Re: Andris Williams
ORB File No: 8625
Hearing held on: Thursday, May 7, 2026
Place of hearing: Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care
Pursuant to: Sections 672.48(1) and 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: Andris Williams Counsel: Mr. R. Browne (via Zoom)
Person in charge of hospital: Representative: Ms. T. Newman
Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. J. Armenise
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated May 29, 2026)
Introduction
On August 29, 2024, Mr. Andris Williams was found unfit to stand trial on charges of aggravated assault and obstruct peace officer, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (the "Criminal Code").
Mr. Williams is currently subject to a Detention Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”), dated November 5, 2024, detaining him at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (“CAMH”) with residual authority, until his transfer to CAMH, at the High Secure Provincial Programs of the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care (“Waypoint” or the “hospital”). The outer limit of his privileges at Waypoint is hospital and grounds privileges, beyond the secure perimeter, escorted by staff.
On May 7, 2026, a panel of the Board convened an in-person hearing pursuant to s. 672.48(1) and s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. In accordance with s.672.48(1) of the Criminal Code, the Board must decide whether Mr. Williams is fit to stand trial on the day of the hearing within the meaning of s. 2 of the Criminal Code. If Mr. Williams is found to be unfit to stand trial but not permanently so, the Board must make a Disposition that is necessary and appropriate, considering the criteria set forth in s.672.54 of the Criminal Code.
Mr. Williams was present at the hearing and represented by his lawyer, Mr. R. Browne, who attended the hearing via Zoom.
The Board had before it a Hospital Report dated October 14, 2025, containing an update dated April 8, 2026, which was entered as Exhibit 1.
For the reasons set out below and based on the evidence and expert opinions before it, this Board has concluded that Mr. Williams is unfit to stand trial. The Board also found that the necessary and appropriate Disposition required to manage the threat posed to the public by Mr. Williams is a continuation of the current Detention Disposition detaining him at CAMH, with residual authority vesting with Waypoint until his transfer is effectuated.
Preliminary Matter
- At 15:23 on May 4, 2026, less than 72 hours prior to the scheduled hearing commencement time, a Virtual Attendance Request was transmitted to the Board offices. The Request from Patient’s Counsel, Russell Browne states:
Counsel is located in southern Ontario (Oakville) and is unable to travel due to a medical condition.
Counsel has a lengthy period of time with accused and is familiar with the issues.
The hearing will be uncontested.
- While the virtual attendance request was granted on the morning of May 6, 2026, the panel was cognizant of the following Board Reasons and case specific materials:
RE D.P., ORB File No: 8368, Reasons for Ruling, dated September 28, 2023;
November 24, 2025, Reasons for Adjournment which states:
Mr. Russell Browne was noted as counsel of record. He did not attend for the hearing and was unable to be reached. A message was left at his office. Accordingly there was not alternative but to adjourn the hearing to a pre-hearing conference date for Mr. Williams who has been found unfit to stand trial.
- February 10, 2026, Pre Hearing Conference Report, which states in part:
Mr. Brown will make an application to the Board to appear virtually.
- February 19, 2026, Pre Hearing Conference Report, which states in part:
Addendum: Subsequent to the PHC, the hospital informed the Board that May 7, 2026 at 1:00 p.m. has been held for Mr. Williams’ hearing. For this reason, and on consent of the parties the June 9, 2026, hearing date shall be vacated, and Mr. Williams’ hearing is scheduled for May 7, 2026, at 1:00 p.m.
Initial Positions of the Parties
At the outset of the hearing the parties were canvassed as to their without prejudice recommendations. The hospital representative, Ms. Newman, stated that Mr. Williams remains unfit to stand trial. She recommended a continuation of the current Disposition.
Counsel for the Attorney General supported the hospital’s position.
Counsel for Mr. Williams reserved his position regarding fitness until the conclusion of the evidence.
Outstanding Charges
- The circumstances giving rise to the outstanding charges are set out in the Hospital Report in detail and are extracted, in part, as follows:
“On Tuesday, April 9th, 2024, at approximately 11:48 PM, the victim, [male name] MOHAMED, was present at the Westwood Mall in the area of 7205 Goreway Drive, in the City of Mississauga.
At that time, the victim and the accused engaged in a verbal altercation that culminated in the accused stabbing the victim in the face. The victim suffered a large laceration on his face. He was subsequently transported to Etobicoke General Hospital where he was treated for the laceration. The victim received 15 stitches and 7 staples. The injuries sustained by the victim were not life threatening.
On April 10, 2024, at 12:15 AM, the accused was arrested for one count of Aggravated Assault, contrary to section 268(1) Criminal Code of Canada.
The accused was read his rights to counsel and cautioned at 12:18 AM, all of which he indicated that he understood.
The accused was transported to 12 division where he was held pending a bail hearing. The accused is identifying as Joseph WILLIAMS, DOB: 1963/06/06 Police have reason to believe that the male is being deceptive with his identification, as he is stating that he is born in the year 1963, although his appearance does not match. The name being provided by the accused does not have a driver’s licence and has no prior dealings with police so we cannot confirm his identity. The accused provides a DOB of 1963 although when asked his age, he states he is 15 years old. At this time, the male is being treated as a John DOE.
Further queries revealed that the accused party was identified as Andris WILLIAMS. At 7:48 AM the accused, Andris WILLIAMS was arrested for an additional charge of Obstruct Peace Officer, contrary to section 129(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada.”
Background Information and Course During the Reporting Year
The Hospital Report details Mr. Williams’ personal background and history and will not be repeated extensively herein. Briefly, Mr. Williams is a 51-year-old father of five. He was born in St. Vincent. He arrived in Canada in 2006. Reports suggest that he is in Canada illegally and is listed as an “Offender of Interest” by Citizenship and Immigration Canada.
Mr. Williams is diagnosed with Schizophrenia.
Mr. Williams has a brief history of psychiatric admissions or visits to hospital commencing on January 3, 2020. In February 2020, Mr. Williams was assessed in the Emergency Room at Etobicoke General Hospital and diagnosed with “paranoid disorder”. He was not certifiable under the Mental Health Act (“MHA”) and was discharged.
Mr. Williams does not have a criminal offence history prior to the commission of the alleged offences.
Mr. Williams is capable of consenting to his psychiatric treatment. He is compliant with his medication. When asked if it is helpful he nods in the affirmative but does not elaborate.
In the hospital, Mr. Williams resided on the Forensic Assessment Program unit B until his transfer to Beausoleil B in October 2025. He remains under the care of Dr. W. Komer.
Mr. Williams has not displayed any aggression during the reporting period.
Dr. Komer has met Mr. Williams on several occasions to assess his fitness to stand trial. On September 9, 2025, Mr. Williams did not know his charges, the pleas available, or the roles of court officials. Mr. Williams met with Waypoint’s psychometrist for fitness coaching on September 17, 2025. When asked the Taylor Test questions, Mr. Williams responded, “No, tell me” to each question. On September 23, 2025, he did not know what his charges were, nor the role of the judge. However, he accurately identified the role of his lawyer and the meaning of not guilty. He agreed to continue meeting with the psychometrist for fitness coaching.
In advance of the originally scheduled November 2025 ORB hearing, Mr. Williams participated in seven fitness coaching sessions. His tolerance was low, and he typically disengaged within ten to fifteen minutes. He had a propensity to answer fitness questions with “don’t know” and became dismissive and guarded when answering questions surrounding the alleged offences. He refused to acknowledge his charges.
When Dr. Komer questioned Mr. Williams about the court process on February 17, 2026, Mr. Williams said that he did not know his charges, the available pleas, or the role of the judge, Crown, or defence lawyer.
Oral Evidence at the Hearing
Dr. Komer, Mr. Williams’ attending psychiatrist, provided oral evidence at the hearing.
Dr. Komer testified that he assessed Mr. Williams’ fitness to stand trial the morning of this hearing. Dr. Komer asked Mr. Williams questions regarding the charges against him, plea options, who the court officers are in a courtroom, and the meaning of guilty and not guilty. Mr. Williams did not provide appropriate responses to any of the questions asked by Dr. Komer. In response to Dr. Komer’s questions, Mr. Williams said that the judge talks, and the crown attorney talks. It was Dr. Komer’s opinion that Mr. Williams does not have a reality-based understanding of the nature of the proceedings.
Mr. Williams has been provided with fitness coaching since March 2, 2026. Mr. Williams met with the psychometrist for several sessions of fitness coaching. The psychometrist noted that Mr. Williams is not able to understand the nature of the proceedings nor the object of the proceedings. Dr. Komer stated that he meets with Mr. Williams regularly regarding fitness and has also provided Mr. Williams with information about the nature and object of the proceedings.
Dr. Komer testified that the barriers to Mr. Williams achieving fitness include negative symptoms of schizophrenia, poverty of thought, and lack of motivation. There have been times when Mr. Williams understands some fitness questions, but his understanding has been inconsistent. Mr. Williams may have more of an understanding of the fitness questions that he is not communicating. However, there continue to be issues with Mr. Williams’ thinking that would make it hard for him to communicate with counsel and the court.
There is a possibility that Mr. Williams will become fit. Mr. Williams is now calmer than when he first came to Waypoint. However, he continues to have psychomotor slowing, poverty of thought, and lack of motivation. Therefore, his road to fitness to stand trial may be slow.
Dr. Komer stated that Mr. Williams has been blunt that he wishes to stay at Waypoint.
In response to questions from Mr. Browne, Dr. Komer stated that Mr. Williams’ lack of court experience in court is not a fitness issue because he has been provided with information regarding the court process from both the psychometrist and himself. Dr. Komer stated that Mr. Williams has been unable to verbalize his understanding of the court process. He will have problems making reality-based decisions due to his poverty of thought.
In response to questions of the Board, Dr. Komer testified that he did not know Mr. Williams’ immigration status beyond what is outlined in the Hospital Report. He stated that it was possible that Mr. Williams’ objective to stay at Waypoint may relate to his immigration status. However, Dr. Komer has not asked Mr. Williams if that is the case.
Submissions
The hospital submitted that although Mr. Williams has had more engagement with Dr. Komer this year, he is still not able to communicate answers to fitness questions and is unable to make reality-based decisions. Therefore, he is unable to participate meaningfully in his defence. Mr. Williams is unfit to stand trial likely due to the negative symptoms of schizophrenia that he continues to experience. Mr. Williams has always been unfit to stand trial when assessed by the hospital.
Counsel for the Attorney General submitted that Waypoint has noted sustained observation of Mr. Williams over a long period of time. The conclusion arising from these observations is that Mr. Williams is unfit to stand trial.
Counsel for Mr. Williams submitted that Mr. Williams is fit to stand trial. Mr. Williams may be experiencing fluctuating lucidity but on the date of this hearing he is fit to stand trial. Mr. Williams is not experienced in criminal matters, and he is from another country. Mr. Browne states that Mr. Williams was able to articulate the charges to him and able to state that he is not guilty of those charges.
Analysis and Conclusion
FITNESS
- The Board has carefully considered the documentary evidence and oral evidence of Dr. Komer and unanimously concludes that Mr. Williams remains unfit to stand trial. The Board reviewed the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R v Bharwani, 2025 SCC 26, para 6, which states:
“[A]n accused is fit to stand trial when they are able to make and communicate reality-based decisions in the conduct of their defence or instruct counsel to do so. Conducting a defence includes making decisions that an accused must always make personally and those which relate to the exercise of their right to full answer and defence, such as decisions about pleas, the mode of trial, selection of counsel, whether to testify, whether to call or cross-examine witnesses, and closing submissions, among others. The capacity required to make those decisions is a reality-based understanding of the nature or object of the proceedings and their possible consequences, an ability to understand the available options and their consequences, and an ability to select between those options when making decisions. Fitness to stand trial does not require an accused to make decisions in their best interests. Rather, it requires making decisions based on an understanding of reality that is not overwhelmed by delusions, hallucinations, or other symptoms of their mental disorder. Transient mental health symptoms do not necessarily compromise an accused’s ability to conduct a defence. The focus is always on assessing the extent to which an accused’s mental disorder impairs their understanding of reality when making and communicating decisions in their defence.”
- The panel is aware of the serious consequences of a finding of unfitness to stand trial, including the loss of the accused’s liberty, and appreciates that such a finding must not be made lightly (Bharwani, 2025 SCC 26 at para. 73). The Board found Dr. Komer’s evidence was clear that Mr. Williams’ negative symptoms of schizophrenia, including poverty of thought and lack of motivation, are currently barriers to him achieving fitness to stand trial. As of the morning of the hearing, Dr. Komer assessed Mr. Williams as being unable to make reality-based decisions. The Board accepted Dr. Komer’s expert opinion that Mr. Williams would not be able to be meaningfully present nor meaningfully participate in a trial at this time.
NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE DISPOSITION
Having found Mr. Williams remains unfit to stand trial, but not permanently so, the Board must make a Disposition that is necessary and appropriate, considering the criteria delineated in s.672.54 of the Criminal Code.
Evidence supports that a continuation of the Detention Disposition with no change to terms is the necessary and appropriate, least restrictive and least onerous Disposition to manage Mr. Williams’ risk to the public. The parties did not contest this issue.
Mr. Browne represented Mr. Williams at the prior October 15, 2024, hearing at which time he attended virtually. Mr. Williams’ current annual hearing was originally scheduled for November 24, 2025. However, Mr. Browne, counsel of record, did not attend the hearing and was unable to be contacted. Therefore, the matter was adjourned to a prehearing conference. At the prehearing conference on February 10, 2026, Mr. Williams’ hearing date was set for February 26, 2026, and Mr. Browne was appointed counsel. The hearing date was subsequently re-scheduled for May 7, 2026, to accommodate Dr. Komer’s availability. On May 4, 2026, Mr. Brown requested to again appear virtually. The panel requests that Mr. Browne make full efforts to ensure that he is available in person for the next scheduled annual hearing. It is the Board’s position that virtual attendance at hearings was a temporary measure instituted during the COVID 19 pandemic. Although legitimate medical reasons may provide an exceptional circumstance for attendance of counsel via Zoom, this panel does not consider significant travel an exceptional circumstance.
The Board has carefully considered s.672.54 of the Criminal Code, which provides guidance regarding the factors to be considered when making a disposition. The Board finds that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a Detention Order, as per our formal Disposition.
DATED this 29th day of May 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Ms. C. Murray
Legal Member
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board