Re Andrew Murphy, 2026 CanLII 8796

Re: Andrew Murphy

ORB File No: 6307

Hearing held on: Friday, January 16, 2026

Place of hearing: Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences

Pursuant to: Section 672.81 (1) of the Criminal Code

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Ms. L. Banks (by Zoom videoconference)

Members: Dr. R. Sheppard Dr. L. O. Lightfoot Ms. C. Murray Ms. R. Chopra

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Andrew Murphy Counsel: Mr. D. Medd

The person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. Pearce

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. N. MacDonald

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated February 3, 2026)

Introduction:

1. On March 14, 2013, Mr. Andrew Murphy was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on three charges of assault, failure to comply with probation order and robbery, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (the “Criminal Code”). Mr. Murphy is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB” or the “Board”) dated January 22, 2025, detaining him within the Forensic Program at Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (“Ontario Shores” or the “hospital”) subject to a number of terms, conditions and privileges, including the privilege of living in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge of the hospital.

2. On January 16, 2026, a panel of the ORB convened to hold a hearing to review Mr. Murphy’s current Disposition. Mr. Murphy was present at the hearing and represented by counsel, Mr. Medd.

3. The issue at this hearing is whether Mr. Murphy is a significant threat to public safety, as defined in s.672.5401 of the Criminal Code. If so, the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances must be determined, bearing in mind the factors enunciated in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

4. For the reasons set out below, the Board concluded that Mr. Murphy continues to represent a significant threat to public safety and the necessary and appropriate Disposition is that he continues to be bound by his existing Detention Order.

Index Offences:

5. Details of the index offences are extracted from the Hospital Report to the ORB dated December 18, 2025 (the “Hospital Report”), as follows:

“Charges: Assault (3 counts)

On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 at approximately 3:55 p.m. the accused before the court, Andrew Murphy, was in the vicinity of Yonge St. and Dundas St. W. The first victim in this matter, [victim #1 – male], was standing with a friend in front of a public parking lot entrance.

The accused approached the victim and asked if he could spare some change. When the victim replied that he didn’t have any, the accused, with full force, struck the victim on the left side of his face using an open hand. The accused then walked away.

The victim was left standing in shock and in pain with a small cut to his inner cheek.

A short time later the accused approached another stranger, [victim #2-female](73 years of age) who had been standing with her daughter-in-law at the corner of Bay Street and College Street. The accused again asked for spare change. Upon being rebuffed, the accused, with an open hand and much force, struck the victim on the top of her head causing her to feel a great deal of pain.

As the accused turned to leave, he was yelled at by the victim’s daughter-in-law [daughter-in-law’s name], as to what he thought he was doing. [The daughter-in-law] fearing that she was also going to be hit attempted to shield her two small children from the accused. Her children present were 5 and 7.

The accused was witnessed by a passing officer who interceded and prevented the [daughter-in-law] and her two children from being hurt.

After a brief struggle, the accused was handcuffed and placed under arrest for assault. As a result of the police investigation, the preceding assault was discovered and the accused was informed of the additional charge. The accused was transferred to 52 Division where he was held pending a show cause hearing.

Injuries to [victim #2-female]: soreness to top of head and headache.

Charge: Failure to Comply with Probation

On September 20, 2012, the accused before the court was convicted of the offence of assault x2 by Justice Hyrne.

One of the conditions listed on the accused’s probation [was] that he Keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

Charge: Robbery

On Wednesday, October 10, 2012, the victim was in the City of Toronto to attend an appointment at St. Michael’s Hospital. At approximately 3:40 p.m., she parked her car in a lot on the east side of Bond Street across from the hospital and walked toward a pay kiosk.

As the victim approached the attendant, she observed the accused standing beside [the] kiosk. The accused made a demand for money and when the victim refused, he punched her in the back of the head. The victim was able to fight off the accused and prevent the attack from continuing. The accused fled southbound and was last seen in the Queen Street East and Bond Street area.

The victim contacted the police and reported the robbery.

At approximately 4:00 p.m., the accused was arrested in an unrelated assault in 52Division. The accused was taken to 52 Division for investigation and charged accordingly. The accused was held in custody pending a show cause hearing.”

Positions of the Parties:

6. At the commencement of the hearing, counsel for the hospital asserted that Mr. Murphy continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that he should remain bound by the terms of his existing Disposition.

7. Counsel for the Attorney General supported the hospital’s recommendations.

8. Counsel for Mr. Murphy stated that his client was supportive of the hospital’s recommendation and he conceded the issue of significant threat.

9. All parties maintained their initial joint recommendation to the Board in closing submissions.

Background:

10. Mr. Murphy’s personal history is set forth in detail in the Hospital Report and need not be repeated here. Briefly stated, he is a 44-year-old man who became a Crown Ward at age two. His mother had Schizophrenia and his biological father was unknown. He suffered significant trauma from a very early age. He was adopted at age two by a supportive family but presented with significant behavioural instability early on.

11. He has a lengthy history of psychiatric contacts dating back to age six at which time he was diagnosed with a behavioural disorder. His mother reported that her son experienced auditory hallucinations and paranoia by age nine. Details of his numerous psychiatric contacts and admissions are listed in the Hospital Report at pages 6-14.

12. Mr. Murphy has a significant history of alcohol and drug use (primarily, cannabis and cocaine) from an early age. He has attended at various rehabilitation and detox centres on multiple occasions. He self-reports experiencing many serious overdoses related to cocaine use. His periods of abstinence are isolated to hospitalizations and incarcerations.

13. Mr. Murphy has an extensive criminal history which includes multiple convictions for assault, as well as convictions for robbery, theft, possession of a Schedule 1 substance, and multiple charges for failure to comply with probation orders.

14. Mr. Murphy has never married and has no children.

Current Diagnoses:

15. Mr. Murphy’s current diagnoses are:

Schizoaffective Disorder, bipolar type;

Polysubstance Use Disorder;

Antisocial Personality Disorder; and

Borderline Intellectual Functioning.

Evidence at Hearing:

16. The evidence at this hearing consisted of the Hospital Report, as well as the viva voce evidence of Dr. M. Pearce, Mr. Murphy’s attending forensic psychiatrist for approximately the last year and a half.

17. Dr. Pearce stated that Mr. Murphy has had a very good year. The doctor acknowledged that in early 2025, Mr. Murphy had some substance use challenges but since daily structure has been introduced, Mr. Murphy has been doing quite well and is engaged in meaningful activities in the community.

18. Mr. Murphy continues to be assessed as capable to make treatment decisions and he receives treatment with a long-acting intramuscular antipsychotic injection, Aripiprazole, which he receives every 28 days. He also takes a daily oral antipsychotic medication, Risperidone, a mood stabilizer, Divalproex Sodium, and an anti-depressant, Sertraline. He has also been compliant in taking Naltrexone to help him avoid alcohol consumption.

19. There has been no evidence of overt psychosis over the past reporting year; however, Mr. Murphy generally presents as anxious and, at times, will voice paranoid ideation. He most often denies hearing or responding to auditory hallucinations but is observed to engage in self-talk.

20. To his credit, Mr. Murphy has not exhibited any violence or aggression since he has been under the supervision and care of Dr. Pearce and he has not presented as a management problem. He enjoys a good rapport with staff and co-patients alike.

21. The doctor reminded the Board that Mr. Murphy had been re-admitted to hospital from the community on December 7, 2024, after using crack cocaine. He has remained an inpatient on the Forensic Psychiatric Rehabilitation unit (“FPRU”) over the year in review, under the care of Dr. Pearce. As has been the case for the past several years, Mr. Murphy’s progress towards transitioning back to the community has been impeded by his numerous relapses to substance use.

22. Within the structured environment of the hospital, Mr. Murphy has remained medication compliant and has not presented with any psychotic or mood symptoms.

23. Of note, Mr. Murphy’s ORB Disposition prohibits alcohol, drugs and other intoxicants; however, the blanket prohibitions carves out cannabinoid use. In response to a question posed by a panel member, Dr. Pearce commented that Mr. Murphy has not presented with violence, aggression or psychosis when solely under the influence of cannabis and its use did not negatively impact his mental status.

24. The Hospital Report makes reference to a number of notable incidents over the past reporting year relating to substance use. On February 14, 2025, a bag of cannabis was found in his coat during a unit search. Possession of substances of abuse within the hospital is in breach of hospital rules. Accordingly, Mr. Murphy’s privileges were held for 24 hours. Later, in March, April, and June 2025, Mr. Murphy used cocaine several times. Noticeable mental status changes were evident as a result of his use. He was noted on these occasions to evidence paranoia, mood lability, pressured speech and psychomotor agitation. When his use was objectively verified by positive urine drug screens (“UDS”), his privileges were placed on a temporary hold.

25. Given his multiple instances of relapse to substance use, the treatment team put together a more substantive plan in the summer of 2025 which essentially attempted to provide more structure to his time. The plan seemed effective as Mr. Murphy only relapsed once thereafter when he used cocaine and amphetamines. On that occasion, his mental status did not change dramatically. When questioned about his use in the face of a positive UDS, Mr. Murphy offered that he smoked a joint which must have been laced with those substances.

26. Mr. Murphy has continued to enjoy extensive, indirectly supervised hospital grounds and community passes. He often used these passes to attend a local gym.

27. To his credit, Mr. Murphy participated in many programs including, Tech Connect Group, Building Self-Worth Group, illness management and recovery.

28. In an effort to infuse even more structure into his daily activities, in the fall of 2025, he returned to school and he was regularly off the unit from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. daily, in school. Mr. Murphy has done well with this program and is likely to achieve his GED by the end of January 2026. He has engaged well in school and although he has at times found the program challenging, he reports coping well with the stressors of schoolwork and exams.

29. In response to questions raised by a panel member, Dr. Pearce indicated that the treatment team and Mr. Murphy are looking to add additional programming that may be available over the winter months to keep him engaged in structured daily activities as he has responded so well to this intervention. Dr. Pearce commented that Mr. Murphy is able to see the direct relationship between his engagement in structured daily activities and his ability to maintain his sobriety, which is a good sign. The doctor testified that Mr. Murphy’s insight with respect to his mental illness and substance use disorder is considered good.

30. Dr. Pearce advised that Mr. Murphy is designated as Alternative Level of Care, indicating his readiness for discharge to the community when appropriate housing can be secured. To that end, discharge planning is in process and Mr. Murphy is again on the waitlist for DD-TRHP housing. Dr. Pearce stated that the FOS team has expanded the housing search for Mr. Murphy by making applications to other supportive housing providers, including the Community Housing Opportunities program and the CREATE housing program.

31. Mr. Murphy has no Approved Persons. He has occasional contact with his family members, who often ask him to send them money.

32. Dr. Pearce advised that an updated risk assessment was completed by Dr. N. Marshall, C. Psych. on November 27, 2025, based on file review and interview with Mr. Murphy. The Risk Summary indicates that “Overall, in examining the present risk factors for the HCR-20V3, it is opined that Mr. Murphy’s future risk for violence falls within the Low-Moderate range in the context of a continued Detention Order, up to and including community living.” Dr. Pearce commented that he would place Mr. Murphy at the lower end of that range.

33. The Clinical Assessment of Risk contained in the Hospital Report indicates that, “His primary risk flows from his psychotic disorder, his limited coping skills and impulsivity, his impaired cognitive abilities as well as his serious substance use disorders. Absent a Disposition of the Board, he would migrate to unsuitable housing and fall away from psychiatric care. He would resume heavy use of alcohol and drugs. In those circumstances and likely within a number of weeks, there would be a real risk of serious physical and/or psychological harm to members of the public, given his history.”

34. In response to a question posed by a panel member, Dr. Pearce advised that, at this juncture, a Conditional Discharge is not appropriate given that the hospital requires the ability to approve Mr. Murphy’s housing in the community to ensure that it provides him with the requisite level of structure, support and supervision. As well, Dr. Pearce also stated that a Detention Order continues to be necessary at this juncture as it provides the hospital with the authority to readmit Mr. Murphy to the hospital quickly and efficiently, should the need arise once he is back in the community.

35. No further evidence was called by the parties.

Analysis and Conclusions:

36. The Board finds that Mr. Murphy remains a significant threat to the safety of the public. He suffers from serious mental illness, namely Schizoaffective Disorder, which in the past has led to many episodes of aggression, violence, and reckless behaviour. Mr. Murphy’s mental illness and cognitive impairments also significantly contributed to his affective instability and his ability to adequately regulate his emotions. As well, Mr. Murphy has an extensive history of criminal offending, with several assault charges. He also suffers from a longstanding substance use disorder involving alcohol, cannabis, and cocaine. He continued, primarily over the first half of the past year, to relapse to these substances.

37. The Board unanimously finds that the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances of this case to best manage the risk posed to the public by Mr. Murphy at this time, while meeting his needs pursuant to s. 672.54 is that he continue to be detained within the Forensic Program at Ontario Shores with privileges as set forth in his existing Disposition.

38. Although not recommended by any of the parties, given the facts of this case, this panel has independently determined that a Conditional Discharge would not be an appropriate Disposition at the present time as Mr. Murphy has yet to be successfully transitioned to community living. To ensure the success of that transition, the hospital requires the ability to approve his housing in the community to ensure that it provides him with the requisite level of structure, support and supervision. Further, once discharged to the community, the hospital requires the authority of a Detention Order should it become necessary to readmit Mr. Murphy to the hospital quickly and efficiently if the need should arise due to decompensation or relapse to alcohol, cocaine or other substance use, or for any other reason. A Detention Order provides these essential risk management tools.

39. In making this decision we have taken into account the need to protect the public from dangerous persons, Mr. Murphy’s current mental state, his reintegration into society and his other needs.

DATED this 3^rd day of February 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

Ms. L. Banks Alternate Chairperson

Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board