Ontario Review Board
Re: Thomas Delves
ORB File No: 8990
Hearing held on: Thursday, May 14, 2026
Place of hearing: Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care 401 Sunset Drive, St. Thomas
Pursuant to: Section 672.47 (1) of the Criminal Code
Before: Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Weinstein Members: Dr. R. Chandrasena Dr. P. Wright Mr. E. Siebenmorgen (by Zoom Videoconference) Ms. B. Little
Parties Appearing: Accused: Thomas Delves Counsel: Mr. G. A. Grant The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Zamprogna Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. K. Dalrymple
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated June 12, 2026)
Introduction
On April 8, 2026, Thomas Delves, now 44 years of age, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) in the Ontario Court of Justice on a charge of failing to comply with a release order and three charges of failing to comply with a probation order, all contrary to the Criminal Code. The Court did not make a Disposition but ordered, pursuant to s. 672.46 (2) of the Criminal Code, that Mr. Delves be detained at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care (“Southwest Centre” or “the Hospital”) pending a disposition hearing by the Ontario Review Board (“ORB” or “the Board”).
On Thursday, May 14, 2026, a panel of the Board convened in person at the Hospital to Hold Mr. Delves’ disposition hearing to determine: (a) whether Mr. Delves represents a significant threat to the safety of the public, within the meaning of s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code, and if so, (b) the necessary and appropriate Disposition that is also the least onerous and least restrictive in the circumstances, having regard to the factors in s. 672.54. Mr. Delves was present and was represented by his counsel, Mr. Grant.
The documentary evidence for the hearing consisted, in addition to the Record from the Court and Crown, of a Hospital Report dated April 10, 2026. In addition, Dr. R. Ardani gave oral evidence. Dr. Ardani conducted the NCR assessment and adopted the Hospital Report. Finally, Mr. Delves gave evidence on his own behalf.
Positions of the Parties
- At the start of the hearing, the parties presented essentially a joint submission that the necessary and appropriate Disposition was a Detention Order on the terms recommended in the Hospital Report. Counsel for Mr. Delves confirmed that the threshold issue of significant threat was not in dispute. The parties maintained their positions at the conclusion of the evidence.
Findings
- The panel adopted the parties’ joint submission and found, independently, that Mr. Delves represents a significant threat to the safety of the public. Furthermore, the panel fond that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Detention Order containing the agreed-upon terms. Mr. Delves’ Disposition includes a full range of privileges at the Hospital’s discretion, up to and including community living in approved accommodation in Elgin or Middlesex Counties. The Disposition also provides for Mr. Delves to attend at and participate in a drug and alcohol rehabilitation program anywhere in Ontario. These are our Reasons for our findings.
Index Offences
The index offences arise in the context of a relationship between Mr. Delves and his former intimate partner, with whom he had a son. Details of their relationship, Mr. Delves’ criminal history, and his psychiatric history are interwoven and reviewed later in these Reasons.
As reported in the Hospital Report, the index offences occurred in late September of 2025 in London, Ontario. At the time, Mr. Delves was subject to three distinct probation orders, issued on January 17, 2024, October 16, 2024, and June 4, 2025 respectively. Each probation order included essentially the same terms prohibiting Mr. Delves, subject to specific exceptions, from being within 100 metres of any place where he knew his former partner to live, work, go to school, frequent or any place that he knew her to be.
Mr. Delves had a court appearance on September 19, 2025 and was ordered released on certain conditions, including a condition similar to that in his probation orders as described in the previous paragraphs.
On September 29, 2025, Mr. Delves’ probation officer notified the London Police Service that Mr. Delves was in breach of his conditions, as he had recently attended his former partner’s residence.
On the afternoon of September 29, police officers interviewed Mr. Delves’ former partner and were advised that Mr. Delves had been attending her residence consistently from approximately September 26th to September 28th, 2025. He went to her residence on September 28 and sat on the front steps of her unit. Mr. Delves was not invited in. He started knocking on the door and attempted to speak with her through the door. In her statement to the police, Mr. Delves’ former partner stated:
“He just was sitting on my porch, like usually he'll come and ask for water and stuff or whatever, once he starts getting sick like this. And then, uh, he'll sit on my porch and I'll tell him nicely like, Tom, you have conditions, you have to go, blah, blah, blah. But then he is like, no, like he's so messed up in his head. He is like, no, I don't got no charges, I got no probation. Like he thinks like, you know, he has nothing.”
Overview of Background Information
The Hospital Report contains extensive information about Mr. Delves’ social history, criminal history, involvement in substance use, and psychiatric history. To a great extent, his substance use, psychiatric history, and criminal history are intertwined. Since approximately 2017, those issues have directly involved his former partner, who is the mother of his son, and led to the index offences described above. As the Hospital Report is in evidence, the information contained in it need not be extensively reviewed in these Reasons. Certain portions that provide necessary context for the issues at this hearing are highlighted below.
Mr. Delves was born in Hamilton. He has one older half-brother from a different father, a full brother, and a younger half-brother from another of his mother’s relationships. His biological father reportedly left the family when Mr. Delves was four years old and was not involved during Mr. Delves’ formative years. His mother was described as his consistent parent.
Early History
- Much of Mr. Delves’ history is provided through his own self-report, as his mother passed away in 2019. Mr. Delves began using alcohol and cannabis as an adolescent. He described himself as an introvert during his school years, with no lasting friendships. He began to struggle behaviourally around the age of 15 and got into trouble for stealing. Jhe denied engaging in property destruction other than setting a garbage can on fire once. He stated that he quit school in grade 10. He started to live independently at age 16 or 17 but spent time in youth custody facilities during this period. He received custodial sentences, with probation terms added, on three occasions in 1996, twice while he was 16 and once after he had turned 17 years of age. The offences included breaking and entering, theft, dangerous driving, and impaired driving.
Adult Criminal History, Relationship History, Psychiatric History
Mr. Delves received a penitentiary sentence in early 1998 for a serious offence (break and enter and commit robbery) committed shortly after he turned 18. He again received a penitentiary sentence in 1999. Following release on parole, he was recommitted for violating his parole, and then was recommitted later for violating his statutory release. He had committed further substantive offences, including breaking and entering and mischief.
Mr. Delves reported moving into an apartment with his oldest brother following his release from custody when he was about 23 years old. He reported working at a variety of jobs, including painting, home renovations, and landscaping. He remained free of further criminal convictions until 2017.
According to Mr. Delves, he met his intimate partner when he was 28 years old and they lived together for ten years, the first eight as romantic partners and the last two years as “roommates”. The couple had one child together, a son. His partner described him as a good father who had a close relationship with his son. However, Mr. Delves began to struggle with drug abuse and moved out of the home when his son was about three years old. His substance use began to include opioids and methamphetamines. When he moved into his own apartment he became exposed to other substance using peers. Despite his drug use, his former partner still welcomed him into her apartment as a good friend whom she respected, except when he was unwell.
Roughly during this timeframe, Mr. Delves had his first psychiatric admission, from December 3-12, 2016. He attended voluntarily. He had exhibited a rapid onset of racing thoughts, tangential thinking, persecutory and bizarre delusional beliefs, auditory hallucinations, and psychomotor agitation. He reported that he had abruptly stopped taking methadone, a medication for the treatment of his opioid use disorder, a week before his admission. He responded well to a low dose of an antipsychotic medication, olanzapine, and his psychotic symptoms quickly resolved in the hospital.
On February 13, 2017, Mr. Delves was brought to hospital on a Form 2 due to concerns regarding suicide or self-harm expressed by his ex-partner and other close friends, as he had threatened to jump off buildings at the time. He had missed a follow-up psychiatric appointment after his last admission and had not been compliant with his medication. He was diagnosed with unspecified schizophrenia and other psychotic disorder. He was discharged on olanzapine with residual bizarre thoughts and expansive affect. A follow-up outpatient appointment was recommended but he did not attend.
After being free of criminal convictions for nearly 15 years, Mr. Delves acquired numerous convictions in 2017, in March (failing to attend court, failing to comply with a recognizance, and mischief under $5.000.00), September (criminal harassment), October (two counts of breach of probation) and November (mischief under $5.000.00 and two counts of breach of probation). On January 24, 2018, he was again convicted of criminal harassment, along with breach of probation and failing to comply with a recognizance.
Within approximately two weeks of these convictions, Mr. Delves was admitted to hospital on February 9, 2018 under a Form 2, initiated by his ex-partner. He had been observed in the community making threatening comments at his son’s school. He presented to the hospital with bizarre behaviour, disorganized thinking, and grandiosity. The emergency physician described him as appearing "high." He was uncooperative during his admission and required chemical restraint with antipsychotic medications and minor tranquillizers. His symptoms improved rapidly, and he was discharged on February11, 2018.
At some point prior to March 20, 2018, Mr. Delves was charged with breach of probation due to reported harassment of his ex-partner. He was assessed at the Southwest Centre for fitness to stand trial from March 20 to May 2, when he returned to court and was convicted of two counts of breach of probation. During his stay at Southwest Centre, there were reports of hostility and hypomanic episodes. Mr. Delves was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, and methamphetamine use disorder. He was treated with antipsychotic medications, a mood stabilizer, and a sleep-inducing agent.
At some point in 2018, Mr. Delves’ ex-partner obtained a Family Court order granting her sole custody of the couple’s son. She invoked Mr. Delves’ probation order to withhold his access to their son when he was using substances and was unwell but allowed access when he was not under the influence of substances.
Mr. Delves reported that his mother died in 2019 (no date is noted in the Hospital Report). This was reportedly a major stressor that led to a worsening of his substance use. He reportedly has not held employment since 2019. Mr. Delves was hospitalized from July 17 to August 6, 2019 as a result of a Form 2 obtained by his ex-partner. He had been harassing her in the community and presented with grandiose thinking (reporting special abilities to create inventions), bizarre thoughts, and erratic behaviour. His urine toxicology was only positive for cannabis. He improved with antipsychotic medication and attended one follow-up appointment in September. He did not attend further appointments.
Mr. Delves was again admitted to hospital on January 8, 2020. He attended voluntarily, complaining of panic attacks and requesting treatment for opioid use disorder and its withdrawal symptoms. He was noted to show psychotic symptoms on admission, including disorganized speech and delusional thinking. His psychotic symptoms appeared to quickly improve. He absconded during a pass on January 12 and was apprehended on January 14, then taken to the detention centre on a charge of breach of probation, again in relation to complaints of harassment of his ex-partner. He was admitted to the Southwest Centre for a criminal responsibility assessment from February to April of 2020. He was ultimately diagnosed with a substance-induced psychotic disorder. He was convicted, on several occasions from April of 2020 through to February of 2022, of numerous counts of breach of probation, failure to comply with undertakings, and failure to comply with recognizances.
Mr. Delves was found unfit to stand trial and became the subject of treatment orders in relation to additional charges, from May to July of 2022 and from November 2023 to January 2024. He was also incarcerated in pre-sentence custody for lengthy periods and continued to receive convictions for numerous breach of probation offences, plus a conviction for assault and for possession of a weapon, from 2022 through 2024. From March to May of 2025, he was again at the Southwest Centre pursuant to a treatment order. Having been determined to be fit to stand trial while still experiencing auditory hallucinations, Mr. Delves was again convicted of failing to comply with probation on June 4, 2025. He attended hospital on two more occasions, in late June and mid-September of 2025, each time exhibiting signs of substance use.
As noted, the index offences occurred in late September of 2025. The Hospital Report notes that Mr. Delves has several remaining outstanding charges (for offences similar to those for which he has received convictions over the past six years) which have a court date of July 8, 2026.
Evidence at the Hearing
Dr. Ardani advised that he was Mr. Delves’ attending psychiatrist. He adopted the Hospital Report, though corrected one portion by stating that the reference to all ten historical risk items in the HCR 20 v. 3 risk assessment at the end of p. 35 should be a reference to eight items.
Dr. Ardani first addressed Mr. Delves’ diagnosis of schizophrenia, explaining that he has been seen by different clinicians during multiple admissions to the Southwest Centre. Mr. Delves experiences psychotic symptoms even without using substances for an extended period. The schizophrenia diagnosis has been consistent across multiple clinicians who have seen him, including when he has been in custody at the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre. He confirmed that as of the hearing date, the Hospital Report reflects Mr. Delves’ current mental status and diagnoses. The latter is recorded as:
- schizophrenia; and
- substance use disorder, in remission in a controlled environment.
Dr. Ardani advised that Mr. Delves has been forthcoming in describing his symptoms. He is considered to have partial insight into his illness. He recognized that he has a lengthy history of non-compliance with medications, along with a transient lifestyle that has included multiple admissions to jail and believed that he might benefit from forensic support. He is viewed as capable to consent to his psychiatric treatment and has been adherent to his prescribed medications in a controlled environment. He receives a combination of oral and long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication, along with medications for side effects. There have not been changes to his medications since the date of the Hospital Report, although the pan going forward once Mr. Delves is admitted to a treatment unit would include optimizing those medications.
Dr. Ardani reported on a conversation that he had with Mr. Delves the week before the hearing. He stated that to his credit, Mr. Delves said that his risk factors included substance use, nonadherence to his medications, and the absence of stable housing. When he lived in shelters, it was very difficult for him to avoid substance use and he would lose track of the need to take his medications.
In terms of Mr. Delves’ insight into his illness and ability to manage his medications, Dr. Ardani believed that his mental illness has not impacted his cognition as much as it does with many people. A main issue for Mr. Delves is his craving for drugs. His substance use would exacerbate is symptoms, he would then discontinue his medication, and his symptoms would worsen. In this way, his cognition would be impacted. In the absence of actual substance use, Mr. Delves’ insight into the impact of substance use on his mental health is fair, but when he consumes substances and experiences severe symptoms, that insight is absent. Mr. Delves’ last known use of substances occurred prior to his arrest for the index offences. Substance use and nonadherence to medications were, in Dr. Ardani’s opinion, factors in the index offences (Dr. Ardani had conducted the criminal responsibility assessment).
Dr. Ardani confirmed that Mr. Delves remains vulnerable to substance use relapse. Treatment for this would be a goal for him going forward.
Speaking to the matter of Mr. Delves’ risk, Dr. Ardani confirmed that apart from the index offences, Mr. Delves has a history of violence and a lengthy history of legal involvement through his adult years. He stated that the predicate offences resulting in his various probation orders were a criminal harassment charges dating to 2017 and 2018.
Dr. Ardani explained that the “moderate to high” risk rating in the HCR-20 v. 3 assessment referred to a Disposition involving Mr. Delves being on a Detention Order in a supervised setting in a hospital. If Mr. Delves were to be subject to a Conditional Discharge or be granted an Absolute Discharge, his risk would be rated as “high”.
Dr. Ardani advised that the reason for recommending a community living term in Mr. Delves’ Disposition was in order to get his name on a waitlist for some form of subsidized housing. Dr. Ardani learned from the Hospital social workers that it was necessary to have a community living privilege in the Disposition to get on a waitlist. Dr. Ardani reminded the panel that the absence of stable housing is a major risk factor for Mr. Delves. When the time comes for him to transition to living in the community, it will be essential for the Hospital to approve his accommodation.
Dr. Ardani confirmed that the reasons for his opinion that Mr. Delves represents a significant threat to the safety of the public remain those stated in the Hospital Report. Dr. Ardani elaborated upon the Reoffence Scenario at p. 38 of the Hospital Report. Mr. Delves continues to experience some breakthrough or residual symptoms of his illness. His adherence to medication and ability to remain abstinent from substances have not recently been assessed outside the hospital setting. If he were to receive a more liberal Disposition and be released to the community there is a high risk for him to engage in substance use and subsequently not be able to take his medication appropriately and maintain stable housing. The current symptoms that he experiences would become more severe and intense and he would lose his insight. He would lose his ability to distinguish between reality and his fantasies and would engage in activities based on his delusional beliefs. He could then engage in physical violent behaviors as reported in the past or continue with behaviour similar in nature to the original criminal harassment offences, offences that expose the community to a risk of psychological harm.
Dr. Ardani stated that since Mr. Delves’ rehabilitation is in its early stages, a Detention Order is necessary. He has been in and out of detention centres and hospitals for some 10 years; yet has not been able to maintain medication adherence and substance use abstinence. It is necessary that the Hospital be able to approve his community accommodation in an appropriate setting that involves the fewest risk factors and maximizes his stability. Dr. Ardani was also concerned about the ability of the Hospital, if necessary, to intervene in a timely way given the limitations of the Mental Health Act in relation to criminally harassing behaviour.
Dr. Ardani listed the following treatment goals for Mr. Delves for the upcoming year, recognizing that at the time of the hearing, he continued to reside on the Hospital’s Assessment \Unit:
- optimizing his medication;
- increasing his insight into his illness, need for medication, and future risk;
- connecting him with either inpatient, outpatient, or residential addiction recovery programs; and
- in time, assessing his stability in a rehabilitation unit.
- Recognizing that Mr. Delves has been in the Hospital only a short time since the NCR verdict, Dr. Ardani provided the following comments in relation to Mr. Delves’ strengths:
- as a very important matter, he is forthcoming about his experiences;
- he takes personal responsibility, as indicated by his acknowledgement that some of his breaches of probation were in fact not the result of delusional thinking but were his own choices; and
- he has a very good relationship with his son, to which the treatment team can look in helping to rehabilitate Mr. Delves, though this relationship also is the context for his criminal harassment behaviour.
Counsel for the Attorney General had no questions for Dr. Ardani but advised the panel that she had forwarded to him a copy of a “charge sheet” that provides information concerning the most recent criminal harassment conviction on Mr. Delves’ record. Dr. Ardani was asked by a panel member which of Mr. Delves’ criminal harassment convictions (one in September of 2017 and one in January of 2018) related to his ex-partner, as referred to under the “Historical Risk Factors” section of the HCR-20, v. 3 risk assessment (Hospital Report, p. 36). Dr. Ardani did not have this information before him but believed that the reference was to the 2017 conviction, as this was closer to the date of Mr. Delves’ and his partner’s separation. Dr. Ardani said that he would consider this information together with that being provided by counsel for the Attorney General for the next hearing so that the Board and parties could have a more complete view of the relationship history between Mr. Delves and his former partner.
Dr. Ardani was asked whether Mr. Delves represented an elopement risk in view of the geographically diverse nature of some of his criminal convictions and his lack of a stable residence. Dr. Ardani believed that this risk was very low, based on his knowledge of Mr. Delves since approximately 2020, his more recent medication adherence and stated desire to seek help and to become well, and his commitment to the geographical area of London due to his son living there.
Dr. Ardani confirmed that Mr. Delves’ convictions from 2022 to the present relate to his failure to comply with “no contact” terms in relation to his ex-partner and, while they are labelled as failures to comply with orders, they are in substance harassing-type behaviours constituting a pattern during these recent years. Asked by a panel member what Mr. Delves’ current thinking was concerning his ex-partner, his son, and what he should be doing, Dr. Ardani said that Mr. Delves has not said anything over the three months prior to the hearing about thinking that it was not right for his son to be living with her. He had almost daily telephone conversations with his son and expressed that he would appreciate it if the Hospital could facilitate visits at the Hospital. Dr. Ardani emphasized, however, that Mr. Delves’ current desire is to focus on his recovery, including optimizing his medication, acquiring the skills to help him abstain from substance use (he is aware that he personally lacks the ability to abstain), and being supported in finding stable housing.
In response to further questions about facilitating visits with his son in view of the existence of various no-contact orders, Dr. Ardani mentioned several options for this, including having visits in one room at the Hospital while the ex-partner waited in another room, as well as staff-accompanied visits in the community.
Dr. Ardani was asked whether he had concerns about the possible existence of antisocial personality traits in light of Mr. Delves’ extensive and lengthy criminal history. He replied that he was concerned about this, as the convictions Mr. Delves had accumulated in his youth were suggestive of conduct disordered behaviours. The most recent risk factors in relation to criminal behaviour, however, are related to mental illness and substance use. Mr. Delves also has a history of traumatic events in his life. It is possible, from the nature of the recent criminal convictions, that Mr. Delves has issues in relation to rule breaking. These are all issues in relation to which further clarity would be sought during the upcoming reporting period.
Mr. Delves gave evidence. He agreed with his counsel’s characterization that the bulk of his charges since 2017 were in relation to returning to his ex-partner’s home under the belief that she wanted him there. He advised the panel that sometimes, she would give him food or cigarettes. He said that he knows that she is a good mother to their son, who is now 17 years old. He said that he has his son’s telephone number and they talk on a daily basis.
Mr. Delves said that his former partner has come to court and said that she cares for him but does not want him to come to her place. She has said that she is not really afraid of him; she is more afraid for him.
Mr. Delves said that he has been homeless for about eight years, since he was 36 or 37 years old. He described sleeping in the lower level of a street mission in London, which was a place to get drugs. He also slept on porches and roofs – anywhere that he could find a place to sleep.
Mr. Delves acknowledged that he has things to work on now and knew that the Hospital was going to find him a place to live where drugs are not as accessible. He stated that this is why he requested an NCR assessment: so that he could get away from the pattern that saw him spending three or four months in jail and then three or four months on the street or in shelters, always for doing the same thing. He was hoping to have resources in place so that he could regularly see his son.
Asked by a panel member what he thought about Dr. Ardani’s diagnosis that he had schizophrenia, Mr. Delves described symptoms that he had experienced, such as delusions, hearing voices, and seeing people around him who are not really there.
No further evidence was led following that of Dr. Ardani and of Mr. Delves.
Analysis and Conclusions
The panel is satisfied that Mr. Delves represents a significant threat to the safety of the public. Again, this issue was not in dispute at the hearing. Mr. Delves has a longstanding substance use disorder that exacerbates his major mental illness. The panel accepts Dr. Ardani’s evidence that the use of substances causes Mr. Delves’ symptoms to become more severe and intense, with the result that he loses his insight into the need for medication to control his illness and becomes nonadherent with prescribed medication. His symptoms then become even more severe.
Complicating Mr. Delves’ illness and his serious substance use disorder is his lengthy and persistent history of nonadherence to medication and professional mental health follow-up. His legal and psychiatric history bear witness to his apparent inability to regulate his substance use and behaviour since the end of his relationship with his former partner, who is the mother of his teenaged son. His illness, exacerbated by his substance use, has been associated with a persistent pattern of harassing behaviour since at least 2017.
In concluding that Mr. Delves represents a significant threat to the safety of the public, the panel has carefully considered all the evidence, and in particular the results of the actuarial risk assessment, the reoffence scenario in the Hospital Report as further explained by Dr. Ardani, and the Clinical Assessment of Risk, in combination with Dr. Ardani’s opinion that Mr. Delves represents a significant threat. The panel is satisfied that Dr. Ardani’s opinion is well-grounded in the evidence and we accept his opinion.
Turning to the matter of the necessary and appropriate Disposition, the panel was satisfied that currently, only a Detention Order can manage Mr. Delves’ risk. He lacks stable housing and requires a residential setting that minimizes his risk of accessing substances. He is also very early in his rehabilitative journey and requires the structure of the hospital setting to support him in his stated desire to recover his mental health and sustain his abstinence from substances. To Mr. Delves’ credit, he has demonstrated partial insight into his illness, need for treatment, and public safety risk. In his evidence before the panel, he clearly expressed a desire to break the cycle of homelessness, criminal activity and incarceration that has to date eluded his ability to overcome. He acknowledges the support that the forensic system can provide.
It will be critical for the Hospital in this case to have the authority to approve an appropriate residential setting for Mr. Delves, once he is ready to make that transition. In the meantime, the Hospital can also facilitate visits between Mr. Delves and his son. On the evidence, they enjoy a positive relationship and communicate regularly by telephone. Supporting this relationship appears to be important to Mr. Delves’ eventual successful reintegration into the community.
Accordingly, the panel found that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Detention Order on the terms and conditions agreed to among the parties. In approaching this matter, the panel has considered the evidence through the lens of the factors in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
DATED this 12th day of June 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Eric Siebenmorgen Legal Member
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board