Re Eustace Bernard Rackett, 2026 CanLII 56720

Re: Eustace Bernard Rackett

ORB File No: 2198

Hearing held on: Thursday, May 7, 2026

Place of Hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health

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

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. G. Beasley

Members: Dr. Y. Alatishe

Dr. L. Leong

Ms. J. Ferguson

Mr. W. Apted

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Eustace Bernard Rackett

Counsel: Ms. M. Perez

The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. S. Rosales-Zelaya

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. M. Feindel

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated June 12, 2026)

Introduction

1On December 15, 1995, the accused, Eustace Bernard Rackett, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of assault (x2), contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. By reason of a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB”) dated May 8, 2025, Mr. Rackett was ordered to be detained at the Forensic Service of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (“CAMH”), Toronto. The Disposition contained privileges up to and including residing in the community of the Greater Toronto Area in supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge. On May 7, 2026, the ORB convened hearing at CAMH for the purpose of the annual review of Mr. Rackett’s Disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Rackett was in attendance and represented by counsel, Ms. Perez. Mr. Feindel appeared as counsel for the Attorney General of Ontario and Ms. Rosales-Zelaya as counsel for the hospital.

2The Board took note of the fact that Mr. Rackett’s mother, brother and two sisters were also in attendance as support.

Index Offences

3The circumstances of the index offences as taken from last year's Reasons are as follows:

“On August 4, 1995, Mr. Rackett entered a store and the owner asked him to leave because he had caused a disturbance in the store previously. He punched the owner in nose breaking his glasses and causing a small cut on his nose.

On Aug 7, 1995, a woman and her niece had left a restaurant when they were approached by Mr. Rackett who started yelling at them for no apparent reason. They got into their car, and he spat at the woman through the open door of the car. The woman got out of the car and told him to get away. The accused picked up a glass bottle and threw it at the woman’s face, striking her wrist and knuckle when she was defending herself. She required seven stitches. The accused was arrested by nearby police officers.”

Current Diagnoses

4The current diagnoses as taken from the Hospital Report is as follows:

Schizophrenia vs. Schizoaffective Disorder, Bipolar Type;

Cannabis Use Disorder, Severe;

Unspecified Personality Disorder.

Criminal History

5Mr. Rackett has a history of prior criminal convictions as follows:

DATE

CHARGE(S)

SENTENCE

February 18, 1991

Toronto, ON

Assault Causing Bodily Ha

Suspended Sentence

October 4, 1991

Toronto, ON

Possession of Narcotic x2

1. $100 I-D 2 days

2. $100 I-D 5 days

February 20, 1992 Toronto, ON

Fail to Comply with Recog

Time served (10 days) plus 8 days

May 25, 1992

Toronto, ON

1. Poss. Of a Narcotic

2. Poss. Of Narcotic

3. Time served (30 days) plus 1 day

4. 1 day conc.

June 17, 1994

Toronto, ON

Uttering Threats and Poss Narcotic

7 days on each charge, concurrent

November 18, 1994

Toronto, ON

Trafficking in a Narcotic

Time served (3 months)

November 23, 1994 Toronto, ON

Uttering Threats, Assault

1 day, and 15 days consecutive

March 10, 1995

Toronto, ON

Uttering Threats

Time Served (9 days) and 1 day

February 20, 1996

Toronto, ON

Trafficking in a Narcotic

Unknown at this time

Background and Personal History

6Mr. Rackett’s background and personal history were extensively reviewed in the Hospital Report which was filed as an exhibit at the hearing. For that reason, the details will not be repeated in these Reasons. By way of background, Mr. Rackett is a 58-year-old male born in Kingston, Jamaica. His mother moved to Canada when he was 11 years old and Mr. Rackett remained in Jamaica under the care of his grandmother and other relatives. He and his four siblings joined their mother in Canada in 1987. (Mr. Rackett is currently under a Removal Order from Canada by Immigration Canada for deportation to Jamaica.) Prior to leaving Jamaica, Mr. Rackett had the equivalent of a grade 9 education. He has completed his secondary school education while at CAMH. Mr. Rackett’s employment history has been limited to unskilled jobs for short periods of time. His most recent employment appears to have been on the unit canteen at CAMH for a period of six months in late 2019. Mr. Rackett is supported by ODSP. The Hospital Report does not contain any information with respect to Mr. Rackett’s relationship history.

7Mr. Rackett has acknowledged that cannabis use has been a “big part of his life.” He has had positive urine screens for hashish, cocaine, PCP, and amphetamines. Mr. Rackett denies consuming alcohol. According to information from CAMH, there have been nine documented admissions to inpatient forensic psychiatric wards for the purpose of court assessments. The details of Mr. Rackett’s psychiatric history prior to the index offences are set out in the Hospital Report.

Position of the Parties

8At the outset of the hearing, Ms. Rosales-Zelaya submitted that Mr. Rackett continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition was a continuation of the current Detention Order without amendment. Mr. Feindel supported the submission of the hospital. Ms. Perez submitted that while Mr. Rackett conceded the issue of significant risk to the safety of the public, the necessary and appropriate disposition was a Conditional Discharge.

Evidence

9The evidence on behalf of the hospital was presented by Dr. Meng, Mr. Rackett’s outpatient psychiatrist and the author of the Hospital Report which was filed as an exhibit. By way of update to the Hospital Report, Dr. Meng stated that the Consent and Capacity Board (“CCB”) had confirmed the finding of incapacity to consent to treatment with antipsychotic medications pursuant to the Health Care Consent Act (“HCCA”). Dr. Meng testified that notwithstanding this finding, there had been no changes to Mr. Rackett’s medications. Dr. Meng stated that over the course of the past month Mr. Rackett’s mental status had remained unchanged in the sense that it had neither improved nor gotten worse. In discussions with Mr. Rackett’s community psychiatrist, the treatment team were of the opinion that Mr. Rackett’s risk remained manageable in his current mental state without the necessity of increasing his antipsychotic medication or making any other changes.

10Dr. Meng was asked about the hospital recommendation for a continuation of the current Detention Order. Dr. Meng stated that the treatment team had given serious consideration to the possibility of recommending a Conditional Discharge, even in light of Mr. Rackett’s change in mental status following his most recent decompensation. The team took into account that Mr. Rackett was residing in very high support housing in the community and had not expressed any intention of seeking alternative housing. The team also considered the finding of incapacity under the HCCA which would allow the use of the Box B provisions of the Mental Health Act (“MHA”). Dr. Meng stated that in the opinion of the treatment team Mr. Rackett’s liberties would actually be greater under the terms of the Detention Order rather than a Conditional Discharge. Under the Detention Order, the team are able to maintain Mr. Rackett in the community even without an increase of the current dosage of his antipsychotic medication. In the event of further decompensation, the treatment team need to have the ability to admit Mr. Rackett to the hospital quickly. If the team had to rely upon the MHA only, then they would have to see him much more frequently than they are presently. There would be a lot more supervision and oversight from the treatment team which is something that Mr. Rackett does not welcome. Dr. Meng stated that appropriate housing is important to the team's ability to manage Mr. Rackett’s risk while he resides in the community. While the team agreed that Mr. Rackett could likely live in less supervised housing, that could not be trialled if he were under the terms of a Conditional Discharge.

11Dr. Meng acknowledged that there have been years of risk management without any serious violent episodes, even during periods of decompensation, but those have always been in the context of Mr. Rackett residing in the hospital. Dr. Meng stressed that it has been “decades” since Mr. Rackett lived in the community. This is the first time that the treatment team are seeing Mr. Rackett in a decompensated mental state but residing in a less controlled setting. The changes which Mr. Rackett has exhibited this year are atypical, in that he has started talking again about using cannabis. Dr. Meng said this is a transitional time for Mr. Rackett and there is a lot of instability. When asked about the use of the MHA to readmit Mr. Rackett to hospital, Dr. Meng stated that he would not be admissible under Box A in the early stages of his decompensation which would take some time to occur. Dr. Meng said that Mr. Rackett is susceptible to interpersonal conflict which has led to violence in the past and it is hard to know how this would present in the community. The team’s ability to use Box B of the MHA depends upon the frequency with which Mr. Rackett is seen, and the reason for the decompensation from either substance use, medication noncompliance, or stress. Dr. Meng stated that Mr. Rackett’s capacity to consent or not consent to treatment has a tendency to fluctuate. At times he is doing better and is found capable and if there is a subsequent change in his medication he can decompensate.

12Dr. Meng was asked about the path forward for Mr. Rackett to a Conditional Discharge. Dr. Meng stated that the treatment team would like to continue to monitor Mr. Rackett to understand if he is presently displaying a “new baseline.” She stated that these are early days in Mr. Rackett’s residence in the community and the treatment team would like to continue to explore housing options for him. Dr. Meng said that the treatment team will continue to support Mr. Rackett and try to find a balance in the treatment which acknowledges the gains that have been made.

13In response to questions from Mr. Feindel, Dr. Meng acknowledged and agreed that with the high level of supervision and monitoring currently available, the treatment team were able to maintain Mr. Rackett residing in the community notwithstanding the observable decompensation in his mental status following his requested reduction in the dosage of his antipsychotic medications. This was the “lower baseline” which Dr. Meng had previously referred to. Dr. Meng agreed that Mr. Rackett had been offered the opportunity to move to a different residence which offers less intrusive 24-hour supervision. Mr. Rackett refused to consider this residence because of the geriatric population which resided there was not consistent with his lifestyle. Mr. Rackett has expressed that he does not wish to live long term in his current residence which he likens to a long-term care (“LTC”) facility. The treatment team continue to consider different high support housing with younger populations. Dr. Meng stated that Mr. Rackett does continue to require support wherever he lives. Although he is an excellent chef, Mr. Rackett does require assistance in activities which require a high degree of stamina such as maintaining his residence and cooking every day. He also requires assistance in navigating the community. Dr. Meng stated that the appropriate level of supervision would reduce the need for Mr. Rackett to have contact with the treatment team. When asked if Mr. Rackett has expressed any intention to move if he were granted a Conditional Discharge, Dr. Meng stated that Mr. Rackett has not expressed any intention to move in with his family but that in his current mental status it has been less possible to have constructive discussions with him about his plans.

14Ms. Perez asked Dr. Meng if Mr. Rackett had demonstrated any gains since he had returned to reside in the community. Dr. Meng stated that early on, Mr. Rackett seemed more institutionalized in that the treatment team could not get him to do anything such as going out without accompaniment. Mr. Rackett is now more independent and more active in the community and his physical health has improved. Dr. Meng stated that in relation to the Deportation Order against him, Mr. Rackett has retained a lawyer and is applying for stay of the Order. Mr. Rackett comes back to CAMH twice a week in order to work on recording his music. His reporting obligations are met either at the hospital or with his case manager in the community. Mr. Rackett does show up to his appointments. Dr. Meng agreed that there have been no positive UDS results in the past two years and no suspicion of use. There have been no readmissions to the hospital in the past year and no violence or threats. Dr. Meng agreed with Ms. Perez that there have been no incidents since July of 2018. However, Dr. Meng added that this is while Mr. Rackett was in the hospital and under very close supervision. Dr. Meng agreed that Mr. Rackett has not expressed any intention to change his housing at the present time and that he is aware that other options are being explored by the treatment team on his behalf.

15Dr. Meng agreed that when Mr. Rackett is well, he displays empathy and is kind and considerate to others. Dr. Meng stated that with respect to behavioural controls, when Mr. Rackett is well, he is able to make good decisions such as abstaining from substances. Dr. Meng agreed that Mr. Rackett’s concerns with the potential side effects from his medication are legitimate. More recently, however, Mr. Rackett has spoken of not requiring any medications at all and this has not historically been his attitude to the medications.

16In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Meng agreed that Mr. Rackett had had significant side effects which were both severe and debilitating as a result of his medications. She stated that he was very unwell before the dose was stabilized. Dr. Meng stated that she would not have reduced the dosage as was requested by Mr. Rackett during the time that he was found to be capable to consent to his medications. Since the reduction in dosage, Dr. Meng stated that Mr. Rackett has reported that some of the side effects have increased. Dr. Meng said there have been no appreciable benefits to Mr. Rackett’s reduction in his medication. He appears to be drinking much more water, and this has caused an issue with his sodium levels. There have been some adverse effects, and Mr. Rackett continues to refuse to eat the food provided for him at the residence.

17Dr. Meng was asked about any plan to increase the medications now that Mr. Rackett has been found to be incapable. She stated that although Mr. Rackett could do better if his medication was optimized again his risk is manageable in his current mental state. Although he may be less well, he can be monitored in the community. Prior to the reduction in his medication Mr. Rackett was more accepting of recommendations from the treatment team. Since the reduction, Mr. Rackett is not at all satisfied with his medications and is fixated and distressed by his current situation. When asked about the requirement of an address if the Board decided to grant a Conditional Discharge, Dr. Meng stated that it would not be necessary because Mr. Rackett’s current residence is transitional housing and the treatment team are actively seeking more permanent accommodation. She believes that Mr. Rackett would remain in the housing under the terms of a Conditional Discharge but that is difficult to predict. In his current mental state Mr. Rackett is more vulnerable to stress.

18Dr. Meng was asked about Mr. Rackett’s propensity for impulsive behaviour contributing to his risk. Dr. Meng stated that at the present time Mr. Rackett’s behaviour is largely directed towards his interactions with the clinical setting. In the social setting he is much more appropriate. He has not demonstrated any anger in the community at the present time. Again, with respect to medications, Dr. Meng agreed with an observation by a member of the panel that Mr. Rackett had been on the current dose of antipsychotic medication in the past. She agreed that he had been stable on that dose at that time but that as his illness evolved over time it was necessary to increase the dosage to the higher level.

19Dr. Meng stated there has not been any significant increase in Mr. Rackett’s insight into his need for medication. She stated that like many other patients suffering from the same or similar illness, he is rigid in his belief that the psychotic experiences he relates actually happened to him. Dr. Meng expressed the necessity of the treatment team continuing to monitor Mr. Rackett over the next reporting period if he remains on the reduced dosage of medication. One of the real concerns is his change in his eating pattern and the potential medical effects that that may have for him. When asked if Mr. Rackett would voluntarily reattend at the hospital under the terms of a Conditional Discharge if requested, Dr. Meng stated, “that depends.” When he is well Mr. Rackett can be cooperative, however, if he were in a decompensated state then it is unlikely that he would voluntarily return to the hospital.

20That concluded the evidence for the hospital.

21Mr. Feindel did not call any evidence.

22Mr. Rackett gave evidence on his own behalf. Prior to his cross-examination Mr. Rackett expressed a desire to “break the ice” by playing some of his music for those in attendance at the hearing. With the permission of the Alternate Chair, Mr. Rackett played two excerpts of songs that he had written for his mother for Mother's Day and for the Toronto Blue Jays and Toronto Raptors. It is to be noted that Mr. Rackett’s songs were well received and appreciated by all those in attendance at the hearing.

23In response to questions from Ms. Perez, Mr. Rackett stated that he planned to stay at his current residence and to work with the treatment team in looking for more appropriate accommodation.

24Mr. Feindel asked Mr. Rackett about a recent conversation found in the Hospital Report where he expressed his views with respect to the right to use cannabis as part of his Rastafarian beliefs. Mr. Rackett stated he did not recall that conversation and that he has not used marijuana in the past 10 years. Mr. Rackett stated that in any event marijuana was legal and it was his constitutional right to use it if he so chose. When asked about his use of marijuana prior to going to Waypoint a number of years ago, Mr. Rackett stated that was treatment.

25When asked by a member of the panel about the possibility that a Conditional Discharge would lead to more supervision by the treatment team, Mr. Rackett said that this did not make sense to him as he would expect to have more liberties under the terms of a Conditional Discharge than under the current Detention Order. Mr. Rackett stated that one of the side effects of the medication is that it has affected his creativity and that he is having difficulties with his voice, but he is not sure what that is caused by. He is also concerned about tardive dyskinesia and embarrassed by its presentation.

Submissions

26Ms. Rosales-Zelaya reiterated the submission made to the outset of the hearing that the necessary and appropriate disposition is the continuation of the current Detention Order. Ms. Rosales-Zelaya submitted that the treatment team needs the authority of approving housing in order to maintain the high level of support which Mr. Rackett requires to maintain his mental status in the community. Ms. Rosales-Zelaya also stated that in the opinion of Dr. Meng and the treatment team, the MHA would not be sufficient to return Mr. Rackett to hospital in the event of a rapid decompensation in his mental state in the community.

27Mr. Feindel adopted and supported the submissions of Ms. Rosales-Zelaya. He congratulated Mr. Rackett on the progress he has shown during his current reintegration into the community. However, Mr. Feindel reminded the Board that the last time Mr. Rackett went into the community, perhaps with less safeguards, support, and supervision, it resulted in in his words, “a massive turnaround in his progress” and a significant decompensation in his mental status which not only resulted in his return to detention but was a significant setback in his overall recovery. Mr. Feindel stated that Mr. Rackett is now on a forward moving pathway, and he did not wish to see Mr. Rackett engage in behaviour which might result in backward steps once again. Mr. Feindel said that housing is a significant part of the “current pillars of support” and vital to Mr. Rackett’s stability in the community.

28Ms. Perez submitted that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a Conditional Discharge. She stated that a residence clause ought not to be included in the discharge as Mr. Rackett’s current residence is transitional housing and the team are actively looking for more permanent accommodation for Mr. Rackett. Ms. Perez stated that Mr. Rackett would not consent to a clause under s. 672.55 of the Criminal Code. Ms. Perez listed for the Board the periods of time that Mr. Rackett had been at Oak Ridge, Ontario Shores, and CAMH along with the number of incidents which occurred at each of those locations. Ms. Perez highlighted that during Mr. Rackett’s tenure at CAMH from 2018 to date there had been no assaultive behaviour. Ms. Perez submitted that looking longitudinally at the past 30 years of Mr. Rackett’s history, the risk is one which can be managed in the community under the terms of a Conditional Discharge. Ms. Perez acknowledged that Mr. Rackett’s dosage of antipsychotic medication had been lowered with a corresponding decompensation in his mental status and perhaps a lower baseline but maintained that the risk could be managed with the assistance of the provisions of the MHA.

Analysis and Disposition

29The threshold issue for the panel to determine is whether or not Mr. Rackett continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. The “significant threat” standard is an onerous one. There must be both a likelihood of a risk materializing and the likelihood that serious harm will occur. An accused is not to be detained based on mere speculation; the Board must be satisfied as to both the existence and gravity of the risk of physical or psychological harm posed by the accused to deny them an absolute discharge. As set out in Winko (1999] 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), 2 S.C.R. 625) the threat must be:

(1) More than speculative in nature and must be supported by the evidence;

(2) Significant in the sense of there being a real risk of physical or psychological harm to individuals in the community and in the sense that this potential harm must be serious; and

(3) The conduct creating the harm must be criminal in nature.

As stated by McLachlin, J. (as she then was) at para. 69

“it is for the court or Review Board, acting in an inquisitorial capacity, to investigate the situation prevailing at the time of the hearing and determine whether the accused poses a significant threat to the safety of the public. If the record does not permit it to conclude that the person constitutes such a threat, the court or Review Board is obliged to make an order for unconditional discharge.”

30The Ontario Court of Appeal re-emphasized the onerous test in Re: Gibson 2022 ONCA 527, per Lauwers J.A. at para. 9:

Huscroft J.A. said in Carrick (Re), 2015 ONCA 866, 128 O.R. (3d) 209, at para. 17, that “the ‘significant threat’ standard is an onerous one”. He added that “[t]he board must be satisfied as to both the existence and gravity of the risk of physical or psychological harm posed by the appellant in order to deny him an absolute discharge.” Mere speculation is insufficient. See also, Sim (Re), 2020 ONCA 563, at paras. 63-65, per Strathy C.J.O., Marmolejo (Re), 2021 ONCA 130, 155 O.R. (3d) 185, per Tulloch J.A., at paras. 33-37.

31At the outset of the hearing, the Board was presented with a joint submission from counsel that Mr. Rackett continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board is unanimous in finding that this joint submission is appropriate and well founded on the evidence. Mr. Rackett has a severe psychotic disorder with ongoing residual symptoms and clinical fragility. Although, as pointed out by Ms. Perez in her able submissions, there have been no overt acts of violence for many years, Mr. Rackett continues to have a history of aggression with heightened psychosis and poor insight into his need for treatment. A recent reduction in his antipsychotic medications which was requested at a time that Mr. Rackett was found to be capable to consent to treatment, has resulted in an observable change in Mr. Rackett’s baseline. The Board accepts the opinion of the treatment team and the hospital that with a real risk of noncompliance with his antipsychotic medications and the possibility of substance use, there is a high likelihood of a re-emergence of psychotic symptoms, manic, impulsive, and reckless behaviour leading to a real risk to the safety of the members of the public.

32Having made the finding that Mr. Rackett is a significant threat, the Board is obliged to consider the provisions of s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code in crafting the necessary and appropriate disposition for the upcoming reporting year. The paramount concern of the Board in drafting this disposition is the safety of the public, but there must also be consideration given to Mr. Rackett’s reintegration into the community and his other needs. Counsel for the hospital and the Crown submitted that the necessary and appropriate disposition was a continuation of the current Detention Order without amendment. Ms. Perez submitted that the necessary and appropriate disposition which is also the least onerous and least restrictive was a Conditional Discharge.

33The Ontario Court of Appeal has recently addressed the longstanding issue of the interplay between the enforcement mechanisms found in a detention disposition and the ability of the hospital to readmit an accused to hospital either voluntarily or utilizing the MHA where that individual is bound by the terms of a conditional discharge disposition. In Ramos (Re), 2025 ONCA 820, the court reiterated that when the accused’s timely return to hospital is a live issue in determining whether to order a conditional discharge or detention order, the Board must also consider whether the Criminal Code’s enforcement provisions in ss. 672.91 to 672.93 would adequately address public safety concerns in the event of a breach of a conditional discharge. Those provisions permit a Justice to order that an accused who breaches a term of a conditional discharge be detained in the hospital.

34The issue of a detention order versus a conditional discharge was more recently before the court in Singh (Re) 2026 ONCA 331 which was released after Mr. Rackett’s hearing was completed. As part of its decision in continuing a detention order for Ms. Singh, the Board in that case found that the provisions of the Mental Health Act would be insufficient to return Ms. Singh to the hospital quickly in the event of a deterioration in her mental status, nor did the panel believe that she would readmit herself voluntarily if she became psychotic. At paragraphs 8 ,9 and 10 of the decision, the Court stated as follows:

“[8] This court has held that, where a conditional discharge has an air of reality, it must be considered: Collins (Re), 2018 ONCA 563, at para. 43. In Ahmadzai (Re), 2020 ONCA 169, this court set aside a detention order on the basis that the Board “gave no meaningful consideration to whether [the appellant’s] risk to the public could be managed under a conditional discharge”: at para. 24. In Ramos (Re), 2025 ONCA 820, 179 O.R. (3d) 126, this court held that where an appellant seeking a conditional discharge proposes safeguards such as a Young clause (by which the accused agrees to attend hospital and submit to assessment or readmission where required) and a treatment compliance obligation, the Board has to consider the proposal carefully. This means considering: (1) whether the evidence and treatment history supported the conclusion that the appellant would not voluntarily attend for treatment; and (2) whether the compulsory mechanisms proposed would not adequately ensure compliance. In that case, the Court held that Mr. Ramos’s history of compliance and voluntary readmission supported a conditional discharge. As to the mechanisms available to ensure compliance, the Court held that the Board erred by not considering the viability of the proposed conditions to address potential treatment refusal. The matter was remitted back to the Board for a new hearing. The Board was specifically directed to consider the effectiveness of a Young clause and treatment compliance condition, considering timelines, enforcement mechanisms, and the appellant’s treatment history.

9As this Court explained in Ramos, s. 672.93(2) of the Criminal Code “empowers courts to order re-confinement in hospital following a breach of conditional discharge … [this] ensures that compulsory readmission is available but subject to judicial authorization, thereby safeguarding liberty while maintaining accountability”: at para. 37. Whether such an order would be appropriate in the case of any particular NCR accused must be decided on the evidence. The Court in the case of Mr. Ramos was not in a position, on the record before it, to assess the nature of the NCR accused’s potential for decompensation – likely, unlikely, slowly, rapidly – and determine whether a Young clause could be judicially enforced on a timeline that would adequately safeguard the public interest. Accordingly, the matter was remitted for a new hearing to consider the question.

10The same result should obtain here. What was needed is a determination of whether a Young clause – together with the other proposed conditions – could practically and effectively address the risk to the public posed by a comparatively stable NCR accused who meets regularly with the treatment team, is compliant with anti-psychotic medication, whose symptoms are managed well with the current medication regime, and who has a commitment of continuing support from the treatment team. The Board would need to make this determination given the evidence of the nature of the appellant’s particular treatment history and likely clinical path to decompensation.”

35The Board has considered all of the evidence heard at the hearing and found in the Hospital Report in the context of the directions from the Ontario Court of Appeal in both Ramos and Singh. It is to be noted that the possibility of the inclusion of a Young clause in the proposed Conditional Discharge was not part of the submissions of counsel for the hospital, the Attorney General and Mr. Rackett. In addition, in her submissions Ms. Perez specifically stated that Mr. Rackett would not consent to a clause under s. 672.55 of the Criminal Code. Mr. Rackett has been under the jurisdiction of the ORB for the past 30 years. Previous attempts to transition Mr. Rackett back to the community have proven unsuccessful. This attempt to reintegrate Mr. Rackett into the community began with his discharge in June of 2024. Prior to that date, he was last residing in the community in 2012. At the present time Mr. Rackett resides in the 24-hour high support transitional housing program operated by LOFT. He has full-time support both at the residence and from the treatment team. He has the support of a community geriatric psychiatrist, along with the FOPS psychiatrist, Dr. Meng. Given the nature of his current transitional housing, the treatment team are actively looking for different residential opportunities for Mr. Rackett. In May of 2025, he refused transfer to a different LOFT residence on the basis that it did not meet his lifestyle.

36In December of 2025, Mr. Rackett was found to be capable to consent to his treatment by Dr. Pearce, who was temporarily replacing Dr. Meng during her leave. Mr. Rackett immediately requested a significant reduction in his antipsychotic medication which was implemented on December 19, 2025. By March of 2026, Mr. Rackett had begun to demonstrate clear signs of clinical instability. He became insensitive and irritable during routine interactions and was found to be more grandiose, antagonistic, demanding and demonstrated emerging signs of instability. Mr. Rackett also requested a further reduction in his antipsychotic medication. At page 78 of the Hospital Report the following paragraphs describes Mr. Rackett’s increasing instability:

“Over the following month, Mr. Rackett continued to exhibit signs of clinical deterioration. He was increasingly more overtly grandiose, labile, and paranoid during clinical interactions. He fixated on injustices in the forensic system and asserted that he was only detained due to racism. He repeatedly characterized the index offence as a minor incident and denied incidents of aggression subsequent to that time. He made frequent religious references of a grandiose nature and accused the team of intentionally sabotaging his music career through medication and being influenced by external forces to impede him. During this period, housing staff periodically reported that he could be heard singing loudly or yelling in his room at night. There were also concerns about excessive water intake and refusal of food at his residence due to paranoia about potential tampering. By April 2026, he was consistently refusing to eat the food provided by his housing.

When assessed in FOPS on April 1, 2026, Mr. Rackett showed signs of further clinical deterioration with associated decline in his judgment. He was fixated on discontinuing zuclopenthixol and switching to Abilify. He showed poor insight into both the current changes in his mental state and his past psychiatric decompensations. He acknowledged prior treatment with Abilify between 2021 and 2022 but rejected feedback that he had responded poorly to this regimen. He was adamant that he really experienced gas poisoning in hospital, which in combination with the stress of COVID restrictions, had informed his distress and behaviour at the time. When his psychiatrist attempted to explain the concerns with returning to Abilify, he responded with anger and paranoia. He loudly interjected that this was “bullshit” and accused his doctor of being subject to an “external influence” from someone that was “meddling” in his affairs. He made several grandiose assertions in regard to being a “mega star” and how this informed the hospital’s attempts to impede his success.”

37On April 2, 2026, Mr. Rackett was found to be incapable to consent to treatment. Mr. Rackett challenge this finding to the Consent and Capacity Board (“CCB”) but it was upheld on April 29, 2026. Notwithstanding the decompensation in Mr. Rackett’s clinical status and the confirmation of the finding of incapacity by the CCB, the treatment team in conjunction with Mr. Rackett’s community psychiatrist elected not to make any changes to Mr. Rackett’s medication regimen.

38Dr. Meng testified that in her clinical opinion the MHA would not be sufficient to allow the treatment team to return Mr. Rackett to hospital expeditiously in the event of further decompensation in his mental status. Dr. Meng specifically addressed both the Box A and Box B provisions of the MHA and stated that the risk to the safety of the public could not be properly managed at this time under the terms of the Conditional Discharge. Dr. Meng also testified that the 24-hour high support housing which Mr. Rackett currently is provided is an essential tool to his safe management in the community. Although the team is currently attempting to locate alternative housing, this is in recognition of the transitional nature of his present residence, and any move will be to similar high support accommodation. Dr. Meng stated that the treatment team need the ability to approve Mr. Rackett’s residence.

39The Board acknowledges Ms. Perez’s submissions outlining Mr. Rackett’s history for the past 30 years. The Board accepts that there have been few incidents of assaultive type behaviour and those that have occurred could not properly be characterized as violent in nature or causing serious bodily or psychological harm. During virtually all of the time referred to by Ms. Perez, Mr. Rackett was detained in the high support environment of a psychiatric hospital. Mr. Rackett has now resided in the community for almost two years without any notable incidents. However, the Board must take note of recent events as they relate to Mr. Rackett’s current mental status and his risk to the safety of the community. As set out in detail in the Hospital Report and summarized above, over the past several months there has been an observable and notable decompensation in Mr. Rackett’s mental status. Out of respect for Mr. Rackett’s wishes and his well-being, the treatment team have elected not to impose any increase in his antipsychotic medications. Notwithstanding what appears to be a new baseline for Mr. Rackett, Dr. Meng and the treatment team are of the opinion that Mr. Rackett can be safely managed in the community under the terms of the current Detention Order. The Board is unanimous in agreeing with this opinion.

DATED this 12th day of June, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.

Mr. G. Beasley

Alternate Chairperson

__________________

Office of the Registrar

Ontario Review Board