He indicated that he just does a “toke.”

26. Dr. Baldeo testified that he has been Mr. Veerman’s attending psychiatrist since October or November 2025. He testified that Mr. Veerman’s brother has taken on the role of SDM appropriately since Mr. Veerman’s mother’s death in February 2025. Their housing is stable.

27. Dr. Baldeo stated that Mr. Veerman appears to be adherent to his medications and he attends appointments. His insight into his diagnosis of Schizophrenia and the need to continue with medication remains limited. This, along with the recent concerns regarding cannabis use, indicate that a continuation of the Conditional Discharge is required. The treatment team needs to monitor Mr. Veerman very closely to see how his mental state is impacted, and ensure safe use of cannabis, or ideally abstinence. Mr. Veerman’s random urine drug screens have increased since mid-April, and there have continued to be positive results (Dr. Baldeo stated that cannabis can appear in urine up to one to two months following use).

28. Dr. Baldeo testified that while Mr. Veerman had used cannabis in the past, it was a surprise that he had started using in recent months. When asked how long Mr. Veerman had been smoking “one joint over three days”, Dr. Baldeo did not know, stating that this appeared to be a relatively new pattern. So far there have been no significant changes to his mental status; however, Dr. Baldeo noted that they are relying on Mr. Veerman’s self-reports about the quantity of cannabis he is using and his mental status. His complaints about tiredness, the fact that he missed an appointment, and his reluctance to do bloodwork may be related to cannabis use. As such, the treatment team needs to monitor Mr. Veerman very closely to determine if it is an ongoing pattern, to monitor the impact on both his physical and mental health, and to assess his risk to the public.

29. Mr. Chrolavicius noted Mr. Veerman’s lengthy tenure under the ORB, and asked Dr. Baldeo what Mr. Veerman could do to obtain an Absolute Discharge. Dr. Baldeo responded that he would need to abstain from substance use and develop insight in relation to his mental illness and the need for treatment absent forensic oversight. Dr. Baldeo was also asked about the outpatient programs that Mr. Veerman had been referred to. He responded that they were “pre-emptive referrals” and Mr. Veerman is not yet ready for them due to his lack of insight. However, they would likely be part of any plan for an Absolute Discharge.

30. Dr. Baldeo was asked about the statement in the Addendum to the Hospital Report that Mr. Veerman’s brother told the case manager that Mr. Veerman was not smoking cigarettes or cannabis and that he did not know that Mr. Veerman had missed an appointment, given his role as SDM, the fact that they live together, and the fact that he often drove Mr. Veerman to his appointments. Dr. Baldeo responded that they did not know whether this was a “one off” or a consistent pattern of use.

31. Ms. Barney asked Mr. Veerman’s case manager, Mr. Bautista, whether he had any discussions with Mr. Veerman about cannabis use. Mr. Bautista responded that Mr. Veerman had mentioned that he would take one toke at night, and that he had done this more than once. Mr. Bautista stated his understanding that this was ongoing.

32. Mr. Veerman testified that his brother knows that he smokes cannabis, and that his brother smokes it as well.

Analysis and Conclusions:

33. Based on the evidence contained in the Hospital Report, the Addendum to the Hospital Report, and the evidence presented by Dr. Baldeo, the panel concluded that the evidence was sufficient to conclude that Mr. Veerman continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. While Mr. Veerman has been subject to the jurisdiction of the Board for many years, there are some risk factors that remain outstanding. His insight into his mental illness and the need for treatment remains extremely limited, and there is a recent emerging concern regarding cannabis use. Mr. Veerman’s index offence was the most serious under the Criminal Code and resulted in the death of the victim. He also has a significant history of decompensation in the community leading to years of criminal behaviour. In the absence of the current forensic oversight, Mr. Veerman is at risk of nonadherence with his medication, relapse into substance use, and a decompensation of his mental health. This would likely lead to serious harm to members of the public.

34. The panel agreed with the joint submission that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a continuation of the Conditional Discharge. Mr. Veerman continues to require structure and oversight to maintain psychiatric stability and public safety. This is especially true at the current time given that new concerns have arisen with Mr. Veerman’s use of cannabis. It was clear that this was a new development, and the treatment team needs to monitor Mr. Veerman very closely to determine whether it is a pattern of consistent use, and how it affects his mental status and physical health. The panel also had concerns that Mr. Veerman and his brother were not being transparent with the treatment team, and this should also be taken into account moving forward.

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