RE: Russel Maurice Johnson
ORB File No: 0456
Hearing Held On: Wednesday, September 24, 2025
Place of Hearing: Waypoint Centre for Mental Health
Pursuant To: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson:Ms. T. Mann
Members: Dr. K. Hand
Dr. G. Kerry
Ms. A. La Viola
Ms. R. Chopra
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Russel Maurice Johnson
Counsel: Ms. M. Perez
Person in charge of Hospital: Representative: Ms. J. Lefebvre
Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. J. Armenise
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated January 16, 2026)
OVERVIEW
- On February 1, 1978, Russel Maurice Johnson was found not guilty by reason of insanity (now referred to as not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, pursuant to Criminal Code amendments), on three charges of first degree murder, contrary to the Criminal Code. He is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated July 19, 2024, detaining him at the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care – High Secure Provincial Forensic Programs, Penetanguishene, Ontario. The terms of his detention order include hospital grounds privileges, beyond the secure perimeter, escorted by staff.
ISSUES
On September 24, 2025, the Board convened at Waypoint for a hearing further to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code to review the disposition. The Board was asked to determine whether Mr. Johnson represented a significant threat to the safety of the public at the time of the hearing, and further, what the necessary and appropriate disposition is in the circumstances according to the factors set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
As a preliminary matter, Counsel for Mr. Johnson advised that the hearing process is stressful for Mr. Johnson, as had been the case for a number of years, and she asked the Board if her client could be excused from attending the hearing. She confirmed having instructions to proceed in his absence. The Alternate Chairperson of the Board issued an order under s. 672.5(10) of the Criminal Code, but cautioned that in future mere stress, without more, may not be sufficient to invoke the exercise of discretion to permit Mr. Johnson to be absent from the hearing1.
At the outset of the hearing, Counsel for the Hospital and Counsel for the Attorney General submitted that in their respective views – Mr. Johnson continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public – both agreeing that he requires the secure setting at Waypoint, under the current disposition, with no change. On the other hand, Counsel for Mr. Johnson took no position as to the issue of the ‘necessary and appropriate’ disposition, however she submitted that the issue of ‘significant threat’ was not being contested. In addition, she stated that Mr. Johnson was open to the idea of being transferred to a less secure hospital setting, asking the Board to consider it.
FINDINGS
- After reviewing all the documentary and oral evidence, and submissions of the parties presented at the time of the hearing, the Board found that Mr. Johnson continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. Accordingly, the Board determined that a detention order is required to manage the risk to the public, and for reasons that follow in more detail below, any variance from the current level of security would not adequately address Mr. Johnson’s risk profile. The high secure setting at Waypoint continues to be necessary and appropriate. As a result, the Board concluded that the current disposition will continue to be in place, with no change at this time.
PERSONAL BACKGROUND
The Hospital Report dated August 13, 2025, was entered as an exhibit at the hearing. The following background information, including the events surrounding the index offence has been taken from the Hospital Report, summarized here as follows.
The index offences, committed in 1974 (one count) and 1977 (two counts), involved the homicides of women who were choked or strangled during the course of sexual assaults. The specific details of these offences are set out in the Hospital Report.
In addition, Mr. Johnson admitted to four further homicides (two in 1973 and two in 1974), as well as at least ten serious assaults on women. These incidents were perpetrated against women who were alone in their homes and involved sexual assault followed by choking or strangulation. The particulars of these offences are also documented in the Hospital Report.
Mr. Johnson was 78 years old at the time of the hearing. He was born in Truro, Nova Scotia, and moved to Guelph, Ontario, during his youth. His early life was marked by significant adversity, including a family environment characterized by a mentally ill mother, a strict and punitive upbringing, and a physically abusive, alcoholic father. He did not complete his education beyond grade 9 and left the family home at age 15.
Throughout his early years, Mr. Johnson reported a pattern of heavy alcohol consumption and an early onset of deviant sexual interests. He was married at 18, and a son was born. By 1969, his marriage ended, reportedly after his wife discovered that he had committed a rape. In the early 1970s, he established a relationship with a common-law partner, maintaining contact until her death from cancer in 2003.
Mr. Johnson has maintained a consistent employment record while in custody, demonstrating aptitude and reliability. In 1982, he served as the foreman of co-patient workers in the Typing and Printing Shop at Oak Ridge (now known as Waypoint). By the summer of 1984, he transitioned to work with the Outside Gang, eventually advancing to the position of foreman. Reports indicate he maintained positive relationships with both staff and fellow patients, contributing effectively within the workplace environment.
In 1984, Mr. Johnson was reported to be enhancing his education by undertaking a correspondence course in Grade 10 English Literature. He was characterized as highly conscientious about his studies, demonstrating a strong work ethic, and performing exceptionally well – earning marks in the 90 to 95% range. This indicates a capacity for disciplined study and academic engagement during his time in the institutional setting.
In 1994, Mr. Johnson worked full-time in the Vocational Services Department, participating in several vocational programs, with his performance described as excellent. His work continued into the late 1990s, including roles in woodworking and outside work parties.
As of 2014, he was working an average of four hours a day in the Woodworking Shop, valued for his dependability and willingness to mentor colleagues. He expressed a desire to continue working until retirement and has also taken responsibility for maintaining the outdoor ice rink, with plans to continue this as he transitions to new facilities.
Mr. Johnson reports that he generally enjoyed good health, aside from a hemorrhoid issue for which he underwent surgery approximately two years prior. Medical records from St. Joseph’s Hospital in London documented multiple injuries, such as bruises and lacerations, sustained during various minor accidents between 1969 and 1976. These injuries reflect common trauma from accidental causes and do not suggest any longstanding chronic health conditions. Overall, his medical history indicates a pattern of minor injuries and a relatively stable physical health profile.
A check of the Canadian Police Information Centre database showed that Mr. Johnson had a criminal record prior to the index offences.
Mr. Johnson’s criminal history includes a youth conviction in 1962 under the Juvenile Delinquents Act2, for which he was placed on probation and ordered to undergo psychiatric assessment. He later reported an additional youth charge at age 16 or 17, though the circumstances and disposition remain unknown. These records at a young age are considered only for context and to provide a complete picture of his overall offence history as reflected in various risk assessments over the years.
As an adult, Mr. Johnson was convicted in 1975 in Guelph of assaulting a police officer and causing a disturbance, receiving fines and short custodial sentences. In 1976 he was charged in Sarnia with break and enter with intent (dismissed) and in Exeter with theft under $200 (absolute discharge). In 1977 he was charged in London with attempted murder (withdrawn), and on February 1, 1978, three counts of first‑degree murder (index offences – not guilty by reason of insanity).
PSYCHIATRIC BACKGROUND
Mr. Johnson’s current psychiatric diagnoses are Sexual Sadism, Voyeurism, Fetishism, Transvestic Fetishism, Paraphilic Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (Necrophilia), Amphetamine, Alcohol and Sedative Dependence Disorders (in remission in a controlled setting), and Narcissistic Personality Disorder (grandiose and entitled). He has been found capable of making decisions about his medical treatment, and capable of managing his finances.
Since the index offences, Mr. Johnson’s course under the Board’s jurisdiction (approximately 46 years) has been extensively documented, primarily through the Hospital Report, which provides annual accounts of his treatment and progress, especially over the past year. Initially detained at the Oak Ridge Division of the Mental Health Centre in Penetanguishene (now known as the High Secure Provincial Forensic Programs, at Waypoint), and he has remained there, currently residing on the Beausoleil B Program, which is one of the least structured, most privileged units at Waypoint.
Mr. Johnson's initial interaction with mental health professionals began following his theft conviction at age 15. A psychiatric assessment at that time described him as having a compulsive sexual drive, with the assessor noting his need for psychiatric intervention which Mr. Johnson appeared reluctant to accept.
In 1969, he was hospitalized due to severe depression linked to difficulties in his relationship with his wife and an ongoing inability to manage sexual and aggressive impulses present since his early adolescence. After ten days, he requested discharge, with the diagnosis noting sexual deviation alongside reactive depression. It was recognized that his sexual difficulties remained unresolved and required further psychotherapy, which he did not pursue after a few appointments. His last known involvement with mental health services was following his arrest for the index offences.
During this review period, Mr. Johnson’s mental status has remained stable, with coherent thought processes and generally appropriate mood and affect. He has been cooperative and engaged in daily routines and vocational programming. He complied with his medication regimen, experienced no major physical health concerns, and managed chronic pain through activity modifications. He did not participate in his monthly clinical meetings or any therapeutic programs. There were a few incidents of non-compliance with unit rules which staff characterized as seemingly demonstrating a sense of entitlement and/or a belief that such rules did not apply to him. However, for the most part, Mr. Johnson was adherent to hospital policy and expectations within his unit.
Mr. Johnson independently manages his activities of daily living, including hygiene, laundry, finances, and meal preparation. He has remained at the highest security level (C5) since January 2019, which permits up to four hours off‑unit access within the secure infrastructure of the hospital. He utilizes these privileges daily for work and routine activities. He continues to work in the upholstery shop five days per week, where he has taken on a leadership role and assists new co‑patients. His work is described as attentive and organized, though he occasionally struggles to accept responsibility for mistakes and has made negative comments about others’ work. He engages positively with staff and peers, often supporting co‑patients with taxes, technology, and government applications.
He also maintains contact with family, particularly his son, through regular phone calls and periodic visits, and connects occasionally with friends and former staff. He met independently with multifaith chaplains twice during the review period but does not otherwise engage in spiritual programming.
Notwithstanding, Mr. Johnson demonstrated periodic irritability, episodes of verbal aggression and inappropriate remarks, the latter of which tended to be racialized or vaguely suggestive in nature, making others uncomfortable. On July 6, 2025, Mr. Johnson was overheard talking to a co-patient, referring to staff as “cowards”, likening them to “stupid, young gang members trying to fit in”, declaring “They’re lucky you and I aren’t in the state of mind we were in when we committed our offences”. The Hospital Report notes that Mr. Johnson’s irritability and inappropriate remarks represent a change in his behaviour compared to the last few years and could be an early indicator of cognitive changes associated with increasing age. Because of this, he was invited to complete a Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) to establish a baseline, however, Mr. Johnson declined at the time and denied having any difficulties.
EVIDENCE AT THE HEARING
The evidence included comprehensive testimony from his forensic psychiatrist Dr. A. Mishra regarding Mr. Johnson’s progress over the review period.
Dr. Mishra stated that he had reviewed and adopted the Hospital Report, noting in particular that the risk assessment dated August 14, 2025, provided an accurate reflection of Mr. Johnson’s current risk.
Overall, Dr. Mishra advised that there were no significant updates pertaining to Mr. Johnson’s risk assessment, and his overall status has remained unchanged this reporting year. Dr. Mishra also noted that given Mr. Johnson’s age, the treatment team is considering senior‑friendly policies to avoid unnecessary transfers of long‑standing patients, and cognitive testing has been offered to Mr. Johnson.
Although Mr. Johnson had declined assessment in June 2025, Dr. Mishra reported that during a recent meeting Mr. Johnson seemed to be agreeable now to participating in the MoCA screening, though a date had not yet been scheduled. Dr. Mishra emphasized that Mr. Johnson is now 78 years old, and while increasing age normally brings physical frailty, Mr. Johnson remains a physically strong individual.
Dr. Mishra further noted that Mr. Johnson had demonstrated impatience with unit rules for a period of several months, but this behaviour has since dissipated. Dr. Mishra explained that Mr. Johnson does not fit into any broad category of risk. He does not present a daily management problem and is maintained on a high level of privileges without difficulty. The concern, however, is that if he were to be transferred to a medium secure setting, the change would prove destabilizing to his mental state and his risk to others, particularly females, would escalate dramatically. Dr. Mishra emphasized that while Mr. Johnson has been in a high secure setting for over forty years, the greatest risk remains exposure to females. While he is not a behavioural problem on a daily basis, the catastrophic nature of his index offences underscores the potential for serious harm should destabilization occur.
Dr. Mishra confirmed that Mr. Johnson remains on Beausoleil B with the highest level of privileges (C5), permitting him to be off the unit within the secure perimeter for up to four hours at a time. He has maintained this level for decades without incident, including in the presence of female staff, aside from occasional comments that have been interpreted as inappropriate but without physical attempts to harm. Mr. Johnson continues to receive monthly Lupron injections, which mimic chemical castration. Long-term use of Lupron is associated with reduced bone mineral density and bone scans conducted three years ago revealed no issues which would limit Mr. Johnson’s ability to continue taking it. The medication is working as expected, consistent with his age. Dr. Mishra agreed that the risk of violent sexual recidivism is not strictly related to Mr. Johnson’s testosterone levels, rather, is reflective of the complex drivers of his index offences.
Dr. Mishra stated that while recreational groups and other therapy options have been offered, there are no specific treatments available for Mr. Johnson’s diagnoses. Mr. Johnson’s combined diagnoses are rare, with few specialists available for therapy, but also, Mr. Johnson has declined consent and participation in an independent assessment.
In response to further inquiries from the panel, Dr. Mishra explained that the greater concern in transferring Mr. Johnson to a medium secure setting, is that such a transfer would be destabilizing. Mr. Johnson has been maintained in the high secure environment for decades. Although he has attended group programming aimed at sexual offending behaviour, he has not engaged in individual psychotherapy for many years. Dr. Mishra noted that psychotherapy has not been available in part due to Mr. Johnson’s refusal to participate in further assessments.
Acknowledging that while sex offender programs exist and can be delivered by skilled therapists, Dr. Mishra cautioned that such programs are designed for more standard categories of offending, and do not address Mr. Johnson’s specific constellation of problems. Therapy has been offered, but Dr. Mishra stated that certain preconditions must be met for such therapy to be effective. Mr. Johnson’s personality traits and the nature of his index offences make this very difficult.
More specifically, Dr. Mishra confirmed that Mr. Johnson has declined many therapeutic opportunities, including a recent offer to work with Dr. Klassen. Mr. Johnson expressed the belief that past clinicians such as Dr. Fedorov and Dr. Bradford were the only ones who could assist him, and he did not accept that others could provide meaningful help.3
Dr. Mishra also addressed questions regarding privileges. He explained that Mr. Johnson has not behaved inappropriately in a manner that would warrant reduction of privileges. He described Mr. Johnson’s escorted grounds walks, which occur every three weeks with two to three staff present. Although Mr. Johnson has requested that family members be permitted to join him, Dr. Mishra explained that this is not permitted at Waypoint and would raise security concerns for the institution as a whole.
SUBMISSIONS
Both the Hospital and Counsel for the Attorney General maintained their original position that the recommended disposition remains necessary and appropriate, and offered no further submissions.
Counsel for Mr. Johnson submitted that, regardless of the parties’ positions, the Board’s inquisitorial role requires a focus not only on public safety but also on individual assessment and treatment. Counsel expressed concern as to whether the barrier lies in Mr. Johnson’s unwillingness to be assessed or in the absence of available treatment options, noting that the Hospital’s evidence suggests he is agreeable to therapies. Reference was made to prior assessments, including subsequent evaluations, which acknowledged the complexity of Mr. Johnson’s case and identified him as a candidate for further assessment. Counsel further submitted that it remains difficult to determine whether Mr. Johnson is beyond meaningful intervention or whether additional strategies could be attempted, particularly given that lack of insight has been identified as a major obstacle, and she questioned why this has not been more directly addressed.
VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENTS
- At the conclusion of the hearing, the Victim Impact Statement of LG was read into the record by Counsel for the Attorney General, Ms. Armenise. In addition, other written Victim Impact Statements were received, all subject to the admissibility parameters set out by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Klem, Re, 2016 ONCA 119. The panel reviewed each of these statements in advance of the hearing and acknowledges the profound and tragic losses occasioned by Mr. Johnson to the victims.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
(a) Significant Threat
The Board must first determine whether Mr. Johnson continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625. A significant threat requires a real risk of serious physical or psychological harm to members of the public that is not trivial or merely speculative. In assessing this threshold, the Board is obligated to consider the evidence, including Mr. Johnson’s offence history, his current clinical presentation, structured risk information, and the expert opinions provided.
Based on the totality of the evidence, including the testimony of Dr. Mishra, recent clinical findings, the actuarial risk assessment results, and converging expert opinions of psychiatrists, Dr. Ramshaw and Dr. Van Impe, the Board concludes for reasons that follow, that Mr. Johnson continues to meet the legal threshold for a finding of ‘significant threat’.
The Board finds that the evidence consistently demonstrates that the ongoing risk factors in Mr. Johnson’s psychological profile are not mitigated by compliance with anti-androgen treatment, nor by the structured environment alone. His deeply ingrained paraphilic disorders and narcissistic personality traits persist, and any reduction in external controls could result in a resurgence of dangerous behaviours towards women, given his history of serious sexual offences and lack of genuine insight or remorse.
For many years, Mr. Johnson has demonstrated consistent compliance and stability within a highly secure forensic environment, maintaining good relationships with staff and adhering to security measures. Overall, he has built a life in this environment, consisting of developmental educational and occupational pursuits, and he has been very successful, adapting in many ways, including assisting and mentoring his fellow co-patients. Also, he has maintained healthy family relationships, especially with his son.
Despite this, there remain significant concerns about his potential threat to public safety outside this environment, particularly to women, due to his history of serious, dominance-driven sexual offences against women, with accompanied underlying paraphilias. The Board stresses that clinical assessments of Mr. Johnson’s current behaviour are difficult to gauge because of his rare and complex profile as a serial sex offender.
The Board acknowledges that Mr. Johnson has been on antiandrogen medication, which significantly suppresses his sex drive. However, the Board notes that sexual sadism and paraphilic disorders, coupled with narcissistic personality traits, are not meaningfully altered by age or chemical castration because these traits are deeply ingrained and resistant to pharmacological intervention. The Board understands that there is no treatment known to significantly change this kind of individual constellation – it is well documented that pharmacological castration reduces libido, but it does not extinguish sadistic interests or ‘control‑dominance’ motives.
In addition, the Board understands that the potential of changing Mr. Johnson’s risk profile is very limited because the nature of his offences did not require sexual functioning, and his risk is not solely dependent on testosterone levels. The research available often involves pedophiles, or single‑offence individuals. There are very few statistically significant risk assessment studies involving serial sexual sadists, necrophiles, or serial sexual murderers due to the small sample size of such offenders and an even smaller sample size of offenders with Mr. Johnson’s complex diagnostic profile and offence history. This underlies the Board’s concern that Mr. Johnson’s personality structure and deviant sexual preferences remain fundamentally unchanged, and he remains physically capable of the methods previously used in the index offences. He has functioned convincingly in structured settings and has historically offended while appearing integrated in the community. The Board expressly relies on the expert opinions of current and former assessors, cautioning that Mr. Johnson’s self‑report and presentation are unreliable, increasing the overall concern that he could revert to the behaviours comprising his index offences if external controls are weakened in any fashion.
The Board acknowledges that the treatment approach for Mr. Johnson should emphasize structured interventions targeting criminogenic risk factors, which have been shown to produce the most effective outcomes. These interventions should be based on cognitive-behavioural and skill-oriented techniques that help address underlying risk factors while promoting behavioural change. A key aspect of his treatment plan must include supporting him to be open and forthright about his personal history, offending behaviours, and offence-specific factors. This could enhance self-disclosure, improve understanding of the index offence precursors, and facilitate more effective risk management and reduction strategies. However, the Board is also mindful that this would require Mr. Johnson’s consent and participation, which when offered to him, he has declined (other than most recently consenting to the MoCA testing), generally indicating that he does not have any difficulties.
The Board puts substantial weight on the highly consistent expert opinions of Drs. Mishra, Ramshaw, and Van Impe. The internal change in Mr. Johnson has been minimal, that sexual sadism and enduring deviance persist, and that external controls remain the primary means of mitigating his risk. We further observe that risk assessments cannot fully capture the magnitude, complexity, or rarity of Mr. Johnson’s profile, and therefore serve only as partial indicators.
Taken together, the clinical assessments demonstrate that Mr. Johnson’s risk profile has remained static over time, and there has been no evidence of any change. To support this, the Board notes that in 2010, despite his advancing age and pharmacological castration, there was no evidence of change in his sexual deviance or personality structure.
The Board also notes that Mr. Johnson did not require sexual functioning to commit his index offences and remains physically capable of violent acts such as breaking, entering and strangulation of female victims. We are persuaded by Dr. Ramshaw’s caution that Mr. Johnson’s charismatic and duplicitous self‑presentation cannot be relied upon, as past assessments had repeatedly underestimated his risk. These concerns were reiterated by Dr. Van Impe in 2015. The Board also notes multiple interviews documented Mr. Johnson’s tendency to reframe offences as consensual encounters or substance‑induced behaviour, despite longstanding voyeuristic, exhibitionistic, fetishistic, and transvestic behaviours predating drug use. The Board accepts the conclusion that sexual sadism remains central to Mr. Johnson’s pathology and his denial and reframing demonstrate an entrenched lack of responsibility and insight.
The Board remains concerned by Mr. Johnson’s striking lack of insight, including his tendency to reframe offences as motivated by depression or substance use rather than deviant impulses. We are persuaded by Dr. Mishra’s caution not to underestimate the danger posed by sexually sadistic serial offenders. Mr. Johnson has a poor appreciation of the danger he would present in a less secure facility, particularly to vulnerable female co‑patients.
Although Mr. Johnson has demonstrated psychiatric stability, cooperative behaviour, and the absence of recent physical aggression, this does not demonstrate internal risk remission. Mr. Johnson’s refusal and/or delay of cognitive testing, together with increasing irritability, and inappropriate remarks underscore persisting deficits in his judgement and insight.
On the record before it, the Board is persuaded that even if age and medication can mitigate some aspects of Mr. Johnson’s risk profile, the potential consequence of any re‑offence scenario would result in catastrophic harm. The Board stresses again that the combination of enduring sexual deviance, limited insight, capability to perform prior methods as used in the commission of the offences, and continuing reliance on high secure external structured control, when taken together, establishes a non‑trivial, non‑speculative risk of serious harm, and therefore the threshold for ‘significant threat’ has been met.
b) Necessary and Appropriate
The Board must next determine the disposition that is necessary and appropriate in the circumstances. The disposition must embrace the principle of ‘least onerous and least restrictive’ with due consideration given to Mr. Johnson’s liberty interests, which must also be consistently weighed together with concerns about public safety (the paramount concern), his mental condition, and his reintegration into society, as required by s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
The Board is not satisfied that a transfer to a less secure facility or reduction of external controls would be consistent with public safety. Mr. Johnson’s index offences comprise seven serial sexual murders and ten sexual assaults with strangulation over an eight‑year period, committed while he was functioning in the community. The extremely violent nature of these offences is a static factor that permanently elevates the magnitude of any future harm. Even if the probability of re‑offence has declined with age and pharmacological treatment, the seriousness of the potential harm and any residual risk to others cannot be managed in a less secure hospital setting.
The Board notes that Mr. Johnson has remained psychiatrically stable in a high secure setting, with compliance with Lupron and cooperative behaviour under supervision. He has engaged in vocational programming, maintains family contact, and is generally manageable for staff. These factors weigh in favour of recognizing his liberty interests. However, the stability observed is contingent upon stringent external controls, including the high secure environment, lack of access to sleeping females, a high degree of staff monitoring, and rules because his risk profile has not changed internally and remains dependent on external management. Further, while the Board acknowledges that Mr. Johnson’s privileges at the C5 level have been maintained without incident, as previously stated, these occur within a secure perimeter under close supervision by highly skilled staff who are intimately familiar with his history and his presentation.
Although suggested, the Board is very concerned that exposing Mr. Johnson to situations involving women to test re-offence potential would be too risky for public safety, and while his current secure environment manages his risk – it does not eliminate it. Efforts to find alternative treatment options or transfer him to a lower-security facility have been unsuccessful, as other hospitals have declined to admit him, citing safety considerations. Given the female population, both working or residing in the less secure hospital settings, if such a transfer were to occur, the likely scenario for Mr. Johnson would be a reduction or restriction of his privilege levels, and the use of seclusion measures.
Another consideration is that Mr. Johnson’s paraphilic disorders and personality traits remain unchanged despite age and pharmacological intervention. His past offences demonstrate that sexual functioning was not required for him to commit acts of extreme violence towards women. His longstanding tendency to minimize or reframe his behaviour as consensual or related to substance use, underscores a persistent lack of insight and responsibility. Mr. Johnson’s risk profile remains active and is dependent on stringent external controls, which cannot be mitigated in a less secure hospital setting. Overall, his current risk management plan maintains a complex balance of containment, medication, and ongoing risk assessment, with minimal prospects for altering his current risk profile. Given this, the Board finds that Mr. Johnson continues to require the highly secure, highly structured external controls currently at Waypoint to effectively manage the risk he poses to the safety of the public.
There remains the issue of the Board’s inquisitorial role and whether the barrier to individual assessment and treatment is rooted in Mr. Johnson’s unwillingness to be assessed or the absence of available treatment options, given evidence in the Hospital Report that he has shown some amenability to participate in treatment. In fulfilling its mandate, the Board is guided by the Court of Appeal for Ontario’s ruling in the case of Magee (Re) 2020 ONCA 418 that (a) the Board’s inquisitorial duties require it to do more than maintain the status quo and (b) it is incumbent on the Board to proactively consider and explore how an NCR accused might progress further. This is particularly apt in Mr. Johnson’s case given (a) he has been at the maximum level of privileges for many years and (b) he has progressed as much as he can at Waypoint, identical to the situation before the Court of Appeal in Magee.
There is also the matter of the Board’s 2023 finding that it would be appropriate to seek outside consultation with an expert in the treatment of sex offenders to determine if there were any programs or treatment which may be of assistance as well as obtaining an updated opinion with respect to Mr. Johnson’s suitability for transfer to a less secure facility. For a number of reasons, the Hospital (which had agreed to fund such an assessment at the time) has been unable to move forward with this. In the Board’s opinion, the rationale in support of the Board’s 2023 recommendation remains applicable to the current circumstances and efforts to explore ways in which Mr. Johnson may progress should continue.
Leaving aside for the moment whether Mr. Johnson would consent to participate and appreciating the complexity of his diagnoses and risk profile, the evidence before the Board is that Waypoint does not offer programs for the treatment of sex offenders, currently. The Board is mindful of its role as a specialized tribunal with expertise in assessing complex situations such as the one before it. This panel of the Board is of the view that efforts should be made by the Hospital to explore augmenting Mr. Johnson’s pharmaceutical intervention (Lupron) with evidence-based psychotherapeutic intervention.
In furtherance of this goal, by virtue of the clinical expertise of its constituent members, this panel of the Board is aware that the Association for the Treatment and Prevention of Sexual Abuse (“ATSA”) is an international multi-disciplinary organization dedicated to the prevention of sexual abuse, including the assessment, treatment and management of individuals who have sexually abused or at risk to abuse. The Board invites the Hospital, in consultation with counsel for Mr. Johnson, to contact the ATSA to explore whether a suitable clinician can be found to engage in consultation with Mr. Johnson’s treatment team. Should the Hospital determine that psychotherapeutic intervention is clinically appropriate, and Mr. Johnson consents to participate, it may be that remote counseling via videoconferencing can be utilized. Should Mr. Johnson ever be deemed suitable for transfer to a medium-secure setting, it will likely be the result of successful participation and demonstrable progress in rehabilitative initiatives. In this fashion, Mr. Johnson’s successful participation in treatment ultimately furthers the paramount purpose of 672.54 of the Criminal Code which is the safety of the public.
Accordingly, the Board concludes that continued detention in a high secure setting on the terms and conditions currently in place remains necessary and appropriate because this disposition reflects the least onerous and least restrictive option available, given the magnitude of risk presented, while balancing Mr. Johnson’s liberty interests, with the paramount need to protect the public, and ensures that his risk is managed through the external controls that have proven effective thus far.
DATED this 16th day of January 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. T. Mann
Alternate Chairperson
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board
Footnotes
- See, for example, the Board’s reasoning in R. v Keddy, reported at 2025 CanLII 66891 (ON RB) where inter alia the Board reminded the parties that it is generally presumed an accused will attend their hearings, as indicated by the language of s. 672.5(10) of the Criminal Code of Canada and that the discretion vested in the Court or the Chairperson of the Review Board to permit an accused to be absent does not create an entitlement to be absent.
- Although the terminology at the time referred to ‘juvenile’ this would now be considered a youth offence under the current Youth Criminal Justice Act.
- In its 2023 Reasons for Disposition, the Board found that it would be appropriate to seek an outside consultation with an expert in the treatment of sex offenders to determine if there were any programs or treatment which may be of assistance as well as to obtain an updated opinion with respect to Mr. Johnson’s suitability for transfer to a less secure facility. The Board’s 2024 Reasons for Disposition outlined that the Hospital and Mr. Johnson did not reach an agreement upon a proposed assessor.