Re: Damien T. Maize
ORB File No: 7540
Hearing held on: Monday, December 8, 2025
Place of hearing: Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care 401 Sunset Drive, St. Thomas
Pursuant to: Sections 672.81(1) and 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Weinstein
Members: Dr. L.O. Lightfoot Dr. R. Chandrasena Ms. C. Murray Ms. C. Plyley
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Damien T. Maize Counsel: Mr. W. Glover
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Zamprogna
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. D. Rows
REASONS FOR DECISION AND DISPOSITION
(Dated January 2, 2026)
Introduction:
On May 6, 2019, Mr. Damien Maize was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, on charges of unlawfully in a dwelling house and breach of probation, both contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”).
Mr. Maize is subject to the terms of a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”) dated November 18, 2024, which orders that he be detained at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care, St. Joseph's Health Care London (“Southwest”).
Pursuant to s. 672.56(2) of the Criminal Code, Southwest notified the Board by letter dated October 26, 2025, that Mr. Maize’s liberty had been restricted: Mr. Maize was residing in an independent apartment in St. Thomas, Ontario, with the support of the forensic outreach and Indwell housing teams. Urine drug screens determined he was positive for methamphetamine use. Mr. Maize also missed an appointment with his psychiatrist, on September 25, 2025. Mr. Maize was then determined to be AWOL. Police located him and returned him to Southwest.
On December 8, 2025, the Board convened a hearing at Southwest to conduct the annual review of the current Disposition and to conduct a Restriction of Liberty (“ROL”) hearing.
Mr. Maize was present at the hearing and was represented by his counsel, Mr. Glover.
An Update to the Hospital Report and an ROL Report (the “ROL Report”), dated October 17, 2025, was entered as Exhibit 1.
A Hospital Report, dated November 17, 2025 (the "Hospital Report"), was entered as Exhibit 2.
When a hospital significantly restricts the liberty of an accused for more than seven days, it has an obligation, under s. 672.56(2)(b) of the Criminal Code, to provide notice to the Board as soon as possible. Under s. 672.81(2.1), the Board is then required to convene an ROL hearing to review the hospital’s decision, also as soon as is practical. Since Mr. Maize’s annual hearing was scheduled for December 8, 2025, it was agreed that his annual review and the ROL would happen concurrently.
For the ROL, the issues at this hearing were:
a) whether the decision made by the person in charge to significantly increase the restriction of liberty on Mr. Maize was warranted and necessary, as well as the least onerous, and least restrictive, option in the circumstances, at the time of its onset, on September 26, 2025, and
b) whether it continues to be so
- For the annual review, the issues at this hearing were:
a) whether Mr. Maize is a significant threat to public safety, as defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code: and
b) if so, what is the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances, bearing in mind the factors enunciated in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
For the reasons set out below and based on the expert evidence and opinions before it, the Board concluded that the initial Restriction of Liberty was warranted, necessary and appropriate, as is the ongoing Restriction of Liberty. The Board found that these restrictions were necessary for public safety, and they represented the least onerous, and least restrictive, interventions available.
For the reasons set out below and based on the evidence before us, the Board concluded that Mr. Maize continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board found that the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances is a continuation of the existing Detention Order, with the amendments agreed to by all the parties, including:
a) Addition of a requirement to live in 24/7 supervised accommodation
b) deletion of paragraph 2(e), which permits him to enter the community of Southwestern Ontario, indirectly supervised
c) addition to paragraphs 2(f) and 2(g) the privilege of indirectly supervised travel to and from the destination approved
d) deletion of the requirement that he participate in a drug and alcohol rehabilitation treatment program.
Current Psychiatric Diagnosis:
- Schizophrenia
Substance Use Disorder
Antisocial Personality Disorder
Intellectual Disability – moderate
Index Offences
- The circumstances giving rise to the Index Offences are extracted from last year’s Board Reasons, as follow:
“On Friday, the 23rd of June, 2017, Damien Tyler MAIZE did break and enter 146 Ontario Street, Clinton, Ontario in the Municipality of Central Huron, County of Huron. MAIZE entered the home of Judith Kathleen ALILOVIC where he committed theft by consuming food and alcohol that belonged to the home owner. MAIZE was located in the residence of ALILOVIC by police and had the keys to the residence and unattached garage in his pants pocket. MAIZE had consumed food, beverages and alcohol belonging to the home owner who had left for a trip to Ireland on Tuesday, the 20th of June, 2017 and no one was to be in her home. It appeared MAIZE had been squatting at the residence as there were several burnt cigarette butts, empty beverage containers and food containers throughout the kitchen and living room as well as multiple beds in the residence had been slept in.
On the 14th of November, 2016, MAIZE was bound by a Probation Order of the Ontario Court of Justice in Goderich for a period of 12 months. MAIZE was placed on a condition to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. MAIZE failed to comply with that condition when he committed [sic] break and enter.”
Reasons for Restriction of Liberty
- The ROL Report sets out the reasons for Mr. Maize’s readmission to Southwest, as follows:
“On September 25, 2025, Mr. Maize’s urine came back positive for amphetamines, and a confirmation test was ordered. A Psychiatry visit was scheduled to occur later this same day for Mr. Maize to be assessed by Dr. Prakash. He was contacted at 11:30 a.m. and was made aware of his appointment at 2:30 p.m. He was agreeable to attend but then did not show up for his scheduled appointment. Outreach staff attempted to contact him several times, but he did not answer his phone (calls and text messages). Indwell staff entered his apartment to conduct a wellness check, but Mr. Maize was not in his apartment. They noted some drug paraphernalia (ball pipe) and emesis in his toilet, and that all of his medications since September 22, 2025, were still on his counter. Their last contact with him was approximately 9:15 a.m. in the morning, at which time he had told them that he was aware of his appointment this afternoon. As such, at 4:00 p.m. the St. Thomas Police was contacted and notified that Mr. Maize was Absent Without Official Leave (AWOL) and a form 49 was initiated.
On September 26, 2025, at approximately 10:00 p.m., Mr. Maize was apprehended by Police in Talbotville, where he was observed drinking water from a pond. He was taken to the St. Thomas Elgin General Hospital (STEGH) to be medically cleared and then admitted to the Treatment Unit South B2 at the Southwest Centre, escorted by two Police officers.”
Background
- Mr. Maize’s background is outlined in the Hospital Report, and it is accurately summarized in last year’s Reasons:
“Mr. Maize’s personal and psychiatric history, including the details of his mental disorder and treatment since being found NCR, are described in detail in the hospital report. Briefly, Mr. Maize is single with one non-dependent adult child, with whom he does not have a relationship. He lives in the community in his own apartment in St. Thomas at a residence operated by Indwell.1 He is followed by the FOPS team under the care of Dr. Prakash. He is employed part time and also volunteers at a clothing store. In addition, he is financially supported by the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP). He is capable of consenting to psychiatric treatment, however the management of his property and finances is handled by the Public Guardian and Trustee.”
Course Since Last Disposition
- Mr. Maize’s course since his last Disposition and readmission to hospital is set out in detail in the Hospital Report and the ROL Report. The following extracted paragraphs are relevant to this hearing:
“Mr. Maize continued to reside at The Station, managed and operated by Indwell, under the care of Dr. Arun Prakash, for the duration of the reporting period, but required readmission to hospital on two occasions (April 29, 2025, and May 22, 2025) due to substance use/breaching his disposition and subsequently decompensation of his mental status.
Mr. Maize remained impacted by positive symptoms of his illness. He regularly endorsed tactile hallucinations and/or fixed somatic delusions but maintained that these were not hallucinations/delusions.
Mr. Maize was also impacted by negative symptoms of his illness.
Mr. Maize has demonstrated a general disregard for rules, specifically related to Indwell policies and the expectations set out to him by the hospital. His association with a negative peer group linked to substance use and criminal activity is destabilizing.
Mr. Maize has struggled with maintaining a consistent daily structure and often prioritized personal interactions over scheduled responsibilities, leading to missed appointments and disrupted routines.
On April 17, 18, and 20, 2025, Mr. Maize tested positive for methamphetamines.
Mr. Maize again tested positive for methamphetamines on April 27, 2025, and was agreeable to a readmission to the hospital. He was admitted to the Rehabilitation Readiness Unit A1 on April 29, 2025. He remained in hospital until May 8, 2025, at which time he was placed on a leave of absence (LOA).
On May 22, 2025, while still on LOA, it was reported by Indwell staff that Mr. Maize was not adhering to the expectations at Indwell.
He was again agreeable to a readmission to hospital and was admitted to the Rehabilitation Readiness Unit A1 on this same date. He remained in hospital until June 8, 2025, at which time he was placed on another LOA until June 24, 2025, when he was discharged.
On July 7, 2025, Mr. Maize again tested positive on a random urine sample for toxicology screening and admitted to using crystal meth.
Development Services Ontario (DSO) application completed November 15, 2024. Following this he had a two-part assessment with DSO. These assessments were completed by May 2025. Mr. Maize is fully eligible for all DSO supports.
Mr. Maize has been enrolled in the Passport program, which gives him access to funds to reimburse him for expenses related to community participation and involvement; however, as Mr. Maize is financially incapable and retains a PGT, he is unable to self-manage these funds as per the Passport program policy.
Urine samples for toxicology screening returned positive for amphetamines on September 24, 26 and 27, 2025.
Mr. Maize’s clozapine was restarted on September 29, 2025.
Given the complexity of Mr. Maize’s cognitive and mental health needs, it's become clear to the Outreach team that the current level of support offered through the Indwell program may not be sufficient to meet his ongoing care needs. After careful consideration, the team believes that a transition to a group home setting would be more appropriate as it would offer more structure, supervision, and consistent support, which could help Mr. Maize better manage his health and daily living. Mr. Maize will remain in hospital for a longer duration until more suitable living arrangements can be made.”
Position of the Parties
Counsel for the hospital, counsel for the Attorney General and counsel for Mr. Maize advised that this was a joint submission, with respect to the restriction of liberty: all parties agreed that the initial restriction of liberty was warranted, necessary and appropriate, as is the ongoing restriction of liberty.
With respect to the annual Disposition, all parties advised that this was also a joint recommendation: the continuation of the existing Detention Order is the necessary and appropriate Disposition, with the recommendations set out in the ROL Report, including the requirement that Mr. Maize live in 24/7 supervised accommodation.
Counsel for Mr. Maize advised that, for the purposes of this hearing, significant threat was not in dispute.
Evidence at the Hearing
- The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence from Dr. Arun Prakash. Dr. Prakash co-authored the Hospital Report and testified as follows:
a) Mr. Maize is currently on a treatment unit, with his medications (notably clozapine) having been restarted as a result of what happened ( being AWOL) in his ROL. Mr. Maize is now back at his original dose of clozapine, 400 mg.
b) Mr. Maize has level 4 privileges, being indirectly supervised ground privileges, up to half an hour, and full hospital privileges.
c) The plan is to move Mr. Maize to a rehabilitation unit and eventually to a 24-hour supervised group home. The final decision for a community placement will be made by his new treatment team.
d) The past reporting year has been mixed for Mr. Maize. He had periods of stability, working and volunteering regularly. These periods were interrupted by episodes of drug use. The September 25 incident was particularly severe, resulting in significant disorientation and decompensation of his mental stability. Recovery took about a week to 10 days.
e) Since restarting clozapine, Mr. Maize has improved physically and mentally, though some delusions (such as crawling sensation) persist.
f) Mr. Maize requires significant supervision, especially because of his cognitive difficulties. He benefits from structured environments and written instructions. The addition to the existing Disposition requiring 24/7 supervised accommodation for the coming year was necessary for the protection of public safety.
g) Indwell is no longer an appropriate residence for Mr. Maize, as he has easy access to substances there.
h) The Risk Assessment set out in the Hospital Report is still valid today.
i) Mr. Maize’s family are key supports, especially his sister and mother. Mr. Maize has been approved for Passport funding, which the hospital hopes to use for practical needs, such as transportation to an aftercare program for substance relapse.
j) The team is recommending changes to allow Mr. Maize indirectly supervised travel to and from his destination in the event that Mr. Maize becomes stable enough to enjoy these passes. The passes could also be used for travel by taxi to and from Mr. Maize’s sister’s house.
k) Mr. Maize’s substance use relapses have been linked to stressors , including his recent bereavement. Individual counselling programs are now in place to manage future stressors, and the hospital’s occupational therapist is also involved.
l) Mr. Maize needs individual therapy, not group therapy.
m) Mr. Maize was working at a garage station. The hospital is hoping that this job will still be available to him once Mr. Maize returns to the rehabilitation unit and obtains indirectly supervised passes into the community.
n) He adopted the Hospital Report and the reasons why Mr. Maize is considered a significant threat, as set out on pages 118 and 119.
- In response to questions from counsel for Mr. Maize, Dr. Prakash testified as follows:
a) Family support is very important for Mr. Maize.
b) Travel between St. Thomas and Goderich is challenging for his sister who lives in Goderich. These passes would be used for him to visit with her without requiring her to pick him up at the hospital.
c) Indirect supervision for transportation to Goderich would be in Mr. Maize’s best interest, as it would help with his reintegration into the community.
- In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Prakash testified:
a) Indirectly supervised travel passes are intended only for situations when it is determined that Mr. Maize can safely manage them. Mr. Maize will be with an approved person once at his intended destination. The purpose of subsequent indirectly supervised passes to his destination is to add flexibility to the release provisions, allowing for less restrictive conditions when the hospital deems it safe.
b) Indwell has beds for unhoused persons, as well as six patients from the forensic unit. Substances are easily accessible there, and their use is rampant.
c) Mr. Maize is particularly vulnerable to negative peer influence; therefore, returning him to Indwell is neither safe nor realistic. Because of Mr. Maize’s cognitive difficulties, it is important that he engage in 1:1 substance relapse prevention programming.
d) Mr. Maize is still receiving weekly follow-up with the Westover Aftercare Program.
- No other evidence was called.
Analysis and Conclusions
Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence, as well as submissions from the parties, the Board agrees with the joint submission: Mr. Maize remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.
In Winko, the Supreme Court outlined that, in coming to the conclusion on the issue of significant risk, a Review Board should closely examine a range of evidence, including: the circumstances of the original offence; the past and expected course of the accused’s treatment; the present state of the NCR accused’s medical condition; the NCR accused’s own plans for the future; the support existing for the NCR accused in the community; and most importantly, the recommendations provided by experts who examined the NCR accused. In coming to our conclusion in this matter, the Board relies on the uncontroverted expert evidence of Dr. Arun Prakash, in addition to the documentary evidence before us.
If Mr. Maize were to be discharged absolutely, and left to manage his own future, it is highly unlikely that he would seek out professional support, given his past noncompliance with treatment and supervision. Mr. Maize has difficulty managing his schedule. His insight remains limited across all domains.
Mr. Maize had several relapses into substance use, which resulted in decompensation in his mental stability.
In particular, the Board relies on the Re-Offence Scenario and the Overall Clinical Assessment of Risk, set out in the Hospital Report:
“Without forensic support and supervision, Mr. Maize would likely encounter stressful or anxiety-provoking situations that he would not likely be able to cope with. He would disengage from structured activities and resort to maladaptive coping strategies such as substance use, as he has in this reporting period. Ongoing substance use would significantly worsen his mental health symptoms. Given his current fragility in the community, he would likely not seek treatment support, which would increase his risk of violence and reoffending.
It is the opinion of the treatment team that Mr. Maize continues to pose a risk of serious physical or psychological harm to members of the public. The following evidence supports this opinion:
Mr. Maize has a major mental illness, namely schizophrenia. He continued to experience symptoms of his illness, including hallucinations, delusions and various negative symptoms;
Mr. Maize has limited insight into his mental illness, need for treatment, and violence risk;
Mr. Maize continued to demonstrate impulsivity in his decision making, specifically around substance use, rule adherence, and the negative peer group he spends his time with;
Mr. Maize continued to have issues with rule adherence and follow through. He requires regular prompting/assistance from staff to maintain his schedule and manage his day-to-day life;
Mr. Maize has a long history of substance use. He relapsed into substance use this reporting period and remains a high risk for future relapses (e.g., inadequate coping strategies, negative peer influences). He does not appear to prioritize or have the internal motivation/insight for the addictions support;
Mr. Maize’s personal support network would not be helpful in mitigating his level of risk; and
Mr. Maize does not have adequate professional mental health support absent the forensic system. Given his lack of insight and past non-compliance with treatment and supervision, it is unlikely that he would seek out professional support on his own.
The treatment team does not believe an alternative disposition, such as a conditional discharge, would be sufficient to manage Mr. Maize’s future risk. He has continued to present with symptoms of his illness and required readmission to hospital on two occasions due to substance use/breaching his disposition and subsequent decompensation of his mental status. He lacks insight into his mental illness, need for treatment, and his risk for future violence. He would likely not be able to recognize signs of decompensation and would not seek help independently. Mr. Maize has unrealistic goals related to future living situations. He aspires to live independently but requires regular support from staff to manage his day-to-day life and ongoing supervision and assessment to remain well and successful in the community. As such, the hospital requires the ability to approve his accommodation. As well, it would be critical for public safety and Mr. Maize’s mental condition to bring him back to hospital expediently, under a Warrant of Committal, if he were to decompensate.”
- The Board agrees that a Restriction of Liberty has taken place, pursuant to the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in R vs MLC (2010 ONCA 843), as well as in Regina vs Campbell (2018 ONCA 140). The Board has also concluded, based on the evidence before us, that the hospital’s decision to significantly restrict Mr. Maize’s liberty, by readmitting him on September 26, 2025, and his ongoing restriction, were warranted and necessary. In particular, the Board relies on the following extracted paragraph from the ROL Report:
“Given the complexity of Mr. Maize’s cognitive and mental health needs, it's become clear to the Outreach team that the current level of support offered through the Indwell program may not be sufficient to meet his ongoing care needs. After careful consideration, the team believes that a transition to a group home setting would be more appropriate as it would offer more structure, supervision, and consistent support, which could help Mr. Maize better manage his health and daily living. Mr. Maize will remain in hospital for a longer duration until more suitable living arrangements can be made. He will also be encouraged to participate in substance use programming to address his addiction issues.”
- In consideration of all the evidence, submissions of the parties and the criteria set forth in s. 672.54, the paramount consideration being the safety of the public, in addition to the mental condition of Mr. Maize, his reintegration into society and his other needs, the necessary and appropriate Disposition is to continue with a Detention Order, with the amendments agreed to by all the parties.
DATED this 2nd day of January 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Mr. J. Weinstein
Alternate Chairperson
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board