Re: William James
ORB File No: 5660
Hearing held on: Thursday, May 7, 2026
Place of hearing: Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. P. Capelle
Members: Dr. P.L. Darby Dr. L.O. Lightfoot Ms. C. Murray Ms. M. McKinnon
Parties Appearing:
Accused: William James Counsel: Ms. C. Francis (by Zoom)
Person in charge of Hospital: Representative: Ms. T. Murdock
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. J. Armenise
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated June 10, 2026)
Introduction
On July 20, 2010, William James was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on two charges of assault, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (the "Code"). Mr. James is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the "Board") dated May 1, 2025, detaining him at the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care - High Secure Provincial Forensic Programs, Penetanguishene (“Waypoint”), with privileges up to live in the community in 24-hour per day specialized supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge.
On May 7, 2026, a panel of the Ontario Review Board (the "ORB" or the "Board") convened a hearing pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Code.
Preliminary Issue
- Mr. James was not present for this hearing. Ms. Francis advised that he was recently discharged from hospital and is currently designated as requiring “an alternate level of care.” She has spoken with him and has instructions to proceed in his absence. The Board therefore excused Mr. James’ presence due to the state of his physical health per s. 672.5(10) of the Code.
Without Prejudice Position of the Parties
Ms. Murdock advised that at the time of the writing of the March 24, 2026, Hospital Report significant threat was a live issue. However, this may have changed, and Dr. Mishra would address that specific point.
Ms. Armenise advised that the Crown expects to join in the hospital recommendation but remains open to a change pending the doctor’s evidence.
Ms. Francis, on behalf of Mr. James, stated that she agrees with the current Disposition and would concede significant threat if it is found to remain.
Background and Index Offences
Mr. James was born in Windsor, Ontario, the younger of two children. His mother, Arlene James, worked in a factory and has since passed away. His father, Norman James, worked various odd jobs and died in his late 50s. Mr. James's brother was approximately 15 years older than him; Mr. James has reported that his brother is also now deceased. He described his brother as an alcoholic who worked as an accountant and lived in London, Ontario.
Mr. James had a normal birth and developed physically without complications. During his teenage years, he displayed a range of behavioral problems, including stealing, fighting, lying, and skipping school. He completed Grade 11 but reported having a learning disability that affected his spelling and math skills.
Mr. James worked at Chrysler from age 25 to 32. He reported leaving because he felt unwelcome and ignored by his coworkers. He has been receiving Ontario Disability Support Program (“ODSP”) benefits since approximately 2005.
Mr. James married at age 21 and had three children. He reported that his daughter died in a car accident at age 6. Five years later, while he was visiting his mother, his wife and two remaining children died in a house fire. Mr. James reported marrying a second time but separated from his second wife in approximately 2005 after physically assaulting her.
The circumstances of the index offences are taken from last year’s Reasons for Disposition as follows:
“On April 18, 2010, Mr. James was an inpatient at St. Thomas Regional Mental Health Centre. He assaulted a female co-patient by punching her in the face. On May 19, 2010, Mr. James assaulted a male co-patient at St. Thomas Regional Mental Health Centre by punching him in the head area several times.”
Current Diagnoses
Bipolar Disorder Type 1
Major Neurocognitive Disorder due to possible frontotemporal degeneration
Alcohol Use Disorder, in sustained remission, in a controlled environment
Antisocial Personality Disorder (by history)
Evidence at Hearing
Dr. Mishra advised that he agrees with and adopts the contents of the Hospital Report. In mid-March of 2026, Mr. James received medications intended for a patient with the same initials. As a result, he was hospitalized for 11 days from March 15 to 26 and may have suffered a heart attack. Since returning to the Awenda Unit, his physical health has significantly declined. He is no longer aware of the date and time. Frailty is now a significant issue. Mr. James must now be watched while he eats due to the risk of choking. He now has a tendency to develop pneumonia. The risk of serious violence as a result of his physical health decline has subsided. Mr. James now presents as confused, even when doing relatively well. Management has therefore been medical rather than psychiatric since his return from hospital.
Dr. Mishra stated that having seen the change in Mr. James since the writing of the Hospital Report, he presents like any other frail person in a medical care facility. Mr. James now lies in bed for most of the day. When Mr. James does ambulate, he no longer represents a significant threat. If his mobility was good, which it is not, he would remain a significant threat. His psychiatric diagnoses remain as indicated. His dementia continues to progress. In the event he receives an absolute discharge he would remain on Awenda. In the event he tried to leave Waypoint, the Mental Health Act could be used to detain him on the basis of his incapacity to consent to treatment.
Dr. Mishra opined that it is unlikely Mr. James will rebound from his current medical state as his frailty continues to increase. Therefore, Mr. James will remain on Awenda until a long-term care bed can be found for him. Efforts in this regard continue. Dr. Mishra agreed with Ms. Armenise’s suggestion that the current issue of greatest concern is Mr. James’ physical care needs and that a long-term care facility is able to choose who they will accept as a patient.
Responding to questions from Ms. Francis, Dr. Mishra agreed that if granted an absolute discharge at this juncture little would change vis-à-vis the management of Mr. James. He requires a long-term care facility to manage his physical needs. It would be easier to place him in a long-term care facility beyond the Waypoint catchment area if he were no longer under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board. A panel member inquired if all placement options have been explored. Dr. Mishra responded that they had, adding that Mr. James is very ill. The search for a placement has escalated Ontario-wide for providers of Alternative Levels of Care. It is unlikely that he can be placed at present until his medical condition stabilizes. In any event, he will require high levels of support.
Dr. Mishra agreed with a panelist’s suggestion that Mr. James no longer meets the legal threshold as set out in Winko for the ongoing presence of significant threat. Mr. James now experiences acute episodes of delirium that further compound his cognitive difficulties. Dr. Mishra characterizes Mr. James as chronically delirious. Although they have not been canvassed, Dr. Mishra is confident that other members of the treatment team would not oppose an absolute discharge for Mr. James in the circumstances.
Closing Observations
Ms. Murdock advised that as the representative of the hospital she is required to maintain the position that Mr. James remains a significant threat and that the current Disposition should be renewed absent any changes. However, Dr. Mishra’s evidence is that Mr. James no longer meets the threshold for significant threat. Mr. James will remain at Waypoint where both his mental and physical health will be attended to until such time as an appropriate long-term placement can be found.
Ms. Armenise submitted that an absolute discharge is appropriate in the circumstances given that Mr. James no longer represents a significant threat to public safety.
Ms. Francis submitted that her client’s only concern is that he will be cared for. Mr. James wishes to go to a long-term care facility, and it will be easier to find an appropriate placement somewhere in Ontario subsequent to receipt of an absolute discharge.
Analysis and Decision
(a) Significant Threat
Ongoing significant threat to the safety of the public cannot be speculative. It must entail a real risk of serious physical or psychological harm arising from conduct that is both serious and criminal in nature.
In determining whether Mr. James continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public the Board carefully analyzed the evidence as it relates to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Winko, 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625.
The Board unanimously finds that Mr. James no longer poses a significant threat to the safety of the public. In arriving at this determination, the Board considered the joint position of the parties and accepted the uncontroverted evidence of Dr. Mishra that Mr. James is chronically delirious and now spends the majority of his time in bed. Whenever Mr. James does ambulate, he now presents as would any other frail person requiring high levels of support.
(b) Disposition
- Flowing from this panel of the Board’s independent finding that Mr. James no longer poses a significant threat to the safety of the public he is entitled to an absolute discharge.
Conclusion
- In making this Disposition, the Board carefully considered the positions and submissions of the parties and the evidence of Dr. Mishra and is satisfied that this determination is both necessary and appropriate. The Board reviewed the provisions of s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code and carefully considered the need to protect the public from dangerous persons, Mr. James’s mental condition, his reintegration into society and other needs.
DATED this 10th day of June 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. P. Capelle Alternate Chairperson
__________________
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board