Re Peter McArthur, 2026 CanLII 56728

Re: Peter McArthur

ORB File No: 6902

Hearing held on: Tuesday, May 5, 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: Peter McArthur

Counsel: Ms. C. Francis (via Zoom)

The person in charge of hospital: Representative: Ms. T. Newman

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. S. Curry

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated June 2, 2026)

Introduction

1. On January 20, 2016, Mr. Peter McArthur was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder ("NCR") on a charge of second-degree murder, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada ("Criminal Code"). At the time of the hearing, Mr. McArthur was ordered detained at the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care – High Secure Provincial Forensic Programs ("Waypoint" or "the hospital").

2. On May 5, 2026, a panel of the Board convened to review Mr. McArthur's Disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. McArthur's lawyer, Ms. Francis, requested permission for her client to be absent from the hearing due to his physical condition. Under the circumstances the Board permitted Mr. McArthur to be absent from the hearing pursuant to s.672.5(10)(a).

3. A Hospital Report dated March 31, 2026, was marked as Exhibit 1.

4. The issues to be decided at the hearing were whether Mr. McArthur continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public as set out in s.672.5401 of the Criminal Code, and, if so, what is the necessary and appropriate Disposition to manage that risk having regard to the criteria set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

5. For the reasons set out below, the panel found that Mr. McArthur continues to pose a significant threat to public safety. The panel concluded that the necessary and appropriate Disposition, which is also the least onerous and least restrictive in the circumstances, is a continuation of the Detention Order with no change to the terms.

Position of the Parties

6. At the outset of the hearing, the parties were asked for their initial without prejudice positions. On behalf of the hospital, Ms. Newman took the position that Mr. McArthur remains a significant threat to the safety of the public, and that a Detention Order with no change to the terms was necessary and appropriate.

7. Ms. Shannon Curry supported the position of the hospital on behalf of the Attorney General.

8. Ms. Francis conceded the issue of significant threat and supported the position of the hospital. She requested that Mr. McArthur's hearings be held every two years rather than annually as is regular practice.

9. The hospital and Ms. Curry consented to the hearing being held every two years.

10. The parties maintained their respective positions in closing submissions.

Findings

11. For the reasons set out below, the panel found that Mr. McArthur continues to pose a significant threat to public safety. The panel concluded that the necessary and appropriate Disposition, which is also the least onerous and least restrictive in the circumstances, is a continuation of the Detention Order with no change to the terms. The Board also determined that the criteria for holding subsequent hearings every twenty-four months pursuant to s. 672.81(1.1) of the Criminal Code, were met and so ordered.

672.81(1.1) Despite subsection (1), the Review Board may extend the time for holding a hearing to a maximum of twenty-four months after the making or reviewing of a disposition if the accused is represented by counsel and the accused and the Attorney General consent to the extension.

Psychiatric Diagnoses

12. Schizophrenia;

Substance Abuse Disorder, in remission in a controlled environment;

Antisocial Personality Disorder

Index Offence

13. Details of the index offence are set out in the Hospital Report and are summarized as follows:

On November 15, 2013, Mr. McArthur was sitting on a bench in downtown North Bay. An acquaintance sat beside him on the bench, and after a few moments Mr. McArthur stabbed the man causing his death.

Background

14. The Hospital Report describes Mr. McArthur's background in detail and need not be extensively repeated here. In summary, Mr. McArthur is a 66-year-old man born in Toronto with a grade eight education.

15. Mr. McArthur started using substances at nine years of age and smoked cannabis daily by age 13. Substance use throughout the years has included cannabis, morphine, cocaine, crack cocaine, speed, and prescription opiates.

16. From September 1 to 25, 1979, Mr. McArthur was admitted to the Queen Street Mental Health Centre with differential diagnoses including personality disorder – explosive personality and drug addiction, organically induced behaviour disorder, and schizophrenia. From September 25 to November 14, 1979, he was admitted to Mental Health Centre Penetanguishene (now Waypoint) and discharged following his appearance before the Central Ontario Board of Review. He had an involuntary admission to Whitby Psychiatric Hospital for Drug-Induced Psychosis from November 7, 1980, to February 2, 1981.

17. Mr. McArthur has an extensive criminal history commencing in 1976. In October 1981, Mr. McArthur killed both his parents. He was found not guilty by reason of insanity. He was diagnosed with schizophrenia. He was detained in forensic psychiatric hospitals, first at the Penetanguishene and then North Bay. He married in 2004 and was given an Absolute Discharge in 2005.

18. Following the Absolute Discharge, Mr. McArthur returned to substance use. He did not regularly attend appointments to receive his injectable antipsychotic medication. His mental condition deteriorated, which resulted in several admissions to hospitals in North Bay and Toronto between 2006 and the current index offence.

19. In April 2010, Mr. McArthur was charged with assaulting his wife.

20. This past reporting year, Mr. McArthur has resided on Beausoleil B, one of the least structured programs within the High Secure Provincial Forensic Division. His psychiatrist changed from Dr. J. Van Impe to Dr. A. Bunker in August 2025.

21. Over the reporting year, Mr. McArthur has remained psychiatrically stable. He has not demonstrated overt psychosis and has not reported significant mood symptoms. He has remained capable of consenting to his own medications and accepts treatment with two antipsychotics.

22. Mr. McArthur continues to demonstrate a lack of motivation to address his risk factors. Since his admission to Waypoint in 2016, Mr. McArthur has had minimal involvement in therapeutic services and interventions. Consistent with the previous review period, Mr. McArthur maintains the highest security level available at Waypoint, permitting four hours off-unit access.

23. Mr. McArthur works five mornings each week at the Upholstery Shop, where he does laundry and tags clothing items for patients.

24. Mr. McArthur has numerous chronic medical issues. He has a medical grade bed and uses a rollator walker to assist with his limited mobility and chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder. He is assessed as a high risk for falls. In November 2025, Mr. McArthur completed a Montreal Cognitive Assessment ("MoCA"), receiving scores that indicate a mild cognitive impairment.

Oral Evidence at the Hearing

25. Dr. A. Bunker provided oral evidence at the hearing to supplement the documentary evidence, as follows:

a. She has been the attending psychiatrist for Mr. McArthur since August 2025.

b. Mr. McArthur has no desire to leave Waypoint. Historically, Mr. McArthur has wanted to remain at Waypoint.

c. Mr. McArthur finds his hearings stressful. Therefore, Dr. Bunker agrees with his request for hearings to occur every other year. Dr. Bunker stated that Mr. McArthur's cognitive ability will decline as he ages. The treatment team has seen some mild cognitive changes this year. If Mr. McArthur's impairments got to the point in the next two years that he requires additional supports or a change in Disposition, the hospital would request an early hearing. Mr. McArthur will be relieved if his future hearings are scheduled for every two years.

d. It is the unanimous opinion of the treatment team that Mr. McArthur should remain at Waypoint. It would be very stressful for Mr. McArthur to leave Waypoint.

e. Despite his mobility issues, Mr. McArthur is still capable of causing physical harm to others. By extension, he is capable of causing psychological harm.

f. Mr. McArthur continues to work 5 days per week.

26. In response to questions of the panel, Dr. Bunker stated that Mr. McArthur's functional needs are changing. As an example, Mr. McArthur forgot to turn off the stove on one occasion. Therefore, the occupational therapist attends the kitchen with Mr. McArthur each time he cooks. Additionally, Mr. McArthur has forgotten a procedure involved in tagging clothes that he has done for years at work. There is a plan to monitor his cognitive decline into the future including more frequently administering the MoCA and ongoing changes to his supports.

27. No further evidence was called by the parties.

Analysis and Conclusions

28. Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence, the Board independently concluded that Mr. McArthur continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. Mr. McArthur has a long history of psychiatric illness, substance use, and violence.

29. Mr. McArthur's medication regimen and abstinence from substances, along with the consistent supports and close supervision at Waypoint, have been the primary contributing factors to his psychiatric stability this reporting year. Mr. McArthur has remained unmotivated to move forward in the forensic system and has expressed his desire to remain at Waypoint. Mr. McArthur received an Absolute Discharge in 2005 during a period when he was highly motivated to be independent from the Board. Regardless of that motivation, he resumed drug use, was inconsistently adherent to medication, and was ultimately unable to maintain his mental health culminating in violently re-offending.

30. The Board agrees with Dr. Bunker's opinion at page 96 of the Hospital Report, with portions extracted as follows:

"It is my opinion that Mr. McArthur remains a significant threat to the safety

of the public. His history well supports this to be the case. Mr. McArthur

remains ambulatory, independent, and, at this point, retains the cognitive

capacity to act as he did when he thrice perpetrated homicide. That is, his

physical and cognitive limitations are not yet so great that they

meaningfully mitigate his other risk factors for violence."

31. In consideration of all the evidence, the joint submissions of the parties, and the criteria set forth in s. 672.54, the paramount consideration being the safety of the public, in addition to the mental condition of Mr. McArthur, his reintegration into society and his other needs, the necessary and appropriate disposition is a Detention Disposition with no change in conditions, as set out in our formal Disposition.

DATED this 2nd day of June 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.

Ms. C. Murray

Legal Member

__________________

Office of the Registrar

Ontario Review Board