Re: T. (L.)
ORB File No: 5402
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: T. (L.) Counsel: Ms. C. Francis
The Person in Charge of Hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Lefebvre
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. J. Armenise
REASONS FOR DECISION
(Dated January 29, 2026)
On June 23, 2009, Mr. T. (L.) was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on charges of utter threat to cause death or bodily harm (x2), assault with a weapon, possession of a weapon for dangerous purpose, breach of probation and mischief - not exceeding $5,000, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”). T. (L.) was most recently subject to the terms and conditions of a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB” or the “Board”) dated January 24, 2025, pursuant to which he is ordered detained at the Forensic Programs, North Bay Regional Health Centre –North Bay Site (“NBRHC” or the “Hospital”), subject to several terms and conditions, including the privilege to enter the community of North Bay, indirectly supervised.
By way of a letter dated July 31, 2025, the Hospital requested an early review of T. (L.)’s Disposition. As the Hospital was seeking a transfer of T. (L.) to the High Secure Provincial Forensic Programs at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care (“Waypoint”), the Hospital also provided a Rule 13 Notice dated July 31, 2025.
On September 4, 2025, a panel of the Board convened in person at the Hospital to conduct an early review of T. (L.)’s Disposition, pursuant to s. 672.81(2) of the Criminal Code. After hearing all of the evidence, that panel found that North Bay Regional Health Centre did not have the facilities to handle T. (L.), and the panel ordered him to be transferred back to the High Secure Provincial Forensic Programs at the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care (Waypoint).
T. (L.) was admitted to Waypoint on October 24th, 2025. The admitting psychiatrist noted that T. (L.) was somewhat surprised to learn that he had been ordered to Waypoint and that he would remain there until his next ORB hearing. He wanted to have his lawyer appeal the September 4th, 2025, panel’s decision, although this was not done. T. (L.) was refusing medication. T. (L.) obtained a security level B1, permitting accompanied off-unit access, on November 13, 2025.
However, on November 17th, 2025, T. (L.)’s mental state decompensated further. He was paranoid, guarded, confrontational and challenging. He reported auditory and visual hallucinations. He reported having thoughts of violence saying, “if I feel disrespected, I will act out in violence.”
T. (L.)’s liberty was restricted starting November 17th and continued up until the time of this panel’s Restriction of Liberty hearing on January 13, 2026. The position of the Hospital and counsel for the Attorney General at the outset of the hearing was that the Restriction of Liberty was necessary and appropriate. Counsel for T. (L.) indicated she had questions to ask. This panel found that the Restriction of Liberty was justified, necessary and appropriate.
Index Offences
- The incidents giving rise to the index offences are fully set out in the 2025 Hospital Report and have been reviewed by the panel. They are briefly summarized here, as follows:
The charges relate to an attack by the accused on his brother and mother on January 3 and 4, 2009, at their home in Wikwemikong on Manitoulin Island and his encounter with police who responded to the situation. While the events unfolded, T. (L.) was in possession of a knife, although injuries to the brother arose as a result of kicking and punching and not from the use of the weapon. He did however hold a knife to his brother’s throat.
The police, who had been alerted by the mother as to what had transpired, attended at the residence. At that time, T. (L.) exited the residence with an ice pick shovel and went towards the officers. He then caused damage to a police car. T. (L.) had consumed alcohol despite being bound by a Probation Order prohibiting the same. At the time of the index offences, T. (L.) was suffering from persecutory delusions.
Of note, in May 2024, T. (L.)’s brother, L. (L.), who was a victim of the index offences, passed away due to an overdose.
Background Information
- T. (L.) was 35 years of age at the time of the hearing and was 17 at the time of the offences. The details of his early life, substance use history, criminal record, psychiatric history, and his lengthy time under the ORB’s authority are fully set out in the Hospital Report. As the sole issue before this panel is the Restriction of Liberty, it is unnecessary to review this information for the purpose of these reasons.
Diagnoses
- The 2025 Hospital Report lists T. (L.)’s diagnoses as:
Schizophrenia;
Post-traumatic stress disorder;
Cannabis use disorder;
Alcohol use disorder;
Gambling disorder; and
Antisocial personality disorder.
Evidence at the Hearing
At T. (L.)’s Restriction of Liberty hearing on January 13, 2026, the panel learned that he was still in seclusion. The panel had been given the impression, from the Report, that he was out of seclusion as of December 30, 2025. It appears that even counsel for the Hospital, Ms. LeFebvre was under this same impression. T. (L.) appeared on video and our Alternate Chair noted it appeared the accused was still in conclusion. Ms. Lefebvre indicated that her witness, Dr. Bunker, would be able to clear everything up in her evidence.
The Alternate Chair asked the position of the parties. Counsel for the hospital said she believed that Dr. Bunker would give evidence as to that position. Counsel for the Attorney General indicated she stood with the Hospital. Ms. Francis said she had some questions she wanted to ask on behalf of her client.
Exhibits were filed by the Alternate Chair, including the Restriction of Liberty (“ROL”) letter of November 27, 2025, and the Restriction of Liberty Hearing Report of December 30th, 2025.
Dr. Bunker was the only witness at the hearing. She stated that the restriction was necessary, and the Crown agreed. Ms. Francis said that T. (L.) felt the restriction had possibly been warranted but should have ended some time ago.
Dr. Bunker testified that although T. (L.) remains in seclusion, he has significantly improved since the December 30th, 2025, report was authored.
T. (L.) has a long history of violence and of taunting staff. When he was told he was going into seclusion, he asked, “Why don’t you just put me on medication?” but in the past he has used that as a ruse to get staff to come into his room so he can fight them. He becomes extremely aggressive. With male staff, he likes to ask them about their fighting prowess.
He is currently in a step-down room, and not in the most austere seclusion room. Dr. Bunker explained that the system at Waypoint is that if he improves, he stays in the next step for seven days and then that is reduced. At the time of the hearing, he is still on waist and wrist restraints. If things continue to go well, the waist restraint will be removed and then the next step would be the wrist restraints.
Dr. Bunker testified that his current risk is why he is in seclusion. He has a lengthy history of violence. Prior to his seclusion, he was refusing medication. He started on medication three weeks ago. One medication is an injectable and all of the medications take time to take effect.
T. (L.) is not forthcoming with his delusions. He is improving but the doctor said that can take several months. His insight is suboptimal. The connection that he makes between the medication and his behaviour is fragile.
He was covering his window so that staff cannot check on him, but he has stopped doing that. He was not allowing garbage to be removed from his seclusion room, but now he is allowing that.
The most austere seclusion room is little more than a mattress on the floor. T. (L.) has now been promoted to a step-down room. It is very much like his own room, but quieter. He has interaction with staff several times a day. He receives phone calls. He has access to the canteen.
T. (L.) received a sad phone call from his mother on December 30th, 2025. His mother lives on Manitoulin Island and she called to inform him that one of his brothers had died. With respect to his brother dying, Dr. Bunker testified he was handling that very well.
In the December 30th, 2025, report, we were told that the Indigenous spiritual care provider had tried to see T. (L.), but the accused was refusing to see him. T. (L.) is now allowing visits from the spiritual care provider.
The Chair invited questions from counsel. The Crown asked questions about suicidal ideation. Dr. Bunker said that had lessened. She stated that while his medication was not at therapeutic level yet, he had just started injectable medication, and she was hopeful that was going to be very helpful.
Ms. Francis, for the accused, asked why Dr. Bunker had not put him on medication rather than in seclusion, as T. (L.) had offered on November 18th, Dr. Bunker replied that from October 24th, 2025 when T. (L.) arrived at Waypoint, up until November 17th, Dr. Bunker had been trying on almost a daily basis to get him to take medication and he refused. He was competent to refuse. Dr. Bunker did not trust his sudden offer, upon being told he was going into seclusion, to take medication. She talked again about him taunting staff and she felt it was really a ploy to get staff in the room with him so he could fight them.
Ms. Francis asked about a behaviour plan and if her client gets involved with that. Dr. Bunker replied that yes, he does but she, Dr. Bunker, does not explain that to him. There is a behavioural specialist who sits down with him, explains the report, and explains what is necessary for him to get out of seclusion and continue to stay out.
Counsel for T. (L.) asked if there were social interactions with other patients and Dr. Bunker answered that eventually there would be.
At this point, the Alternate Chair invited questions from the panel. One panel member pointed out that T. (L.) is Indigenous and asked if she would be open to ordering a Gladue Report. Dr. Bunker indicated she would be. Ms. Lefebvre, for the Hospital, pointed out that T. (L.) has previously refused a meeting with a Gladue Report writer. She stated he did not want a Gladue Report as part of his record. However, Ms. Lefebvre stated that if that changed, she would be happy to order a Gladue Report for him.
Submissions: The Hospital submitted that T. (L.)’s seclusion continues to be reasonable given his history of violence while the medication takes effect. Counsel noted that T. (L.) has shown quite a bit of improvement in just the past week. The hope is that he will be out reasonably soon. Different time frames were mentioned: two or three weeks, possibly more.
The Crown adopted the position of the Hospital.
Ms. Francis stated that her client wants out of seclusion. He feels that his seclusion has been a little longer than necessary.
Decision
The panel retired to consider the evidence. T. (L.) has multiple diagnoses that include a major mental illness and significant substance use disorders. Despite treatment with antipsychotic medication, he has continued to experience intermittent, residual symptoms of his illness throughout his lengthy course in various hospitals while under the Board’s authority. He has a significant history of violent behaviour against family members, co-patients, hospital staff and police. While the symptoms of his mental illness have driven his violent behaviours, so too has his antisocial personality structure. Particularly during times when he has been refusing to take his prescribed antipsychotic medication, he has demonstrated threatening and physically aggressive behaviour toward co-patients and staff at each hospital where he has been detained.
The placement into seclusion was warranted and Mr. T (L.)’s ongoing stay in seclusion was the least onerous and least restrictive placement throughout his ongoing stay in seclusion.
The panel was mindful that T. (L.) has found this seclusion to be very long, and he feels somewhat frustrated. We understand that he wants to get out of seclusion as soon as possible. We the Board are urging him to follow the best pathway to do that which is working closely with his doctor.
DATED this 29th day of January 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. M.L. Bridger Legal Member
__________________ Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board