Ontario Review Board
Re: Anthony D. Heinekamp
ORB File No: 3746
Hearing held on: Monday, May 11, 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: Mr. P. Capelle
Members: Dr. P. Prendergast Dr. S. Wiseman Ms. K. Weisbaum Mr. T. Wall
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Anthony D. Heinekamp Counsel: Ms. J. Boissonneault
The Person in charge of Hospital: Representative: Dr. J. Pytyck
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. N. MacDonald
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated: June 8, 2026)
Introduction
On March 24, 2003, Anthony Heinekamp was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of possession of weapon, uttering death threat and assault with a weapon, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. Mr. Heinekamp is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated June 17, 2025, ordering that he be detained within the Forensic Program at Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (“Ontario Shores”) with privileges up to living in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
On May 11, 2026, the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”) convened at Ontario Shores to conduct Mr. Heinekamp’s annual review and to make a Disposition, pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Heinekamp was present and represented by his counsel, Ms. Boissonneault.
The issues to be decided at the hearing were whether Mr. Heinekamp continues to meet the test of posing a significant threat to the safety of the public and, if so, what is the necessary and appropriate Disposition, bearing in mind the four factors in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
For the reasons set out below, the Board finds that Mr. Heinekamp continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Detention Order Disposition with the same terms and conditions as in Mr. Heinekamp’s previous Disposition, except for the following:
i) amend 2(e) to read: passes for up to 12 hours to enter the community of Ontario within a 200-kilometre radius of Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences, indirectly supervised; and
ii) amend 2(f) to read: travel passes within Ontario for up to 72 hours within a 200-kilometre radius of Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences, indirectly supervised, subject to itinerary approval by the person in charge.
Position of the Parties
- The parties jointly recommended that the Board find that Mr. Heinekamp continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the appropriate Disposition is a Detention Order on the same terms and conditions as his current Disposition. They also jointly supported amending the Disposition at paragraphs 2(e) and 2(f) to increase the permitted travel radius from 150 kilometres to 200 kilometres from the hospital. The parties maintained that position in their closing submissions.
Index Offences
- The circumstances giving rise to the index offences are set out in last year’s Reasons for Disposition, as follows:
“On January 21, 2003, Mr. H, attended at the apartment of his girlfriend in an intoxicated condition. His girlfriend was not at home at the time, and Mr. Heinekamp began causing a disturbance by banging, kicking and swearing. The police were called, and when the two officers arrived, they found Mr. Heinekamp and his girlfriend standing in the doorway of her apartment. When the officers walked up the stairs and approached Mr. H, he came out of the apartment and yelled at the officers, "Get the fuck out of here! You are not fucking coming in here! You are not fucking coming in here!”
When one of the officers took hold of Mr. Heinekamp’s left forearm, Mr. Heinekamp produced a knife in his right hand and held it above his head. The second officer drew her gun and demanded that the accused drop the knife, and he complied.
The officers then walk to Mr. Heinekamp to their police cruiser. He struggled when they attempted to handcuff him, and banged his head on the cruiser door when they searched him. During this process he repeatedly made statements such as, “I’ll kill you fuckers! I’ll do my 20 years. I’ve already done 10 years for murder. I’ll kill one of you guys right in front of your family.”
Personal Background
Mr. Heinekamp’s personal, criminal and psychiatric history are set out in the Hospital Report to the Board dated April 13, 2026 (the “Hospital Report”) which was marked as an exhibit and will not be repeated in detail here.
Briefly, and as set out in last year’s Reasons for Disposition, Mr. Heinekamp is a 55-year-old man who is single with no dependents. He was born in Nova Scotia and has two brothers. He reported that his father was extremely abusive and his mother left his father as a result. Mr. Heinekamp’s father passed away in 2002. He remains in contact with his mother.
Mr. Heinekamp completed grade 10, but missed a lot of school. He reported employment in carpentry, house painting, construction and landscaping in Toronto and Ottawa. He reported living in rental apartments prior to the index offences.
Mr. Heinekamp reported that he began using alcohol at age 17 and that alcohol was his drug of choice.
Criminal History
Mr. Heinekamp was convicted of manslaughter in 1993 and served a custodial sentence in penitentiary. The underlying charge stemmed from a violent, physical altercation with a person with whom Mr. Heinekamp had been drinking. Mr. Heinekamp qualified for and was granted a statutory release in 2001.
Following the NCR finding in March 2003, Mr. Heinekamp was admitted to Brockville hospital. While detained in hospital in 2005 under the Board’s jurisdiction, Mr. Heinekamp violently assaulted a co-patient causing multiple injuries. He was charged and pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm. The offence occurred within two months of Mr. Heinekamp having discontinued some of his antipsychotic medications, whereupon he began to exhibit angry outbursts and threatening and assaultive behaviour.
Psychiatric History
Mr. Heinekamp began hearing voices at the age of thirteen but received no psychiatric treatment prior to the index offences. Mr. Heinekamp has been under the Board’s jurisdiction for over 20 years.
Mr. Heinekamp was initially detained in Brockville and Oak Ridge/Waypoint and has been at Ontario Shores since September 2011. He exhibited somatic delusions, paranoia, auditory hallucinations and assaultive behaviours. He denied having a mental illness for many years and demonstrated inconsistent adherence to prescribed medication. He was transferred to Ontario Shores after showing some improvement; however, while at Ontario Shores, he regularly used alcohol on passes and eloped in 2014, 2017 and 2023. There were numerous notable incidents over the years.
Current Diagnoses
- Schizophrenia Antisocial Personality Disorder Alcohol Use Disorder, severe, in remission in a controlled setting Cocaine Use Disorder, Severe Amphetamine-type Substance Use Disorder, moderate
Evidence at the Hearing
Oral Evidence of Dr. J. Pytyck
Dr. Pytyck started her evidence by providing one update to the Hospital Report: last week, at Mr. Heinekamp’s request, his antipsychotic medication was changed from a long-acting injectable to oral Clopixal, 50 mg at supper time. He requested the change because the injections were causing shoulder pain, which Dr. Pytyck believed was aggravated by the impingement in his neck and associated upper-extremity pain. Although she agreed to the change, Dr. Pytyck stated that the oral formulation was not ideal and that, once his pain is better managed and further evaluated, she would discuss switching him back to the injectable formulation, which would be the best option for his long-term stability and future transition to the community. For the time being, however, he is doing well on the oral medication.
Dr. Pytyck stated that one of the main points highlighted during the past reporting year was Mr. Heinekamp’s substance use, as outlined in the Hospital Report. Mr. Heinekamp had continued to use cocaine intermittently. There were clear changes in his mental state when he was using substances and in the days or weeks afterwards, including increased irritability, increased responsiveness to internal stimuli, threatening behaviour in the context of frustration and increased paranoia. When abstinent, he returns to his baseline.
He was evaluated and referred for residential treatment, but was not accepted because of his high level of medical and psychiatric needs. The hospital continues to seek a program for him. He takes anti-craving medication, although that has had limited benefits so far.
Dr. Pytyck stated that Mr. Heinekamp had a challenging year, similar to previous years. The hospital continues to work with him to help him maintain longer-term abstinence, which would lead to longer-term psychiatric stability and enable him to return to the active waiting list for discharge to community-supervised accommodation. In her view, he still requires a Detention Order, particularly given that he is now on oral medication. If living in the community, he would need to be somewhere with supervised medication administration in order to monitor his clinical status and substance use after discharge.
Dr. Pytyck stated that, if Mr. Heinekamp were to decompensate, it was unlikely that he would return to hospital voluntarily. As reflected in the Hospital Report, while in the community he had not wanted to be readmitted. Aside from that, the team was hopeful that this would be a better year. He had privileges within his Disposition that would allow him to work toward his goals of increased community access. Increasing the travel radius to 200 kilometres would allow him to spend more time with his long-standing girlfriend in the community. The increased radius would give him something to work toward, which may motivate him and help him maintain abstinence for a longer period as part of his rehabilitation and reintegration into the community.
Questions from Ms. MacDonald
In response to questions from Ms. MacDonald, Dr. Pytyck stated that, overall, Mr. Heinekamp’s girlfriend was primarily a positive factor, in that he greatly valued his time with her. She acknowledged concerns in the past that the girlfriend may have been involved in bringing substances to the hospital at Mr. Heinekamp’s request. Nevertheless, Dr. Pytyck stated that, in her view, the relationship is a motivating factor for Mr. Heinekamp to move forward and a positive influence on him, although that was not true of every aspect of the relationship. It was something Mr. Heinekamp had always talked about—wanting to work toward independent living with his girlfriend in the community.
With respect to residential treatment, not being accepted due to his high medical and psychiatric needs and ongoing efforts to find a program for Mr. Heinekamp, Dr. Pytyck stated that there were other programs in Toronto, such as Harbour Light and St. Michael’s. With respect to his placement, the hospital will need to balance the availability of the program with the distance from the hospital and the need to monitor Mr. Heinekamp in that sort of setting. The program that previously declined him was the closest one to the hospital, which would have been ideal, but the hospital would certainly look into other residential treatment options.
Dr. Pytyck stated that Mr. Heinekamp would continue to be offered programming, including concurrent disorders groups, individual therapy and other groups and that she would look at further optimizing his anti-craving medication.
Questions from Ms. Boissonneault
In response to questions from Ms. Boissonneault with respect to clause “g” in the current Disposition, Dr. Pytyck stated that the hospital would not oppose a change in the wording to permit residential treatment within Ontario, or perhaps within a radius of 300 kilometres, rather than limiting it to “Southern Ontario.” In her view, “Ontario” would be the least restrictive wording, although she acknowledged that it could be ambiguous. In practice, the hospital would seek programs only within a manageable distance, such as Toronto, Kitchener and that area, because Mr. Heinekamp would still need to be monitored and followed by Ontario Shores. There were options for Mr. Heinekamp within the scope of the current Disposition.
Ms. Boissonneault referred to page 76 of the Hospital Report, which stated that, overall, Mr. Heinekamp had made some progress in his recovery. Dr. Pytyck agreed that it was fair to say that his relationship with the treatment team, which had previously been very strained, had been a little better this year.
Dr. Pytyck confirmed that Mr. Heinekamp had been diagnosed with multilevel cervical spine impingement and was experiencing significant related pain. He was receiving treatment from medical staff and had been referred for further assessment by community specialists.
Dr. Pytyck agreed that, during periods of abstinence, Mr. Heinekamp had at times been able to use some of his indirectly supervised grounds privileges.
Dr. Pytyck stated that Mr. Heinekamp’s self-reporting was somewhat unreliable, in that he had in the past stated that he was not using substances despite clear evidence that he was. She nevertheless believed that, over time, he had developed a little more understanding, or perhaps acceptance, of the fact that he must maintain abstinence in order to move forward. She also stated that he had some understanding that substance use had negative impacts on him, both physically and psychiatrically.
Questions from the Panel
In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Pytyck confirmed that Mr. Heinekamp had lived at Ballantyne House (operated by Durham Mental Health Services) from February 2022 until June 2023. It could be an option for him to return there in the future if circumstances improved. She also noted that another option the hospital had been considering was the supervised CMHA Create Program.
Dr. Pytyck stated that, in her opinion, if Mr. Heinekamp’s girlfriend were to bring substances onto hospital grounds, it would be at his request and direction and not of her own accord. If Mr. Heinekamp were doing well and was dedicated to being abstinent, the relationship would not increase risk in that regard. Any use of community privileges to visit his girlfriend and her mother would only be in the context of a period of sustained abstinence and confidence that he was not going to use any substances.
Dr. Pytyck stated that she had not had much direct involvement with Mr. Heinekamp’s girlfriend, who had also been a patient at the hospital in the past. She believed that the couple had been offered counselling, which the girlfriend declined. Engaging with his girlfriend could be part of the evaluation of whether Mr. Heinekamp could use community privileges.
Dr. Pytyck stated that while Mr. Heinekamp remained on an oral form of his medication as his shoulder pain was resolving, she would have concerns about him travelling and continuing to take the oral medication, particularly given his recent substance use and periods of decompensation. Returning him to his long-acting injectable would remain a goal going forward. Related concerns would form part of the assessment of risk in deciding whether he should be permitted to travel. She did not know whether he had a valid passport.
Dr. Pytyck stated that the residential treatment program that declined Mr. Heinekamp did not provide a specific reason beyond saying that his needs were too high for them to meet. She did not know what, if anything, could or would change that decision, but explained that some programs may decline a person after receiving the Hospital Report and concluding that the person may be too high-risk for their program. The team would first try other programs known to accept forensic patients before circling back to that program.
Dr. Pytyck also explained that, although online maps suggested that the city where his girlfriend lives with her mother was approximately 123 kilometres from the hospital, she did not have the exact address for Mr. Heinekamp’s girlfriend’s home and it could be more than that. The requested 200-kilometre radius was intended to ensure that any future travel by Mr. Heinekamp to visit his girlfriend would remain within the terms of his Disposition.
In response to an additional question from Ms. Boissonneault, Dr. Pytyck confirmed that with respect to Mr. Heinekamp’s positive test for hydromorphone, the team checked with the pharmacy and believed the test result (a false positive for hydromorphone) was related to the codeine that he is prescribed for his nerve pain.
There were no further questions and no further evidence was called.
Closing Observations
Dr. Pytyck submitted that, although there had been some positive developments over the year, Mr. Heinekamp’s continued substance use remained a significant concern. In light of the resulting risk to public safety, she maintained that a Detention Order remained the appropriate Disposition.
Ms. MacDonald submitted that the Crown agreed with the hospital that a Detention Order was the most appropriate Disposition, given the risk to the public.
Ms. Boissonneault submitted that Mr. Heinekamp’s relapse into substance use should be understood in the context of addiction as an illness rather than a moral failing and emphasized that he was taking meaningful steps toward recovery. She noted that he was engaged with concurrent disorders services, working with Dr. Pytyck, taking anti-craving medication and considering residential treatment. Any Disposition, including a Detention Order, must remain the least restrictive and least onerous option consistent with public safety, while also supporting his rehabilitation and reintegration. In that context, Ms. Boissonneault emphasized the positive role of Mr. Heinekamp’s long-term relationship with his girlfriend, noting that his girlfriend was generally a supportive influence when he was abstinent and did not increase the risk to public safety in those circumstances. Ms. Boissonneault also submitted that expanding Mr. Heinekamp’s travel radius could have therapeutic value by motivating him to maintain abstinence and continue working with his treatment team toward earning the privilege to visit his girlfriend.
Analysis
Having regard to all of the evidence adduced at the hearing, and notwithstanding there was a joint position of the parties, after an independent analysis, the Board concludes that Mr. Heinekamp continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public, within the meaning of s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and as further defined in Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625: a “significant threat to the safety of the public” means a real risk of physical or psychological harm to members of the public that is serious in the sense of going beyond the merely trivial or annoying. The conduct giving rise to the harm must be criminal in nature.
Regarding Mr. Heinekamp’s risk, at page 81 of the Hospital Report, Dr. Pytyck concluded as follows:
In the unanimous opinion of the treatment team, Mr. Heinekamp remains a significant threat to the safety of the public. His most relevant risk factors continue to include his major mental disorder in conjunction with his severe substance use disorder and antisocial social personality disorder. Mr. Heinekamp’s insight into the above disorders, particularly his substance use disorder, remains limited. He also continues to minimize his past history of violence, as well as his future risk to the public.
Dr. Pytyck’s oral evidence at the hearing was consistent with that opinion. She stated that Mr. Heinekamp had continued to use cocaine intermittently during the reporting year and that there were clear changes in his mental state when he used substances, which continued in the days or weeks afterwards. Those changes included increased irritability, increased responsiveness to internal stimuli, threatening behaviour in the context of frustration and increased paranoia. Dr. Pytyck further explained that while periods of abstinence were associated with greater stability and some ability to use privileges appropriately, Mr. Heinekamp’s substance use remained recurrent and his self-report about such use was not fully reliable. She also testified that, if he were to decompensate, it was unlikely that he would return to hospital voluntarily and that a Detention Order remained necessary so that he could be readmitted immediately in the event of relapse or other evidence of increased risk.
Taken together, that evidence describes a real and foreseeable pathway to violent reoffending. Mr. Heinekamp has a longstanding major mental illness together with severe substance use disorder and antisocial personality disorder. The evidence establishes that when he relapses to cocaine use, his psychiatric presentation deteriorates in identifiable ways, including irritability, paranoia, responsiveness to internal stimuli and threatening behaviour. In the Board’s view, that constellation of factors creates a real risk of serious criminal conduct causing physical or psychological harm to members of the public. That conclusion is reinforced by the nature of the index offences, which involved weapons, threats to kill and aggression toward police while intoxicated.
Having concluded that Mr. Heinekamp continues to represent a significant threat to public safety, the Board must then determine what Disposition is the least restrictive and least onerous to him that is nevertheless necessary and appropriate in the circumstances.
The Board accepts that there have been some constructive developments for Mr. Heinekamp over the past year, including some improvement in his relationship with the treatment team, engagement with concurrent disorders supports and the motivating effect of his relationship with his girlfriend. Nevertheless, those factors do not presently reduce his risk to a level compatible with substantive changes to his Disposition. The evidence remains that he requires continued structure, supervised medication administration, monitoring for substance use and the ability to be returned promptly to hospital care if his condition deteriorates. In these circumstances, the Board is satisfied that a Detention Order remains the necessary and appropriate Disposition consistent with public safety.
Mr. Heinekamp’s year included both ongoing challenges and some meaningful progress. Although his continued intermittent cocaine use remains a serious concern, the evidence also supports that he has had periods of relative stability and some constructive developments, including modest improvement in his relationship with the treatment team and continued motivation to work toward greater independence in the community through his relationship with his girlfriend. The evidence suggests that, with sustained abstinence and psychiatric stability, he may be able to transition again toward community living.
At present, however, Mr. Heinekamp’s ongoing needs include a highly structured setting, supervised medication administration, continued monitoring for substance use, access to psychiatric follow-up and concurrent disorders treatment and the ability to be returned promptly to hospital if his condition deteriorates. While Mr. Heinekamp is currently doing well on oral Clopixal, a long-acting injectable formulation remains the preferred option for his longer-term stability once his pain issues permit.
Mr. Heinekamp’s Disposition for the coming year will therefore remain substantially the same as last year’s, except that his permitted travel radius from the hospital will be expanded from 150 kilometres to 200 kilometres. The Board accepts the evidence that this change is intended to ensure that any future travel to visit his girlfriend may occur within the terms of the Disposition, if and when such travel is clinically supported through sustained abstinence and stability. This revised provision is carefully limited and does not confer any automatic entitlement to travel. Rather, it modestly enlarges the framework within which the hospital may support gradual rehabilitation steps, while preserving the hospital’s authority to assess risk, supervise privileges and withhold such travel unless satisfied that it is therapeutically appropriate and consistent with public safety. This narrowly tailored amendment facilitates the least restrictive next steps consistent with Mr. Heinekamp’s current condition because it preserves an important source of motivation for recovery and reintegration without materially reducing the safeguards that remain necessary at this stage.
The panel noted from Dr. Pytyck’s oral evidence that, although Mr. Heinekamp’s girlfriend appears to be a motivating factor in his efforts to maintain abstinence from substance use, there remains a possibility that he could ask her to bring substances to the hospital, which might have been a problem in the past. In light of this concern, it would be prudent for the hospital to engage with Mr. Heinekamp’s girlfriend, if she is available and willing, to better assess any potential risk to his continued abstinence.
Conclusion
Having considered the four factors set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code, namely the protection of the public, which is the paramount consideration, the mental condition of the accused, his reintegration into society and his other needs, the Board finds that Mr. Heinekamp continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Detention Order Disposition with the same terms and conditions as in his previous Disposition, but with the addition of an expanded travel radius of 200 kilometres.
The Board wishes Mr. Heinekamp well for the coming year.
DATED this 8th day of June 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. K. Weisbaum Legal Member
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board