Re: Edward Harding, 2026 CanLII 56706

Ontario Review Board

Re: Edward Harding

ORB File No: 8880

Hearing held on: Wednesday May 13, 2026

Place of Hearing: St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton, West 5th Campus

Pursuant to: Sections 672.81(2) and 672.48(1) of the Criminal Code;

Before: Alternate Chairperson: Ms. S. Clapp Members: Dr. J. Kis Dr. G. Nexhipi Ms. N. Nathanson Mr. S. Doherty

Parties Appearing: Accused: Edward Harding Counsel: Ms. S. Dubb The Person in Charge Counsel: Ms. L. Barney Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. C. Gzik

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated June 8, 2026)

Introduction

1On October 10, 2025, Edward Harding, now 49 years of age, was found unfit to stand trial in relation to the following five groups of Criminal Code charges, all alleged to have been committed in Toronto: unlawful entry and mischief to property (offence date, August 31, 2024); theft under, uttering threats, obstruct peace officer (offence date October 14, 2024); fail to attend court (offence date May 2, 2025); theft under, assault (offence date July 7, 2025); and theft under, uttering threats (offence date July 19, 2025)

2The court made no Disposition and issued a Warrant of Committal directing Mr. Harding’s detention at CAMH (the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health) or St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton (“SJHH” or “the Hospital”) or “any other forensic Hospital in the Province of Ontario”. A Disposition was made by the Ontario Review Board (“the Board”) on December 8, 2025 ordering Detention within the Forensic Service of CAMH, and until such time as that occurs, to be detained within the Forensic Psychiatry Program of SJHH, West 5th Campus.

3On March 6, 2026, SJHH advised the Board, by letter, that Mr. Harding’s psychiatrist was of the opinion the Mr. Harding was now fit to stand trial and requested an early hearing to address the issue pursuant to s. 672.81(2).

4On Wednesday, May 13, 2026, a panel of the Board convened in person at the Hospital to address the issue of Mr. Harding’s fitness.

Positions of the Parties

5At the commencement of the hearing, counsel for all parties advised that they were jointly recommending that the Board find Mr. Harding fit to stand trial and return him to Court. Accordingly, the panel was presented with a joint submission.

Findings

6For the following Reasons, the panel accepted the joint recommendation and made an independent finding that Mr. Harding is fit to stand trial and that he should be returned to Court for a determination of the issue of his fitness to stand trial pursuant to s. 672.48(2) of the Criminal Code.

7Mr. Harding will remain subject to the terms of the Disposition dated December 8, 2025 pending his return to court for trial of the issue of his fitness to stand trial, or until further order of the Court.

Alleged Index Offences

8The circumstances surrounding the charges that Mr. Harding is facing are found at pp. 2-4 of the Hospital Report, dated April 27, 2026, which was made an exhibit at the hearing. As the allegations remain unproven, it is not necessary to reproduce them in full in these Reasons. The allegations include: an unlawful entry into an apartment belonging to a man and his young daughter, who discovered Mr. Harding asleep on their living room couch (the man chased Mr. Harding out of the apartment); an incident of shoplifting followed by a threat to kill a store employee who recorded Mr. Harding on her phone’s camera, and then the provision of a false name and birthdate to police; a second shoplifting incident that included an assault of a store employee who intervened; Mr. Harding had also missed a court appearance in respect of the earlier charges; and two further incidents of shoplifting, and a threat to harm an intervening store employee.

Diagnoses

• Schizophrenia
• Cannabis Use Disorder (in remission in a controlled environment)

9Mr. Harding’s family, personal and social history is summarized in the Hospital Report, April 27, 2026. The Report was admitted into evidence as exhibit 1, and a summary was set out in the Reasons for Disposition, January 2, 2026. The main elements of that summary are reproduced below.

10Mr. Harding is the youngest of four children in his family. He is incapable of making treatment decisions, and his mother is his substitute decision maker (SDM). He is also financially incapable; the Public Guardian is his SDM in regard to financial decisions.

11Mr. Harding has been in one intimate relationship and has a daughter from that relationship. He resided with his former partner and her daughter in Hamilton for a time but had not had contact with them for some months at the time of his initial fitness assessment for the Index charges.

12At a young age, Mr. Harding displayed concerning behaviours and then developed more complex psychiatric issues in early adolescence. Beginning with bizarre behaviours and demonstrated confusion and concentration difficulties at age 14, he experienced acute psychotic episodes that eventually resulted in multiple presentations to Emergency Departments. His first psychiatric admission was at the age of 16 at The Hospital for Sick Children. At some point, due to his disruptive behaviours and physical and verbal aggression toward his mother and her partner during episodes of psychiatric decompensation, Mr. Harding could no longer be safely managed in his mother’s home. She assisted him in obtaining a room in boarding houses and group homes; however, these accommodations were unsuccessful due to Mr. Harding's disruptive behaviours, resulting in conflict with roommates and subsequent evictions, and at times, homelessness.

13The Hospital Report states that Mr. Harding has a long-standing history of cannabis use, noting that he historically reported smoking two to three marijuana joints per day. His mother reported that Mr. Harding has previously had difficulties with alcohol, describing episodes of “heavy drinking”.

14Prior to the index charges, Mr. Harding had a criminal record consisting of 10 convictions (three for assault-related offences) that commenced in 2009 and continued to 2018.

15Mr. Harding’s very extensive psychiatric history includes 34 inpatient admissions from 1992 to 2024. The notes of his inpatient admissions are set out on pages 8-20 of the Hospital Report. In addition, he has a significant history of attempts by outpatient service providers to treat him, including ACT (Assertive Community Treatment) teams and Community Treatment Orders (CTOs). Mr. Harding has also often been well-supported by his family, with his mother frequently acting as his SDM for treatment decisions. While in hospital, he was often acutely ill, demonstrating agitation, aggression and threatened violence toward hospital staff, and occasional sexual advances. On one occasion in 2022, he was hospitalized after wielding a knife and threatening ACT team staff. While in hospital, he often required physical and/or chemical restraints, and occasionally the assistance of police. He was sometimes placed in seclusion and has a history of successful and attempted elopements.

16Mr. Harding is noted in the Hospital Report to have displayed similar behaviours to those mentioned above during the early portion of his admission to the SJHH Assessment Unit.

17The Hospital Report (p.8) indicates:

“Due to a lack of insight into his mental health, Mr. Harding has experienced a cyclical pattern of psychiatric instability leading to hospitalization, medication reinitiation, acute stabilization, discharge or abscondment, non-adherence to prescribed medications, and subsequent psychiatric decompensation. Furthermore, his illness has at times been further complicated by his use of drugs and alcohol.”

18In more recent years, Mr. Harding was connected to high-level supportive housing through community services, wherein he also received counselling, financial management, and his psychiatric care has been under supervision of different (ACT) teams. However, his history of “disappearing” from his apartment for significant periods of time, in addition to concerns from his ACT team regarding his hygiene and ability to function independently, resulted in the loss of housing, leaving Mr. Harding chronically unhoused.

19While Mr. Harding has had longstanding ties to the Toronto area and all of his psychiatric care over the nine years prior to his admission to SJHH was provided by Toronto-area hospitals, his mother/SDM has noted that his brother lives in the Hamilton area and she has provided consent for a referral to SJHH Schizophrenia Services in the event that Mr. Harding is found fit and returns to the community.

Evidence Regarding Fitness

20The Hospital Report addresses fitness to stand trial at p. 36:

“Mr. Harding was interviewed with regard to his fitness to stand trial. He was calm, oriented and cooperative with the assessment. Although he could not recite the charges against him, he acknowledged them when they were read to him. He understood that his counsel was Mr. David Hines. He described the role of defence counsel for their clients as “to help find that they’re innocent.” He described the role of the Crown as “they’re not on my side” and “prove guilty.” He stated that a plea involved “saying guilty or not guilty.” He understood that the final decision in Court was made by the Judge. He understood that a finding of not guilty would result in release and that a finding of guilt could result in probation or jail time. Mr. Harding understood that an Oath in Court meant swearing to “tell the truth” and the failing to do was “not okay” and could result in “another charge.” He stated that he was willing to communicate with and accept the advice of his counsel. Mr. Harding has a rational, reality-based understanding of his charges and can discuss his legal matters in a meaningful manner with counsel at this time.

Oral Evidence at the Hearing

21Dr. J. Ferencz, Mr. Harding’s psychiatrist, testified. Mr. Harding was assessed most recently at the end of the week prior to the May 13, 2026 hearing. He had some disorganization of thought, but he was nevertheless able to participate in a conversation about fitness questions. While it was unlikely he would be able to list his charges on his own, he did acknowledge them when they were listed for him. He understood the plea options, and the fact that it is not appropriate to lie. He knew the key professionals in court and their roles. He initially seemed somewhat unclear about the role of the Crown- although the doctor acknowledged that the complexity of dual role of the Crown can be challenging to understand. Mr. Harding did understand it when it was explained. Dr. Ferencz stated that Mr. Harding knew who his lawyer was and could provide instructions to counsel. Dr. Ferencz noted that Mr. Harding has a very severe form of treatment resistant schizophrenia and takes very high levels of medication. As a result, Mr. Harding requires a certain amount of structure in conversations. When this structure is present, he can communicate effectively with counsel. Dr. Ferencz is of the view that Mr. Harding can meaningfully participate in his trial and he would have a reality-based understanding of his trial.

22Dr. Ferencz noted that since December 2025, he had assessed Mr. Harding many times for fitness. Mr. Harding was one of the sickest patients Dr. Ferencz has seen when he was first admitted. Mr. Harding has improved with treatment. He accepts his medication “with prompting” by nursing staff. It is unlikely he would take medication without a court order or Disposition of the Board. Discharge planning is taking place in the event Mr. Harding is found fit and released as he will require high levels of support.

Analysis and Conclusions

23Taking into consideration the submissions of the parties, and the expert evidence of Dr. Ferencz in light of the principles relating to fitness as enunciated by the Supreme Court of Canada’s in R. v. Bharwani, 2025 SCC 26, the panel finds that Mr. Harding is now fit to stand trial. While Mr. Harding continues to have some disorganized thinking and does not believe his name is Edward, his mental status has stabilized to the point that his symptoms do not interfere with his ability to make decisions. Based on the evidence, the panel is of the view that he can now make and communicate reality-based decisions in the conduct of his defence and instruct counsel to do so and intelligibly communicate these decisions to counsel or the court. He can meaningfully participate in his trial and would have a reality-based understanding of the proceedings.

24Mr. Harding should be returned to Court for a determination of the issue of whether he is fit to stand trial.

25Mr. Harding will remain subject to the terms of the Disposition dated December 8, 2025 pending his return to court for trial of the issue of the accused’s fitness to stand trial, or until further order of the Court.

26While there was some mention of a “keep fit” order, given that the Disposition of Detention made on December 3, 2025 remains in force pursuant to s. 673.63 of the Criminal Code, a keep fit order would be redundant.