Ontario Review Board
Re: Kyle J. Windle
ORB File No: 4521
Hearing held on: Monday, April 20, 2026
Place of Hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. P. Hageraats
Members: Dr. W. Johnston
Dr. R. Cormier
Mr. D. D’Intino
Mr. M. Hajek
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Kyle J. Windle
Counsel: Mr. M. Davies
Person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. J. Gojer
Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. M. Dufort
REASONS FOR DECISION
(Dated May 25, 2026)
NOTE TO READER: For More Complete information, please refer to recent Reasons for Disposition, dated February 17, 2026
On July 12, 2006, Mr. Kyle J. Windle was tried in court under the Criminal Code of Canada on charges of assault with a weapon (x2), assault, possession of a weapon (x2), robbery, aggravated assault, fail to comply with undertaking (x2), and theft under $5,000.
On the same court date, and based on psychiatric evidence presented, the Court ruled that Mr. Windle was not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”).
Mr. Windle is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB” or the “Board”) dated January 14, 2026, ordering his detention at the Secure Forensic Unit of the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre (“ROMHC” or “the hospital”).
The Disposition awarded Mr. Windle community access privileges, including the ability to live in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
For several years, Mr. Windle has lived in hospital-approved group homes. His most recent placement was at Jericho House in Ottawa, where he lived from October 14, 2025, until the end of January 2026.
On March 6, 2026, the hospital admitted Mr. Windle to the ROMHC Forensic Assessment Unit (“FAU”). This resulted in a loss of privileges, in that Mr. Windle was left with no ability to access other areas of the hospital or grounds, much less to venture into the community.
By letter dated March 12, 2026, the hospital advised the Board of the ongoing restriction of liberty. Consequently, the Board was called upon to inquire into whether the restriction was justified.
On April 20, 2026, the Board convened at the hospital to conduct a review. Mr. Windle was present. He was represented by counsel, Mr. Michael Davies, for whom an Order was made, appointing him as counsel.
The Board received direct testimony from the attending psychiatrist, Dr. Julian Gojer. A cumulative hospital report, dated April 15, 2026, also formed part of the evidence.
The issues at the hearing were whether the hospital’s decision to restrict Mr. Windle’s liberties was necessary and appropriate at the time of its onset and whether it continues to be warranted.
Positions of the Parties
The hospital representative and counsel for the Attorney-General advised that the restriction of liberty was necessary and appropriate at the time and that this continues to be the case, given the need to identify suitable housing for Mr. Windle.
In contrast, counsel for Mr. Windle advised that the restriction was not warranted at the time it began on March 6, nor is it justified going forward.
For the reasons set out below, the Board found that the initial restriction, imposed on March 6, 2026, was justified but only until March 13, 2026, and not thereafter.
The Board also required the hospital to transfer Mr. Windle forthwith to a unit where he may access all privileges contained in the Disposition, if it is clinically appropriate to do so.
Lastly, the Board concluded that the existing disposition, dated January 14, 2026, should remain in effect, without change.
- Schizoaffective disorder, Bipolar type
- Obsessive-compulsive disorder
- Alcohol use disorder
- Cannabis use disorder
Mr. Windle is treated with psychiatric medications, administrated orally. These include Clozapine, Lithium and Sertraline.
Mr. Windle has not harmed anyone since the 2006 index offenses. His admissions to hospital over the years were related to non-compliance with treatment, substance use or fluctuating illness. Summaries are set out in the hospital report. Documented are various episodes of poor impulse control, inability to sustain himself in the community without abstaining from drugs or alcohol, attention seeking behaviours, lack of stability in any group home and low-grade antisocial behaviours.
As described by the treatment team, including the social worker, Mr. Windle does better in a structured setting, including in hospital. Mr. Windle is described to be more of a risk to himself. About two years ago, there were concerns regarding suicidal behaviours.
The following passage appears in the hospital report at p.123:
“Without structure in his life, Mr. Windle is likely to gravitate to poorer compliance with treatment, use of drugs and alcohol and a gradual slide into worsening psychosis will be anticipated. But for the structure of a disposition order, it is anticipated that he will be more likely than not decompensate and there is a real likelihood of coming into contact with the law. For now, he seems highly motivated to remain in a residential treatment facility and seems to be progressing well.”
- At the most recent annual review hearing, held on January 6, 2026, Mr. Windle was showing relatively good compliance with medication. He could see the benefit in Clozapine, Lithium and Sertraline and was able to keep his mood relatively stable. The hospital report noted that, absent ORB supervision, his reporting would likely be less than satisfactory and would likely see him gravitate to occasional cannabis and alcohol use, resulting in a slow rise of his risk to public safety.
Initial Circumstances leading to the restriction of Liberty imposed on March 6, 2026
While living at Jerico House from mid October 2025 until the last week of January 2026, Mr. Windle actively participated in their Addictions Treatment Program. He generally followed all rules. However, by the end of January, he lost interest. While doing dishes one day, he wanted to go out to meet a friend in the community. Supervisors turned down his request. He was ‘grounded’, to keep him on the premises. Mr. Windle got upset by this and decided to leave. He has since complained that the intensity of the faith aspect of the program was getting to him.
There were no beds for Mr. Windle at the ROMHC. The hospital had no other form of accommodation to offer. Initially, he stayed with another forensic patient for the weekend and then, for two nights, with his parents. On Friday, February 4, 2026, Mr. Windle met with Dr. Gojer who placed him on a Form 1, sending him to the Brockville Mental Health Centre (“BMHC”).
It was unclear to Dr. Gojer whether Mr. Windle was decompensating. Given that Mr. Windle had a year earlier revealed suicidal thoughts and behaviours, it was felt that having him go to Brockville would be safest course of action. Upon admission to Brockville on February 4, Mr. Windle was housed on the assessment unit under the care of Dr. Jonathan Gray.
Course at the Brockville Mental Health Centre, February 4 to March 6, 2026
Upon admission to the BMHC, Mr. Windle was assessed to be not suicidal. Dr. Gray has since reported, “Indeed (he) may never have been suicidal’’.
When Dr. Gray initially reviewed the Form 1 with Mr. Windle, he decided to cancel it. Upon further discussion with Dr. Gray, Mr. Windle decided to remain at Brockville as a voluntary patient. By Dr. Gray’s assessment, the only issue was bed availability.
Mr. Windle was first kept on the B-4 South Unit, where no privileges are available. Mr. Windle was willing to stay there as a voluntary patient - despite having no privileges.
By February 17, 2026, a bed became available on the less secure B-3 South Unit where Mr. Windle was able to access full privileges.
At Brockville, Mr. Windle was entirely compliant with his regime of prescribed medications, just as he had been earlier when in the community following his departure from Jericho House. He showed no symptoms of his Schizoaffective Disorder and was described as docile, cooperative and polite with staff at the BMHC.
Unfortunately, a Covid outbreak arose on the less secure B-3 South Unit. Due to the outbreak, Mr. Windle could not remain on that unit. Dr. Gray explained to Mr. Windle that, as a voluntary patient, he was free to leave the hospital at any time. However, if he wished to remain at the BMHC, the only available bed would be back on the same more restrictive unit as before, where privileges are not available. He was told he would have to wait until the Covid outbreak ended.
Mr. Windle considered the option of staying at his parents’ home for a week until the outbreak ended. Dr. Gray agreed, this was acceptable. When Mr. Windle called his parents, it was learned that both parents would be out of town, and that no one was available to supervise him in their home.
While this came as a disappointment, Mr. Windle accepted to remain at Brockville on the more secure unit, while avoiding Covid, and without being able to access any privileges.
Mr. Windle continued at Brockville until March 6, 2026. He presented no management problems and was always polite and friendly with staff and peers. He remained adherent to prescribed medications. He displayed no signs of mental illness. His mood was good and there were no thoughts of suicide.
On March 6, 2026, a bed opened at the ROMHC. Mr. Windle was transferred there from Brockville. He arrived as a voluntary patient on the more secure FAU, where he became frustrated with the complete limitations imposed on his movements off unit. He expressed his desire to leave.
Course at the ROMHC Forensic Assessment Unit from March 6, 2026, to present
Mr. Windle has presented no management problems and complied with treatment, showing good insight into his illness. He has participated in ward programs and not exhibited any thought disorder with no delusions, hallucinations or aggression nor any thoughts of suicide.
The hospital report contains a detailed summary of Mr. Windle's lengthy housing history, prepared by the hospital’s social worker. Beginning at page p.127, events starting in late December 2007 are described to document ongoing difficulties leading to September 2025 when Mr. Windle was evicted from the Rockland residence. The social worker’s formulation-summary-recommendations read as follows at p.129:
Mr. Windle has an extensive housing history with the Forensic Program, and unfortunately this history has been fraught with difficulties. He has experienced different levels of support with regards to housing. Despite all attempts, he has required several hospital admissions to manage his risk, aside from one period of stability between 2009 and 2014.
- Further, at p.130, the following passage appears:
Given Mr. Windle's history in group home settings and most recent eviction, it appears that residing in a residential home setting may also be inappropriate for him. Mr. Windle has arguably only had limited stability in this type of environment, and this with extensive support from the multidisciplinary team of the Outpatient Forensics Program. During his time in residential housing settings, Mr. Windle has had multiple hospital admissions for his mental health, has put his own life at risk in at least three occasions and has been himself assaulted in the context of alcohol use. Furthermore, Mr. Windle is known to harass and pressure co-residents for money, cigarettes or drugs. The mix of Mr. Windle's own challenges and other resident's difficulties and vulnerabilities does not appear to be a viable dynamic. As a result, the treatment team is facing a shortage of viable options to try and reach a more desirable outcome. This leads to identifying characteristics of an environment that would be more conducive to Mr. Windle’s stability and address his own dynamics with his environment.
- In the concluding portion of his report dated April 15, 2026, Dr. Gojer expresses the opinion that Mr. Windle had no place to live and that readmission to hospital was the least restrictive option which was necessary and appropriate. According to Dr. Gojer, the ongoing detention is a function of their attempt to find suitable accommodation. While an initial recommendation for transfer to Brockville was considered, they have now decided to give Mr. Windle another try in the community. Dr. Gojer wrote that ongoing detention remains necessary. Mr. Windle will be working with the hospital’s social worker to find an appropriate place for him to live and to come up with a specified treatment plan.
Evidence at the Hearing
Before responding to questions from the parties and ORB panel members, Dr. Gojer testified that the hospital social worker is still trying to identify a suitable group home. Dr. Gojer clearly stated that Mr. Windle is ready for hospital discharge. He does not need to be first discharged to the less secure Forensic Rehabilitation Unit but is ready to proceed directly into the community from the more secure FAU.
Previous group homes in the Ottawa area who know Mr. Windle (Rockwood, Wymering Manor and Jericho House) are not prepared to receive him.
Mr. Windle has been stable without any psychotic episodes for the past seven years. He has also avoided relapse to alcohol and cannabis for several months, going back into 2025.
Dr. Gojer spoke of a new possibility at the Edgewood group home on St. Laurent Blvd. in Ottawa. It appears they may have up to five available beds. Edgewood provides programs for substance use disorders. Dr. Gojer added that, if Mr. Windle is admitted to Edgewood, he would grant Mr. Windle maximum privileges.
Dr. Gojer went on to say that Mr. Windle “… is staring an absolute discharge in the face -once he faces his substance use issue.” Mr. Windle is ready for discharge from hospital. The only issue has to do with placement.
Dr. Gojer confirmed that Mr. Windle continues to be very cooperative with his regime of medications, including Clozapine, which he tolerates. He experiences no side effects and there are no issues regarding the ongoing need for blood level monitoring,
Responding to questions posed by Ms. Dufort on behalf of the Attorney-General, Dr. Gojer felt that the Edgewood residence might be able to move quickly at this point. While awaiting a bed there, Mr. Windle already qualifies for access to full privileges - apart from the fact that he happens to be on the FAU.
Dr. Gojer responded to a series of questions posed by Mr. Davies:
(a) Mr. Windle’s departure from Jericho House in January 2026 arose because of a very minor problem. He was not complying with rules as they wanted him to. Jericho House does not want him back.
(b) Dr. Gojer would have made use of a step-down bed at two other facilities, Kimberlane or Wymering, when Mr. Windle needed a place to stay. However, for various reasons, Mr. Windle could not go there. This presented a “holding crisis” at a point when Mr. Windle was not in need of hospitalization.
(c) While remaining at Brockville voluntarily with Dr. Gray, and while deprived of privileges during the Covid outbreak, Mr. Windle was free to leave Brockville at any time. He wanted to leave but, having no other place to go, decided to stay there until his arrival at the ROMHC on March 6, 2026.
(d) Upon arrival at the ROMHC, no bed was available on the Rehabilitation Unit where privileges can be accessed. The only privilege Mr. Windle gets to enjoy on the FAU is to go off unit, once daily, accompanied by staff. He cannot leave the unit indirectly supervised. This is based on the Hospital’s blanket policy that no patient on the FAU is permitted to leave unless accompanied by staff.
(e) Were it possible for the hospital to place Mr. Windle on the less secure Rehabilitation Unit, Dr. Gojer would grant him the top level of privileges right away.
(f) The hospital cannot grant a pass for compassionate leave which would permit Mr. Windle to go visit his family. By reason of hospital policy, such passes require the patient to be accompanied by staff and are only granted for exceptional reasons such as a family member’s serious illness.
- Dr. Gojer responded to questions posed by panel members.
(a) But for the housing conundrum, Mr. Windle does not need to be in hospital. He is doing very well.
(b) Dr. Gojer would rather keep Mr. Windle and not place him somewhere else with a false sense of freedom. Were he to be placed in a shelter, he would be at risk following exposure to substance users and of potential harm to himself by others given Mr. Windle’s tendency to be socially intrusive.
- The parties presented no further evidence.
Submissions of the Parties
The hospital representative submitted that without the continued restriction of liberty, the hospital cannot keep Mr. Windle on the FAU. The patient presents a high risk of alcohol use if left to his own devices in a less secure environment. Given the long history of difficult placements, a stable environment is required, one which would limit Mr. Windle’s potential access to alcohol and drugs.
Mr. Windle could not handle placement in the most recent “faith-based” setting at Jericho House. Mr. Windle can learn the different principles and practices presented to him regarding substance use treatment. However, on his own, he has difficulty putting these into action.
Dr. Gojer stated that, as time passes with continued stability, Mr. Windle’s risk to the public gets lower and lower. Current available options are limited to having Mr. Windle quickly admitted to Edgewood. It was only today, on April 20, 2026, that Mr. Windle began his application to Edgewood. Dr. Gojer spoke about the hospital’s “Crisis Unit”. He also expressed optimism, without being able to specify, that Mr. Windle might soon be able to move off the FAU.
Responding to a Board member’s inquiry about the acceptability of the hospital’s “blanket policy” of refusing privileges to exceptional patients who find themselves on the FAU, Dr. Gojer welcomed any comments the Board wished to provide about the problematic nature of such a rigid policy.
On behalf of the Attorney-General, Ms. Dufort, submitted that the restriction of liberty was needed to ensure that Mr. Windle be placed in proper accommodation. Counsel added, it is appropriate that the hospital continue using the same approach.
Mr. Davies made the following submissions:
(a) The restriction of liberty was not needed at the beginning, in the middle, nor at the end.
(b) The law requires an individualized assessment and risk management approach that is the least onerous and least restrictive at all times, one which is compatible with public safety.
(c) Both Dr. Gojer and Dr. Gray agree, there is no need to detain this individual on a secure unit with no access to privileges. Where we land is a situation where Mr. Windle is kept unable to access privileges on a policy basis rather than on an individualized basis.
(d) While it may not be possible to release Mr. Windle directly into the community on his own, this does not justify keeping Mr. Windle in hospital without any access at all to privileges. Doing so goes against the constitutional requirement that an individualized risk management approach be used to promote public safety while imposing the least onerous and least restrictive measures on the patient. Some other means must be found by the hospital to deal with the patient’s circumstances.
(e) Mr. Davis expressed concern about Dr. Gojer’s evidence that admission to a new group home from the hospital would be a matter of weeks rather than months, particularly with the hospital only having just started the application for placement application this week. This should have been done much earlier when Mr. Windle’s situation was already well known.
(f) Concern was expressed that if something goes wrong with the present application to a community group home, Mr. Windle could continue to remain where he is on the assessment unit for several months before a bed opens on the rehabilitation unit where he could start to access the privileges to which he is already entitled.
(g) Counsel submitted that while the hospital is allowed to maintain policies for the various units created, such policies cannot be justified when it completely interferes with the requirement for an individualized approach when considering the patient’s proper entitlement to privileges for which they qualify. Failing this, the hospital would be otherwise in a position to set any policies they want, leaving the Review Board and the law with no ability to conduct proper oversight or control of such policies.
Before the hearing concluded, Dr. Gojer expressed optimism that Mr. Windle could be discharged from hospital and admitted to an appropriate facility within a short number of weeks. Dr. Gojer undertook to make his best efforts in this regard.
Dr. Gojer lastly advised that while the hospital had earlier considered transferring Mr. Windle to the BMHC, this option is no longer being pursued. This has to do with the practical reality that, should he return to Brockville, Mr. Windle would likely have to remain there as an inpatient for a much longer period, perhaps up to two years, before the BMHC would be able to arrange for any new community placement.
Observations and Conclusions
The Board accepts that it was necessary and appropriate to initially admit Mr. Windle to hospital. Mr. Windle had already left his approved group home, Jericho House, without permission in late January. For the days following, he was unhoused. He had to make do, in the middle of winter, with only limited shelter options available through friends and family. Mr. Windle then agreed to go to Brockville, where he was voluntarily admitted on February 4, 2026.
Once at the Brockville forensic hospital, Mr. Windle did the best he could. He was never in any state of medical or mental health crisis. He cooperated fully with BMHC staff and protocols until his eventual return to the Royal on March 6, 2026.
During his extended month at Brockville, Mr. Windle experienced a serious restriction to his liberty. It was through no fault on his part that he had to spend a long period locked up on the most secure B4 South Unit. This was due to a Covid outbreak on the less secure B3 South, where he was otherwise entitled to receive full privileges.
Throughout his entire time at Brockville, Mr. Windle was free to leave at any time.
By March 6, 2026, a definitive housing arrangement was still needed. Unfortunately, with no less restrictive beds available in Ottawa, the ROMHC could only offer Mr. Windle a spot on their more secure unit, the FAU. Patients on that unit are eligible for only a very limited set of privileges. Unless accompanied by staff, they are kept in locked detention. When accompanied by staff off the unit, their movements are generally restricted to other areas within the hospital building. In practical terms, they have no real ability to leave the hospital, if at all.
The hospital maintains, it is for policy reasons that patients on the FAU are not granted off-unit privileges to access either the hospital grounds or the wider community. In evidence provided by the treating psychiatrist, Dr. Gojer, it was explained that the only way they could keep Mr. Windle in hospital was by imposing a restriction of liberty. Consequently, since March 6, 2026, Mr. Windle has been refused – and continues to be refused - all privileges off the unit.
Throughout his current stay on the FAU in Ottawa, Mr. Windle’s mental condition was stable. His conduct and compliance with treatment were without fault. All the evidence points to a single finding, namely that, it was only for lack of housing that the hospital decided to keep him in their most secure form of detention. The Board finds that, given the hospital’s total refusal to grant him privileges, Mr. Windle has experienced – and continues to experience - an unjustified significant restriction of liberties.
The Board understands that the Royal Ottawa, like all other Ontario forensic hospitals, is operating with limited resources. We also acknowledge the challenge posed by Mr. Windle’s spontaneous decision to leave Jericho House in late January.
However, as early as February 4, both he and Dr. Gojer were able to collaborate in adopting the temporary fix of having Mr. Windle go to Brockville, where Mr. Windle was good enough to continue his collaboration with Dr. Gray for more than a month.
By March 6, when Mr. Windle returned to the ROMHC, the hospital was fully aware of Mr. Windle’s extended predicament. The Board is distressed by and makes the following findings:
(a) Mr. Windle has been kept in locked detention since March 6, with all privileges denied.
(b) The ROMHC had to already be quite aware of the fact that Mr. Windle’s liberty had already been seriously restricted for significant periods of time during his February stay at Brockville.
(c) During the overall period that Mr. Windle has stayed in hospital - from February 4 to the date of this hearing, April 20, 2026 - and going forward - given his satisfactory presentation and stable mental state, he has qualified – and continues to qualify - for full privileges both within and outside the hospital premises.
(d) The hospital tries to justify their denial of privileges based on policy. In the estimation of this ORB panel, this is not satisfactory. We reject the bald assertion that patients on the FAU, without exception, are to be denied all privileges. In expressing our view, we adopt the submission of Mr. Davies noted above, which is repeated for emphasis:
Such policies cannot be justified when it completely interferes with the requirement for an individualized approach when considering the patient’s proper entitlement to privileges for which they qualify. Failing this, the hospital would be otherwise in a position to set any policies they want, leaving the Review Board and the law with no ability to conduct proper oversight or control of such policies.
(e) Prior to the date of this hearing, held on April 20, it appears that the hospital had yet to take any steps to have Mr. Windle even apply for a bed at Edgewood.
With these considerations in mind, the Board urges the hospital to reconsider their stated policy position about the FAU. We require the hospital to place Mr. Windle on a unit where he can access all privileges that are allowed in his existing disposition and that he may qualify for going forward.
The Board appreciates and thanks Dr. Gojer for informing us before the hearing concluded of his hope that Mr. Windle could be discharged from hospital within a short period of time.
Lastly, the Board finds there is no need to otherwise modify the current disposition, dated January 14, 2026.
DATED this 25th day of May 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. P. Hageraats Alternate Chairperson
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board