Ontario Review Board
Re: Richard W. Dejong
ORB File No: 3685
Hearing held on: Tuesday, January 13, 2026
Place of hearing: Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care (Via Zoom Video Conference)
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Goldenberg
Members: Dr. R. Kunjukrishnan Dr. W. Johnston Ms. M.L. Bridger Mr. S. Doherty
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Richard W. Dejong Counsel: Ms. C. Francis
The Person in Charge of Hospital: Representative: Ms. J. Lefebvre
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. J. Armenise
REASONS FOR DECISION
(Dated January 29, 2026)
On December 3, 2002, Richard W. Dejong was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, on charges of theft under $5000, possession of stolen property, operation of a motor vehicle while disqualified, escape custody and false fire alarm. Mr. Dejong is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated August 12, 2025, by which he was ordered to be detained at the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care – High Secure Provincial Forensic Program (“Waypoint”).
By letter dated November 19, 2025, the Director of the Beckwith and Awenda Programs at Waypoint wrote to the Ontario Review Board and stated as follows:
“Please accept this letter as notice of a significant restriction of Mr. Dejong’s liberty pursuant to s. 672.56(2) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Richard Dejong has been secluded for a period greater than seven days. He entered seclusion on November 11, 2025.”
As a result of the Waypoint letter, the Ontario Review Board convened a virtual hearing and conducted a Restriction of Liberty hearing.
At the outset of the hearing, the parties all acknowledged that the Board was only dealing with a restriction of liberty, and no party was seeking any change to the Disposition.
Ms. Francis appeared as counsel for Mr. Dejong. She simply noted her client’s wish to be able to move to a group home at some time in the future and accepted that the Board would not be dealing with that issue at this hearing.
Position of the Parties:
At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as to their positions.
Ms. Lefebvre appeared for the hospital. She advised of the hospital position that the seclusion on November 11, 2025, was warranted and Mr. Dejong’s ongoing stay in seclusion until December 23, 2025, was the least onerous and least restrictive decision consistent with public safety throughout the period of seclusion.
Ms. Armenise appeared for the Attorney General. Ms. Armenise supported the hospital’s position.
Ms. Francis first clarified with Mr. Dejong that she acts as his counsel rather than as Amicus. Mr. Dejong agreed with that position. Ms. Francis then stated that her client agreed that he “was ill” at the time of the seclusion. Ms. Francis noted that her client was somewhat ambivalent about being in seclusion and ultimately her client believes that the length of seclusion “was too long.”
Evidence at Hearing:
The Board admitted into evidence the Waypoint letter, the ROL Hospital Report of December 21, 2025, and at the request of Ms. Lefebvre, the Board admitted into evidence the Hospital Report dated December 21, 2026.
In addition to the documentary evidence, the Board heard from Dr. Hudson. Dr. Hudson confirmed that the seclusion began on November 11 and terminated on December 23, 2025.
The doctor noted that Mr. Dejong is a constant risk to female staff members. He has a history of violence to hospital staff and has a history of violent conduct for many years.
Dr. Hudson has been looking after Mr. Dejong for approximately three years. The doctor noted that Mr. Dejong has been treated with injectable medication for a number of years. The doctor noted a history of previous periods of seclusion including a seclusion that lasted for eight months.
The doctor stated that there was no other alternative on November 11 but to place Mr. Dejong in seclusion. The doctor provided information about medication that Mr. Dejong was taking. He had been treated with two long-acting injectable medications. The doctor obtained consent from the Substitute Decision Maker (one of Mr. Dejong’s sons) to switching Mr. Dejong to treatment with clozapine. This is the fourth time that a doctor has attempted to treat Mr. Dejong with clozapine. The doctor noted that at this time Mr. Dejong is “more agreeable” with treatment with clozapine.
Mr. Dejong was provided with seclusion relief frequently. The first seclusion relief involved Mr. Dejong being able to shower and other seclusion reliefs permitted Mr. Dejong to spend some time in one of the lounges.
The doctor noted that treatment with clozapine commenced December 4. The doctor noted that members of the team concluded on December 23 that seclusion was no longer necessary. Accordingly, Mr. Dejong was released from seclusion and has remained out of seclusion since that date. The doctor noted that there have been some inappropriate conduct following December 23 but, fortunately, staff members have been able to redirect Mr. Dejong when necessary.
In response to questions from Crown counsel, the doctor noted that there was a period of time when he would see Mr. Dejong daily. He continues to see him many times per week.
In response to questions from Ms. Francis, Dr. Hudson repeated that there was no other alternative on November 11 other than placing her client into seclusion. The doctor repeated that there was “simply no other way to manage Mr. Dejong’s risk.
No other evidence was heard at this hearing.
Final Submissions:
Ms. Lefebvre asked the panel to accept the doctor’s evidence. Ms. Lefebvre noted that there have been other seclusions for Mr. Dejong including one that lasted for eight months.
Ms. Armenise agreed with Ms. Lefebvre’s submissions and agreed that placing Mr. Dejong in seclusion was warranted and his ongoing stay in seclusion was the least onerous and least restrictive decision available to the hospital.
Ms. Francis noted that Mr. Dejong would like at some point to be placed in a group home. Ms. Francis acknowledged that her client does not dispute that the original placement in seclusion was warranted, and Ms. Francis simply left it to the panel to determine whether the ongoing stay was the least onerous and least restrictive throughout the entire period.
Findings of the Board:
We note that during the doctor’s evidence Mr. Dejong seemed to become upset. Ms. Francis intervened and advised that if Mr. Dejong wished he would have the right, subject to the Board’s agreeing, to leave the hearing. Mr. Dejong did indicate his wish to do so.
The Board had no hesitation in exercising our discretion pursuant to s. 672.5(10)(a).and permitted Mr. Dejong to leave this hearing.
The panel accepts without reservation the evidence given by Dr. Hudson and the evidence contained in the Hospital Report. We accept the evidence that the hospital had no alternative other than placing Mr. Dejong in custody on November 11, 2025. We are satisfied that his ongoing stay in hospital until December 23, 2025, was the least onerous and least restrictive decision available to the hospital. There is abundant evidence of a history of violent conduct and a history of totally inappropriate conduct towards, in particular, female staff members. The panel is concerned not only with Mr. Dejong reintegrating into society but also concerned about the protection of the public and the public clearly includes the staff at this hospital. We note that the hospital followed its regular routine when dealing with seclusion and that Mr. Dejong was given seclusion relief frequently. We also note there were occasions when the clinical team determined that Mr. Dejong could not safely be brought out of seclusion.
Accordingly, we find that Mr. Dejong’s seclusion from November 11 to December 23, 2025, was totally justified.
In reaching our Disposition, the Board has taken into consideration public safety, Mr. Dejong’s reintegration into society and his other needs.
DATED this 29th day of January, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. J. Goldenberg Alternate Chairperson
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board