Re: A. (L.), 2026 CanLII 6262

Re: A. (L.)

ORB File No: 8354

Hearing held on: Tuesday, January 13, 2026

Place of hearing: Syl Apps Youth Centre

Pursuant to: Sections 672.48(1) and 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Weinstein

Members: Dr. T. Verny

Dr. M. Kalia

Mr. E. Siebenmorgen

Mr. A. Mete

Parties Appearing:

Accused: A. (L.)

Counsel: Mr. A. Rai

The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. K. MacFaddyen

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. M. Stevens

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated January 29, 2026)

Introduction:

1. On July 20, 2023, Mr. A. (L.) was found unfit to stand trial, on charges of assault, assault with weapon (x4), and possession of a weapon for dangerous purpose, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”). A. (L.) is a Young Person within the meaning of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

2. Upon being found unfit to stand trial, he was remanded to Syl Apps Youth Centre (“Syl Apps”) in Oakville.

3. A. (L.) is subject to the terms of a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”), dated December 3, 2023, which orders that he be detained at Syl Apps. This Disposition provides for a variety of discretionary privileges, up to living in the community, in accommodation approved by the person in charge (“PIC”). While living in the community, A. (L.) is to report to the PIC not less than twice per month. He has not yet exercised the community living privilege.

4. Paragraph 5 of his current Disposition ordered that a Pre-Hearing Conference be conducted to address A. (L.)’s transfer to an adult facility, following his 18th birthday, in June 2025. Several PHC conferences have been held on this matter.

5. By letter dated December 9, 2025, Syl Apps sent a Rule 13 Notice, requesting that A. (L.) be transferred to the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (“CAMH”), as he is currently detained at Syl Apps, and he is now 18 years of age.

6. By letter dated December 30, 2025, and marked as Exhibit 2, CAMH acknowledged receipt of the Rule 13 Notice and agreed that such a transfer would be appropriate.

7. On January 13, 2026, the Board convened a hearing at Syl Apps to conduct the annual review of the current Disposition.

8. A. (L.) was present at the hearing, as was his mother, and he was represented by his counsel, Mr. Rai.

9. A Hospital Report, dated October 11, 2025 (the “Hospital Report”), was entered as Exhibit 1. An Update to the Hospital Report, dated January 5, 2026 (the “Update”), was entered as Exhibit 3.

10. In accordance with s. 672.48(1) of the Criminal Code, the Board must decide whether A. (L.) is unfit to stand trial on the day of the hearing, within the meaning of s. 2 of the Criminal Code. Specifically, is A. (L.) unable, on account of mental disorder, to understand the nature or the possible consequences of the proceedings or to communicate with counsel? The other issues before the Board are whether A. (L.) is permanently unfit, and if so, whether he remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.

11. If A. (L.) is found fit, he must be sent back to court. If he is found unfit, 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. Similarly, if he is found to be both permanently unfit and a significant threat, the Board must determine the appropriate Disposition. If he is permanently unfit but not found to pose a significant threat to public safety, the Board may make a recommendation to the court pursuant to s. 672.851 (1) of the Criminal Code.

12. For the reasons set out below, the Board found that A. (L.) remains unfit to stand trial. The Board found, further, that the necessary and appropriate Disposition to manage A. (L.)’s threat to public safety, considering the criteria set forth in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, is a Detention Order. He is to be detained at CAMH, with residual authority residing with Syl Apps, until such time as a bed is available. With the consent of all parties, The Board added an abstention from substances clause, a clause requiring the submission of samples for testing, and a weapons prohibitions clause to his Disposition. The Board declined to find that A. (L.) is permanently unfit, for the reasons set out below.

Current Psychiatric Diagnoses:

13. Autism Spectrum Disorder

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder – Combined Type

Learning Disorder

Outstanding Charges

14. The circumstances of the Outstanding Charges are set out in last year’s Reasons for Disposition, dated December 3, 2024:

“On February 14, 2023, at approximately 11:30 p.m., it is alleged A. (L.) approached a woman and shoved her with his shoulder. He then pointed a knife and gestured at her with it. She ran away and called the police.

A. (L.) allegedly then entered the front of a bus and swung the knife at the driver, who was seated behind a protective barrier. He tried several times to get past the barrier and, not having succeeded, walked away and approached police officers in a vehicle that had responded to 911 calls about his conduct. He stabbed at the windows of the police vehicle and tried to open the doors. Many additional officers attended in response to the 911 call.

As A. (L.) was running away, he was shot with a shotgun that fired hard bean bags, but he continued to run. He was finally cornered in an alcove and was subdued after a conducted energy weapon connected with him and he fell to the ground. While on the ground he was heard to say, “I am immortal ... I can never die… I am God ... I am bulletproof.”

Background Information:

15. The Hospital Report contains a great deal of information on A. (L.)’s background, which is accurately summarized in last year’s Reasons for Disposition:

“His mother and older siblings had emigrated from Somalia in 1996. He had been residing in the community with his mother, older sister, and two older brothers before his arrest for the outstanding charges. While residing in the community he

was enrolled in grade 10 special education classes at Central Tech. His father passed away from a sudden heart attack in 2021.

The Hospital Report indicates that A. (L.) suffered from developmental challenges that had been worsening over the course of time. A. (L.) had reportedly experienced decreasing vocabulary and was becoming more non-verbal. There were incidents of him becoming assaultive to other children at school.

A. (L.) was taken into care in 2018 by the Children’s Aid Society (“CAS”) due to ongoing behavioural concerns that involved aggressive and volatile behaviour. His mother had expressed concerns for her safety, stating that he had become violent toward her and had assaulted other children. He was noted to have been looking around the home for a knife. In May 2018 he threatened his mother with a steak knife.

Dr. Patel was involved with A. (L.)’s care through the Toronto CAS in 2018 and diagnosed him with Autism Spectrum Disorder. He was started on various medications at that time to treat his underlying agitation and aggression. He was followed by Dr. Minaz, who is a developmental pediatrician.

A. (L.) was admitted to Michael Garron Hospital in 2018 for one month after his family called 911 due to his aggressive behaviour. A. (L.) was admitted due to concerns related to psychosis as well as Autism and attention deficit/hyperactivity issues.

A. (L.) resided in a group home in Barrie, Ontario in 2019, and, in 2020, he moved into his mother’s home, subject to a CAS Supervision Order.

Approximately 10 days before the commission of the outstanding charges, on February 3, 2023, A. (L.) was seen in the ER department at St. Joseph's Health Centre. Concerns were expressed over his worsening behavioral agitation over the course of the preceding month as he had been presenting as impulsive and angry; however, he did not present with frank evidence of psychosis.

A. (L.) has no history of illicit substance use and no involvement prior to the present charges with the criminal justice system.

A. (L.) was admitted to Syl Apps on June 26, 2023.

Position of the Parties:

16. Counsel for the hospital, the Attorney General and A. (L.) advised that this was a joint recommendation: A. (L.) is unfit to stand trial, permanently so, and he continues to remain a significant threat to public safety. The necessary and appropriate Disposition required to manage his threat to the public is a Detention Order, detaining him at the

Forensic Service of CAMH, with residual authority remaining at Syl Apps until such time as a bed becomes available.

17. The parties also jointly agreed that both his current Disposition, and his detention at CAMH, should contain a clause requiring him to abstain from substances, a “submit” clause, and a weapons prohibition clause. The Detention Disposition at CAMH should also give him appropriate provisions to enter the community of the Greater Toronto Area, as opposed to the “within 250 kilometres of the hospital” provision contained in his current Disposition.

18. Counsel for the Attorney General was not able to provide this Board with the last date a prima facie hearing was held in this matter¹.

Course Since Last Disposition

19. A. (L.)’s course since his last Disposition is set out in detail in the Hospital Report. The following extracted paragraphs are relevant to this hearing:

“As reflected in the Report of Critical Incident Section below, there have only been a small number of threatening, aggressive, potentially dangerous or inappropriate behaviours during this reporting. A. (L.) has for the most part remained engageable and interested in Syl Apps programming. He has continued to have a regular schedule of community passes, which have gone smoothly and without incident, including regular scheduled day visits home to see his mother every second week.

Heading into summer, however, A. (L.) began to demonstrate some deterioration, making statements suggesting both a worsening of his mood and a negative orientation, becoming suspicious of his peers (i.e., paranoid threats to his thinking). He began expressing aggressive thoughts towards peers and sometimes the staff. He began to make comments about wanting to access knives to protect himself and he would ask staff and myself “what would happen” if he hurt someone. For the most part, A. (L.) remained directable by staff, and he would usually respond to reassurance These difficulties, led to the clinical decision (after discussion with A. (L.)'s mother) to increase his aripiprazole from 20 to 25 mg on June 10, 2025.

Despite the aripiprazole increase, there was a critical incident on June 22nd where A. (L.) became aggressive with a staff member and a peer. Over the course of the next few weeks, A. (L.) seemed to improve and return to a more positive baseline, and then from late August until early to mid-September, once again A. (L.) appeared to become more anxious and suspicious, and there were two further critical incidents on September 6th and September 16th.

Additionally, A. (L.) continues to have regular visits at his mother's home in Toronto, where he spends quality time with his family. These home visits have gradually increased in duration, from two hours to six hours. Notably, A. (L.) has shown improvement in managing car rides, which were previously identified as a trigger for him.

“December 17, 2025 - A. (L.) was dysregulated and crying saying he wanted to kill everyone. A. (L.) was unable to be redirected by staff. A. (L.) then stood up and charged at staff, once this was evaded, he entered another staff’s space and attempted to grab her. A. (L.) was then placed in a physical containment where he was scratching, kicking, spitting and attempting to bite staff.

January 4, 2026 - A. (L.) became dysregulated when given the iPad use guidelines. A. (L.) was previously looking at inappropriate videos on YouTube, and was told that he could play chess on his iPad. This frustrated A. (L.) which then led him to grab onto a staff’s wrist. A. (L.) was placed in a physical containment. During this time, A. (L.) was aggressive and trying to break out by attempting to kick, bite and spit at staff.”

Evidence at the Hearing:

20. The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence from Dr. Scharf. Dr. Scharf co-authored the Hospital Report. He testified as follows:

a) He has been A. (L.)’s primary psychiatrist for approximately two years, while A. (L.) has been detained at Syl Apps. He sees A. (L.) on a weekly basis and estimates that he has had 90 to 100 clinical contacts with A. (L.) over the past reporting period. He last assessed A. (L.)’s fitness to stand trial one week prior to this hearing.

b) A. (L.)’s primary diagnosis is autism spectrum disorder, which has been long-standing and is a life-long condition. He believes that A. (L.) is permanently unfit because he does not expect A. (L.)’s autism spectrum disorder to show any signs of improvement.

c) Although Dr. Patel diagnosed A. (L.) with obsessive-compulsive disorder (“OCD”) in the past, Dr. Scharf has found no clinical evidence supporting this diagnosis. He has reduced A. (L.)’s Prozac, from 120 mg to 40 mg, without any emergence of OCD symptoms.

d) A. (L.) does suffer from persistent, waxing and waning psychotic episodes. He has periodic delusional thinking, including that he has a special purpose, or an immunity from consequences of his actions, as well as paranoid beliefs that staff or peers are persecuting him. A. (L.)’s paranoia does sometimes lead to

violent ideations, such as wanting access to knives in the belief that he needs to protect himself from assault by others.

e) A. (L.) requires PRN antipsychotic medication approximately once per week, to manage his behaviour and risk. Sometimes, he requires the medication only once or twice in a month, but he needed it eight times in December.

f) A. (L.) has experienced episodes of behavioural dysregulation, sometimes resulting in assaultive behaviour. This behavioural dysregulation is often caused by his paranoid ideation, internal preoccupation, or perceived threats.

g) A. (L.) has an ongoing preoccupation with knives, for aggression or self-defence. Because his Index Offences involved threatening with a weapon, a weapons prohibition is clinically appropriate.

h) While A. (L.) has no history of substance misuse, he has expressed interest in intoxication, particularly with alcohol. Use of alcohol or other substances would negatively interact with A. (L.)’s medication and likely impair his judgment, and increase his risk to the public safety. Therefore, an abstinence clause would be appropriate in A. (L.)’s Disposition.

i) He has increased A. (L.)’s antipsychotic medication, from 20 mg to 25 mg, because A. (L.) has been experiencing an escalation in his psychotic episodes. This recent increase has had a moderating effect on A. (L.)’s psychotic symptoms.

j) He introduced a non-stimulant medication, guanfacine, three months ago, to address A. (L.)’s ADHD symptoms and irritability. This medication seems to have improved A. (L.)’s focus and reduced his motor restlessness. It may, however, have caused an additional, unintended effect: the reduction in distractions may be allowing A. (L.)’s paranoid thoughts to persist longer, thus increasing his dysregulation.

k) A. (L.) attends modified school programs. He has interests in inventions, science, mathematics, writing and chess. A. (L.) writes extensively, but his handwriting is difficult to read.

l) A. (L.)’s most recent psychological testing, in 2023, showed a deterioration in his global functioning from 2017 and very low reading comprehension and written expression. It did not confirm a diagnosis of intellectual disability, but A. (L.) still has learning disabilities.

m) With respect to A. (L.)’s fitness to stand trial, he is assessed informally every six weeks as well as in the week prior to the hearing. He has shown no meaningful improvement in his understanding of, and ability to participate in, a trial. He cannot explain the nature, or consequences, of a trial; describe the roles of a judge, Crown, or defence counsel; understand the meanings of guilt, innocence, or trial process; and he can neither retain, nor integrate, information provided to him. Asked to provide the panel with A. (L.)’s specific answers to the assessment questions, Dr. Scharf said that he identified his charges as being assault. He said that if he went to court, he would be found not guilty.

n) A. (L.) is unable to meaningfully communicate with counsel: his autism, learning disability, and psychotic symptoms collectively impair his capacity to participate in a trial.

o) The hospital requires a Detention Disposition as a result of the risks associated with A. (L.)’s persistent psychosis, behavioural dysregulation and weapons’ preoccupation.

p) A transfer to CAMH is appropriate because A. (L.) has aged out of Syl Apps Youth facility. A. (L.)’s family lives in the GTA.

q) A. (L.) is clinically stable only within the high structure provided to him by Syl Apps.

r) A. (L.) continues to exhibit ongoing psychotic symptoms, paranoia and risk-related behaviours.

21. In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Scharf testified:

a) A. (L.) does participate in regular programming and attend school; however, he cannot opine as to the grade to which his schooling is equivalent.

b) A. (L.) is able to read as exhibited by his interest in science and possible inventions. He is very interested in researching information for his inventions and writes extensively about inventing. He is following a science and mathematics curriculum.

c) A. (L.) does use his iPad to play chess with others, although his skill level is not known to the treatment team. His chess play, however rudimentary, demonstrates some capacity, at least in the context of the game, to make a move and to appreciate its consequences, even if after the fact.

d) A panel member sought an update on the progress, if any, of an updated intellectual functioning assessment for A. (L.), as referred to at para. 28 of last year’s Reasons. Dr. Scharf confirmed that no such assessment has been done. He stated that the last assessment, which was conducted in 2023, was itself essentially an update of testing conducted in 2017. Ideally, such testing should be done every two years. The most recent psychological testing indicated average verbal skills and fluid reasoning with respect to working memory and processing speed.

e) Since A. (L.)’s trial on a new ADHD medication, he is less restless and no longer wanders off when he is asked questions. He is calmer, less distracted, and more focused. He seems to be less irritable. A. (L.) now appears much more able to sit for extended periods of time, without excessive movement.

f) Staff have also observed that A. (L.) is able to journal for extended periods. However, they have also noticed that, since the introduction of his ADHD medication, A. (L.) has increased his use of PRNs. It is hard to know at this stage whether his ability to be more focused has made it harder for him to be distracted from his paranoid thoughts.

g) He has spoken with other staff, though not directly with the teachers at the school at Syl Apps, to confirm that A. (L.) does seem to be able to focus and his attention and concentration is much better since the introduction of his ADHD medication.

h) He has conducted 1:1 assessments every six weeks or so of A. (L.) with respect to the Taylor² test, but he has found that A. (L.) is not really able to tolerate discussions longer than 10 minutes without losing interest. When he meets with A. (L.), Dr. Scharf tries to explain that the purpose of his Board hearing is to explore how ready A. (L.) is to get to court. With some prompting, A. (L.) remembers the episode involving the bus and the police. However, when asked questions such as, “What is a trial?” or “What does a lawyer do?” A. (L.) responds by merely repeating the questions. Dr. Scharf has explained to A. (L.) that a trial is about making a decision. Sometimes, A. (L.) has expressed that a judge is about deciding “guilt or not guilt” and that a lawyer’s job is “to get you off.” In terms of understanding the consequences of the court proceedings, however, A. (L.) has gotten no further than expressing that, if he is found guilty, he would stay at Syl Apps. He has not been able to explain why he believes that he would be found innocent.

i) A. (L.) had no previous criminal charges and has never had to appear before a court prior to the outstanding charges. Dr. Scharf has not engaged in any formalized effort to educate A. (L.) specifically about the trial process, despite A. (L.)’s lack of experience with the court process. However, during their meetings, A. (L.) has not demonstrated any meaningful capacity to retain, or integrate, the information he is provided.

j) Dr. Scharf was asked whether A. (L.) can understand that he is presumed innocent of his charges, and that it is up to the Crown Attorney to prove his guilt, not for A. (L.) to prove his innocence. He replied that he tried to explain that there was more than one lawyer in the courtroom, to explain that lawyer’s job, and to explain that A. (L.)’s role is to advise his own lawyer. However,

understanding the role of the Crown Attorney has been beyond A. (L.)’s ability to date.

k) The treatment team has perhaps not tailored their attempts at educating A. (L.) about the court process to his particular learning style or skills. They have not attempted to use visual aids, even though the Hospital Report states that A. (L.) uses an iPad and watches YouTube videos. They have not leveraged A. (L.)’s abilities in chess, mathematics or science to explain how a trial is conducted in ways that he might understand.

l) A. (L.) has also not had a therapist with expertise in autism try to instruct him about the criminal trial process, in a very structured and targeted manner.

22. No other evidence was called.

Analysis and Conclusions:

Fitness to Stand Trial

23. The first issue for the Board to decide is whether A. (L.) remains unfit to stand trial.

Applicable Law

24. The Supreme Court of Canada addressed the fitness test most recently in R v Bharwani, 2025 SCC 26 (“Bharwani”). In this decision, the Supreme Court emphasized the following with respect to the fitness test:

a) Fitness to stand trial does not require an accused to make decisions in their best interests. Instead: “it requires making decisions based on an understanding of reality that is not overwhelmed by delusions, hallucinations, or other symptoms of their mental disorder.”³

b) The accused is fit to stand trial if they can: “make and communicate reality-based decisions in the conduct of their defence or instruct counsel to do so”⁴ and “intelligibly communicate these decisions to counsel or the court.”⁵

c) Conducting a defence involves: “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.”⁶

d) The “capacity” required to make these decisions includes: “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.”⁷

e) “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.”⁸

f) The fitness to stand trial test is “contextual,” and the inquiry: “focuses on the decisions that form part of an accused’s defence in a specific case, and not in the abstract.”⁹

g) The same test for fitness to stand trial applies to all accused, whether they are represented by counsel or not.¹⁰

The Court further stated the following, at paragraph 67 in Bharwani :

“The text of the statutory definition of “unfit to stand trial” provides some guidance on the requisite capacity threshold that an accused must possess. The definition notes “in particular” that an accused is unfit if they are unable to (1) understand the nature or object of the proceedings, (2) understand the possible consequences of the proceedings, or (3) communicate with counsel. The use of “or” between these requirements suggests that if the court is satisfied that the accused is unable to meet one of them, they are unfit to stand trial, as they lack the capacity to “conduct” a defence.”

Determination of Fitness

25. Having heard and considered all of the evidence and submissions from the parties, the Board agrees with the joint submissions of the parties, that A. (L.) is unfit to stand trial. A. (L.) has occasionally been able to express that he is charged with assault and that he believes he will be found innocent. However, the evidence overall satisfies the Board that he is unable to: understand the nature and object of the proceedings; understand the possible consequences of the proceedings or communicate meaningfully with counsel; or meaningfully participate, and instruct counsel, in a criminal proceeding. A. (L.)’s mental health symptoms cannot be described as transient.

26. A. (L.)’s mental health disorder does compromise his ability to conduct a defence, and it would impair his ability to make, or communicate, decisions in the conduct of his defence.

27. In coming to these conclusions, the Board notes the following extracted paragraphs from the Hospital Report and Dr. Scharf’s evidence :

“A. (L.) remains unable to answer Taylor Test questions. I asked him if he knew what a “trial” was, and he did not answer. I asked if he knew what a lawyer was and he responded “they make things”. A. (L.) was able to say that “guilty” in relation to one's actions was “when you did something” and “not guilty” was “when you do not”. A. (L.) stated in regard to his offences that he “did not kill anyone” but “he had a knife on a bus”. I asked him why, and he responded “I was black” but when I asked what that meant, he made a reference to “angels”, but it was unclear how he viewed angels as being connected to his actions.

I continue to feel that A. (L.) remains unfit to stand trial; not understanding the nature of criminal justice proceedings or the nature of his actions and charges to be able to advise counsel He is unable to understand possible legal consequences of a plea in court proceedings related to his charges. This is the result of the combined effects of his cognitive limitations secondary to his neurodevelopmental disorder, possibly exacerbated by a chronic psychotic illness or primitive, magical thinking.

Since February 2024, I continue to meet with A. (L.) three to four times per month. I have never had the clear sense that A. (L.) had a meaningful understanding of the reason for my meeting with him or any interest in my role relating to his treatment, although I have repeatedly introduced myself to him as his doctor/psychiatrist responsible for managing his medications.”

28. The Board, in referring to the above-quoted extract, appreciates that the doctor’s reference to A. (L.)’s inability to answer the “Taylor” questions is not a sufficient basis for a finding of unfitness to stand trial. The analysis is much more nuanced. The Board has also considered Dr. Scharf’s oral testimony, which included his opinion that A. (L.) was unable to retain and integrate information provided to him, or to comprehend what the trial process actually involves, including the obligation upon the Crown.

Permanent Unfitness and Necessary and Appropriate Disposition

29. Despite the joint recommendation, the Board does not agree that it is appropriate to find A. (L.) permanently unfit at this time, for the following reasons:

a) The Board is an investigative tribunal and is required to ensure that joint submissions meet the requirements of the Criminal Code (Osawe (Re), 2015 ONCA 280 at paragraph 33). Furthermore, as set out in Clayton (Re), 2025 ONCA 308, paragraph 22, the Board should not make a fitness finding based on joint submissions that do not have support in the evidentiary record before it. In this regard, we note that A. (L.) is able to play chess against others, which requires a level of thinking to anticipate moves and their consequences in a game. A. (L.) is engaged in science and math classes and reads journals extensively. While Dr. Scharf was not optimistic about A. (L.) being able to be educated and to undergo fitness training, we do note that A. (L.) has not had a more structured and formal fitness education, tailored to him, and delivered by someone with the expertise and training to help persons in his situation (i.e., a person presenting with ADHD, developmental disabilities, and a potential psychotic disorder¹¹) to become fit for trial. The doctor agreed there would be no downside to having a more focused fitness therapy program.

b) The Board does not believe that a complete and full fitness assessment has been provided to A. (L.), in a form that takes into consideration his learning disabilities and cognitive issues. Fitness coaching and education should be more fully investigated before a Board finds someone in A. (L.)’s situation (relative youth, lack of prior experience with the criminal process) to be permanently unfit.

c) At paragraph 25 of Re Clayton, the Court of Appeal agreed that a permanent unfitness finding carries some risk of prejudice, even though there is no prejudicial legal effect of such a finding. Specifically, the Court of Appeal stated, “… there is a real reason for concern that a prior determination of permanent unfitness could have a dampening effect on future claims of fitness”.

d) In addition, the panel notes that A. (L.) was able to sit quietly through the entirety of the hearing, without trying to get up or move about. At no point did he interrupt or disrupt the hearing, nor was any break sought on his behalf. While this evidence does not directly indicate A. (L.)’s fitness to stand trial, it does tend to support other evidence that, taken together, points away from a finding of permanent unfitness.

e) We note that, under s. 672.851(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, findings “that the accused ... is not likely to ever become fit to stand trial,” (i.e., that they are permanently unfit), are to be made, “on the basis of any relevant information.” We also note that A. (L.) has become more focussed and less restless and distracted with the recent introduction of his new ADHD medication.

f) It may be instructive to bear in mind, in concluding on this issue, the purpose of Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code in the context of a finding of unfitness to stand trial. Justices Iacobucci and Bastarache, writing for the Supreme Court of Canada’s 8:1 majority in R. v. Demers, 2004 SCC 46, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 489, stated at para. 42:

“The purpose of Part XX.1, as a unique scheme that exists within the criminal process, is to allow for the ongoing treatment or assessment of the accused in order for him or her to become fit for an eventual trial while preserving his or her maximum liberty and dignity. Part XX.1 is not overbroad in the case of temporarily unfit accused, because the means chosen by Parliament significantly advance the goals of assessment and treatment, which can result in rendering the accused fit for trial and the goal of protecting the public.”

30. We note that our finding of “not permanently unfit” does not change the necessity and appropriateness of a Detention Order Disposition. We are charged with shaping a Disposition for the coming year. It is clear from the Hospital Report that the hospital needs to retain the ability to approve A. (L.)’s housing, to maintain oversight to ensure that he is provided an appropriate degree of structure, support, monitoring and supervision to safely manage his risk.

31. A. (L.) has been diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, and Learning Disorder, with a possible underlying psychotic illness. These conditions significantly impair his cognitive abilities, insight and social judgment, making him unable to regulate his actions at times. His risk of engaging in harmful behaviours remains significant, particularly if he is not under close supervision and treatment.

32. In the past reporting year, A. (L.) has engaged in 10 serious incidents, as set out in the Hospital Report and the Update. In particular we note the incidents of December 17, 2025, and January 4, 2026, when A. (L.) had to be placed in physical containment as a result of his aggressive and threatening behaviour.

33. For all the above reasons, the Board finds that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Detention Order.

34. In particular, the Board relies on the following extracted paragraph from the Hospital Report:

“It is recommended by the treatment team that A. (L.) continue to engage in ongoing treatment of his psychiatric illnesses to best provide proper prophylaxis against increasing thought disorder or psychosis, this would include the administered and monitored use of antipsychotic medication. A. (L.) is not expected to have the needed self-care and basic living skills to support himself independently and would be best supported and managed in a facility that can provide age-appropriate support and supervision.”

35. In consideration of all the evidence, submissions of the parties and criteria set forth in s. 672.54, the paramount consideration being the safety of the public, in addition to the mental condition of A. (L.), his reintegration into society and his other needs, the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Detention Order at CAMH upon the terms set out in our formal Disposition. The panel is hopeful that, in accordance with these Reasons, A. (L.)’s treatment team at Syl Apps, and eventually at CAMH, would undertake a concerted effort to explore and potentially implement a structured means to eventually render A. (L.) fit to stand trial, based upon a full assessment and understanding of his abilities.

36. The Board also expects that, in accordance with Rule 15 of the Rules of Procedure, counsel for the Attorney General will be in a position to advise the panel, at or prior to the next review, of the holding of the prima facie evidence hearing required under s. 672.33 of the Criminal Code, along with the outcome of that hearing.

DATED this 29th day of January 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

Mr. J. Weinstein

Alternate Chairperson

__________________

Office of the Registrar

Ontario Review Board

Footnotes

1. 1Pursuant to Rule 15 of the Review Board’s Rules of Procedure, this information is required to be provided by counsel for the Attorney General.
2. 2R. v. Taylor (1992), 1992 CanLII 7412 (ON CA), 11 O.R. (3d) 323 (C.A.).
3. 3Bharwani, supra, at para. 6.
4. 4Ibid.
5. 5Ibid at para. 77.
6. 6Ibid at para. 6.
7. 7Ibid.
8. 8Ibid.
9. 9Ibid at para. 65.
10. 10Ibid at para. 82.
11. 11We note that on the evidence, no specific psychotic disorder has been diagnosed.