Re: William McDonald, 2026 CanLII 8800

Ontario Review Board

Re: William McDonald

ORB File No: 8049

Hearing held on: Monday, December 1, 2025

Place of Hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre

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

Before: Alternate Chairperson: Mr. D. Sandor Members: Dr. R. Kunjukrishnan, Dr. R. Cormier, Mr. J. Weinstein, Mr. A. Bernardo

Parties Appearing: Accused: William McDonald Counsel: Ms. K. Kealey The person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. J. Hwang Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. E. Davies

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated January 20, 2026)

Introduction

1On April 1st, 2022, William McDonald was found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder on a charge of killing or injuring animals (cats), breach of probation and criminal harassment, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. Mr. McDonald is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated December 17th, 2024, detaining him at the Forensic Treatment Unit of the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre (hereinafter referred to as “the Hospital”) with privileges up to and including living in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge.

2On December 1st, 2025, a hearing was convened at the Hospital to review that disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. McDonald was in attendance with supportive family members and was assisted by his lawyer, Ms. Kathleen Kealey. Dr. J. Hwang, his treating psychiatrist attended on behalf of the Hospital, and a lawyer from the Office of the Crown Attorney, Ms. E. Davies represented the Attorney General.

3The record for the hearing included the Notice of Hearing, dated February 26, 2025, the most recent Disposition dated December 17, 2024, and the Reasons for that Disposition dated January 28, 2025. On the consent of all parties, a Hospital Report dated November 9,2025 was entered into evidence as Exhibit 1.

4The parties were canvassed for their positions at the hearing’s outset. All agreed that Mr. McDonald continued to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public as that term is defined in section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and as it has been explained by the Supreme Court of Canada in Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625. The Hospital and counsel for Mr. McDonald submitted that the evidence would support Mr. McDonald’s being discharged subject to conditions that included residing at a specified location, reporting to the Hospital not less than once every two weeks and terms that require him to abstain from the non-medical use of alcohol, drugs and intoxicants together with a provision that he submit samples for the purpose of monitoring his compliance with the abstention condition.

5Ms. Davies for the Attorney General reserved on this issue while expressing an expectation that the Board would likely be met with a joint submission at the conclusion of the evidence. This ended up being the case.

6For the following reasons, the Board has concluded that the joint submission is appropriate. Mr. McDonald continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. The objectives however of section 672.54 of the Criminal Code, the primary of which is that of assuring the safety of the public, are satisfied by the granting of the conditional discharge proposed by the parties. Our conclusion in this regard, as will be explained in more detail below, is driven by the progress Mr. McDonald has made in responding to pharmacological treatment as well as his insight into his major mental illness, need for medications and his commitment to sobriety manifest over the course of this past reporting period.

Evidence at the hearing

7The evidence for the hearing came from the Hospital Report mentioned above and the viva voce evidence offered by Dr. Hwang.

8Turning first to the Hospital Report, it includes a summary of the circumstances giving rise to the commission of the index offences as they have been described in previous Reasons for Disposition:

“September 22 to 29, 2021

Killing or injuring animals (one count)

Breach of probation (one count)

Mr. McDonald had a lengthy history of police involvement prior to this incident. He entered into a twelve-month Probation Order signed by the Honourable Justice Fournier on May 20, 2021. The order included the condition to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

On the morning of September 22, 2021, Mr. McDonald attended his father and stepmother’s home, where they had several pets. His father observed a trail of blood throughout the house and located one of his cats with a large laceration to its chest/neck area. The cat was transported to the animal hospital where it succumbed to its injuries and was pronounced dead.

The cat had been impaled through the chest with an exit wound on its neck. This was inconsistent with any known natural injury a cat would sustain. Aside from the father, Mr. McDonald was the only other individual at the residence on this day. Due to Mr. McDonald’s past history, the Ontario Provincial Police requested that the Cornwall Police Service attend to conduct a wellness check. When police arrived, Mr. McDonald apparently made a comment that he tasted the cat’s blood on the floor at his father’s residence.

Police records showed that officers found an axe at Mr. McDonald’s unit at Martin’s Inn, where he was staying temporarily. Officers informed his father and stepmother about the steps needed to obtain a Form 2 from a Justice of the Peace. Mr. McDonald was apprehended under this Mental Health Act form the following day. He was involuntarily admitted to the Cornwall Community Hospital.

On September 29, 2021, the father and stepmother attended the OPP detachment and provided police with statements. They had been encouraged by a psychiatrist to advocate for a Section 21 assessment under the Mental Health Act for Mr. McDonald. The police determined that there were reasonable grounds to charge Mr. McDonald for the death of the cat.

September 24 to 26, 2021

Utter threats to cause death Criminal harassment

Breach of probation

On September 26, 2021, police spoke to Mr. McDonald’s sister, Lauren, after she filed a complaint that Mr. McDonald had threatened her. She reported that she had not spoken to Mr. McDonald in three to five years. She had previously obtained a restraining order against Mr. McDonald, which had lasted for three years. The restraining order had expired within the previous year. She had not spoken with Mr. McDonald because of his deteriorating mental health. She was aware of the recent accusations regarding the family’s cat and his involuntary admission to hospital.

The sister informed police that she received a phone call from Mr. McDonald on September 24, 2021, while he was admitted to Cornwall Community Hospital. He left a voicemail asking her to return his call. The following day, she received another phone call from Mr. McDonald. She answered this call, and Mr. McDonald said he was the King of England. He told her that he had “an axe and I’m going to come chop your head off and then think of what to do with the rest of you.” She asked several times who the caller was. Mr. McDonald kept stating “how’s it going, Laruen?” before confirming “it’s Will” and then hanging up.

Mr. McDonald called again about fifteen minutes later, which Lauren declined. She then received two text messages from Mr. McDonald in quick succession, stating that “it was a joke, Lauren! Look up King Henry the 8th…I think he wanted me to say it to you.” She then blocked Mr. McDonald’s phone number. On September 26, 2021, however, she received a message from Mr. McDonald through Facebook Messenger stating, “Miss yeah, sis.”

Lauren told police that she was fearful of Mr. McDonald, because she did not know if he was capable of acting on his threats. She contacted the Cornwall Community Hospital psychiatric floor, where the nurses informed her that they had taken away Mr. McDonald’s phone. Mr. McDonald apparently told the nurses that he did not mean what he said. She wished for Mr. McDonald to be charged because of her fear and her awareness of his deteriorating mental health.

On September 29, 2021, police attended a meeting at the Cornwall Community Hospital, with Mr. McDonald and hospital staff. While taking custody of Mr. McDonald, the officers were provided with a document titled “Final Report” completed by Dr. Maryam Yazdanpanah. In the report, Dr. Yazdanpanah stated that “due to the fact that Mr. McDonald has serious homicidal behaviour (high risk of violence to others), I would like to ask for a full psychiatrist assessment where he is in custody.”

Background

9Mr. McDonald is now 31 years old. He is a high school graduate but struggled throughout his education with aggressive and disruptive behaviour. His years in secondary school were periodically interrupted as a result of his use of substances. He has limited employment experience and significant history in the criminal justice system. He is currently an ODSP recipient.

Criminal History

10Mr. McDonald’s criminal history includes convictions for thefts, breaking and entering, mischief, possession of a weapon, criminal harassment, assault with a weapon and numerous convictions for non-compliance with court orders. The Hospital Report suggests that much of his criminal activity took place in the context of mental health struggles and difficulties with substance use that included cannabis, cocaine, crack cocaine and fentanyl. Mr. McDonald did engage in treatment for his addictions and was on the Methadone program between 2012 and 2017. During this period, he had no involvement with the criminal justice system.

Psychiatric History

11While Mr. McDonald displayed aggressivity and difficulties with rule compliance as a child and symptoms of major mental illness led to a period of assessment in 2016, his first confirmed manifestation of psychosis was in 2021 when he reported hearing voices and experienced preoccupation with command ideations. Around this time, he also began experiencing referential ideas, believing that he was receiving messages from the television. At that time, his insight and judgement were described as being impaired.

12The Hospital Report notes that, for the past few years Mr. McDonald has exhibited frank psychotic symptoms, including persistent delusions, hallucinations, and disorganized behaviour. He has had repeated episodes of psychotically motivated violence and aggression, including an attack on his father that required medical attention. For the past, several years he has been inconsistently housed and unemployed because of his psychotic symptoms. Over the past decade, he has demonstrated antisocial behaviours which may be consistent with an antisocial personality disorder. He has lived for many years with a persistent untreated psychosis. It is likely that he met criteria for conduct disorder as a child.

13Mr. McDonald has however made progress since coming under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board. Last year’s Reasons for Disposition note that, as of 2022, Mr. McDonald has demonstrated greater insight into his major mental illness and improved judgment into the impact of stimulants on his symptoms and the risk he poses to the safety of the public. While he has regularly tested positive for cannabis use, usually around periods of increased stress and anxiety, that use did not, to that point, contribute to any manifestations of delusional thought or aggressivity. Mr. McDonald shows insight into his need for antipsychotic medication that he regularly received in the form of a long-acting injection. Generally, he has requested refills of his medication as required and urine screens have confirmed his continued use of the medication as prescribed. He engages positively with supportive family members.

14Last year’s Reasons for Disposition also explained that Mr. McDonald has developed some independent living skills and was in stable housing at the Lebreton supportive transitional housing where he receives staff support from 8 AM to 5 PM over a period of 18 months following which the plan was to transition Mr. McDonald to SALUS housing as the next step to independent living.

The Hospital Report’s Update

15The Hospital Report’s update for the purposes of this hearing begins at page 48. It explains that Mr. McDonald has continued living at the Lebreton Transitional Home. He has not experienced any decompensations and has exercised patience through the process of medication adjustments. He has maintained insight into his major mental illness and need for medications. He has demonstrated consistency in treatment adherence and has not expressed any intentions of lowering or stopping any of his antipsychotic medications. He has continued to attend several groups focusing on addictions therapy and the development of coping skills in preparation for the stresses of independent living. He has participated well in groups and in social settings. Contact with his family has been a motivating factor for him though there are some family members that continue to express residual discomfort and hesitation when it comes to one-on-one unsupported contact with him.

16Whereas last year’s Reasons for Disposition noted that Mr. McDonald’s insight into the risk to mental decompensation posed by his use of cannabis was “superficial,” the Hospital Report’s update describes improvement over the course of this reporting period. Mr. McDonald has been able to identify how substance use dulled his mental health symptoms for short periods, those symptoms would then return with greater intensity. He completed the Hospital’s Concurrent Disorders group in April 2025, having attended 33 out of 36 sessions.

17The process of Mr. McDonald’s reintegration into the community is also described in the Hospital Report. It notes that, over the last review period, he has been employed in landscaping. He has required support in terms of punctuality, participation and distractibility and has engaged in the Hospital’s Bakeology Program to further develop skills that will help him as he looks for further work. Mr. McDonald transitioned with intense case management support to independent apartment living through the Grove Satellite Program in April 2025 and by July 2025 he had moved to his new subsidized one-bedroom apartment. In this setting he disclosed increased anxiety and poor sleep leading to cravings for more substance use. He engaged with the treatment team and reported improved anxiousness and sleep patterns by August 2025. He engaged with individual addictions counseling through the Canadian Mental Health Association and began meeting with a CMHA case manager biweekly, in addition to his weekly meetings with the Grove program’s key worker. He attends group meetings through the Grove two to three times per week and attends regularly in Dr. Hwang’s clinic (every three to four weeks). He has been rule compliant and punctual though he has displayed some low energy. Urine tests for substances have been negative, and he has budgeted his money well for food and housing expenses. He has taken pride in being a smart shopper.

18Mr. McDonald has set goals associated with his weight and general health. He has reduced his use of energy drinks and has become more active and attentive to his health. He engaged in daily walks, daily push-ups in his room and has maintained a healthier diet. While his social network is small, he has enjoyed studying history and science and has shown appropriate generosity and respect for people’s boundaries.

Current diagnoses

19Mr. McDonald’s current diagnoses are set out at page 53 of the Hospital Report as follows:

• Schizophrenia, multiple episodes, in full remission
• Cannabis use disorder, mild, in sustained remission
• Opioid use disorder, on maintenance therapy
• Stimulant use disorder, moderate, in sustained remission
• Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.

Current Risk Assessment

20The Hospital Report includes a Risk Assessment at page 54. The assessment relied on the use of the HCR-20, version 3, a structured clinical judgment instrument broadly accepted in the scientific community. No challenges were raised as to the appropriateness, or the standards employed in the usage of this instrument. In concluding that Mr. McDonald presents a moderate risk of future violence, the assessment states:

“A potential risk scenario would include Mr. McDonald using substances during a period of increased stress leading to a psychotic episode having paranoid and grandiose beliefs and command auditory hallucinations. Such psychotic decompensation may lead to violence directed towards close acquaintances or family members.

Mr. McDonald’s historical (static) risk factors for violence remain the same as previous years and I will not repeat it here.

Mr. McDonald has the following clinical (current or recent) risk factors:

• C4: Recent problems with instability – Mr. McDonald has demonstrated anxiousness leading to inattentiveness and reduced participation in treatment during period of transition to independent living, requiring more support through case management and medication dose adjustment. He continues to have some low-grade depressive symptoms related to social isolation.

Mr. McDonald has the following risk management (future) factors:

• R3: Future problems with personal support – Mr. McDonald’s social network remains small. His father’s partner raised concerns of feeling uncomfortable during family visits, although the specifics are unknown.

• R5: Future problems with stress or coping – Mr. McDonald may use substances as ways to cope with stressors.

When looking at positive features that mitigate his future violence risk, Mr. McDonald is compliant with psychiatric appointments and medications. He has positive relationships with his father and sister. In addition, he is connected with professional services that have helped stabilize his overall mental health and will continue to support him in the next year.”

21In her evidence to the Board, Dr. Hwang reiterated that Mr. McDonald engages well with his supports at the Grove and at the Hospital. He is reducing his medications and doing well in the community. He has been sober for more than a year and has not displayed any psychotic or mood symptoms. He has been able to travel outside of Ottawa with family. All visits have gone well. As a result of his improvement, his sister has asked to remove the no-contact condition that had previously been in place. Dr. Hwang confirmed that several visits have now taken place at that sister’s home without any further indication of concern.

22Dr. Hwang further testified that Mr. McDonald is responsible for his own oral medications. His medications are expected to be subject to continued adjustment over the next review period. For this reason, she indicated over the course of her testimony, that a treatment clause would be appropriate if Mr. McDonald consented to the same, pursuant to the provisions of section 672.55(1) of the Criminal Code. It was noted that, while Mr. McDonald did not take a position on whether that condition was necessary and appropriate having regard to the provisions of section 672.54 of the Criminal Code, his lawyer did communicate his consent to the 672.55(1) order being made.

23Dr. Hwang commented on Mr. McDonald’s insight. She explained that his insight into his need for treatment is both internal and external. She said that Mr. McDonald wants to comply with any Board disposition. He also understands that his major mental illness contributed to the index offences and adversely affected both him and his family. He does not want this to happen again.

Submissions

24As mentioned above, at the end of the hearing the Board was presented with a joint submission that Mr. McDonald continued to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that a conditional discharge, with terms as set out in the Hospital Report and the ordering of a treatment clause, on Mr. McDonald’s consent, was necessary and appropriate to satisfy the objectives set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code. Counsel for Mr. McDonald repeated, with regard to the ordering of a treatment clause, that while Mr. McDonald was consenting, the Board yet had to satisfy itself that such a condition, on the evidence, was necessary, appropriate, and represented a minimally intrusive approach to attaining the objective set out in section 672.54, the primary of which remains the assurance of the safety of the public.

Analysis and conclusion

25Turning first to the threshold issue, the Board agrees that Mr. McDonald continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. While the Board benefitted from the joint submission in this regard, it did not arrive at this determination lightly. It is mindful that the threshold finding has been described as “onerous” and “weighty.” The threshold finding cannot be made solely because an individual suffers from a major mental illness, nor can it be made solely because that mental illness figured prominently in the commission of an index offence. It must be based on a principled analysis of several factors informing historic and ongoing risk, clinical factors and risk management factors all based on an analysis that links those factors to the type of significant harm arising from serious criminal conduct that is envisioned in section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code.

26The significant threat determination in this case is grounded in the seriousness of the index offences committed in the context of Mr. McDonald’s long-standing struggle with major mental illness. It is also informed by a criminal history that has followed Mr. McDonald’s periods of struggle with decompensating substance use and historic lack of insight into the risk of decompensation and further offending behaviour such substance use occasions for him. Mr. McDonald’s history in unenviable. His major mental illness has brought delusional symptoms, command ideations, aggressivity, and irritability. It has caused his family fear and loss and has resulted in struggles with socialization and employment.

27While the last few years have shown marked improvement while under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board, the length of Mr. McDonald’s struggle with major mental illness and criminality is accompanied by the shadow of his relapse into substance use and psychosis following a period of prolonged treatment and abstinence. In this context, while his progress is hopeful and laudable, he is still reintegrating fully into independent living and is still strengthening the social relationships and practices that provide better coping responses to stress, anxiety and psychotic symptoms than does his historic turning to the use of substances. His medication is being continually adjusted and decreased. Under such circumstances the re-offence scenario described in the Hospital Report is realistic. Mr. McDonald is still prone to relapse driven by anxiety and stress associated with the pressures of independent living. Use of substances, including cannabis, will drive an intensification of his symptoms resulting in a spiralling decompensation similar to that manifest at the time of the commission of the index offences. There is, in our view a real risk of further serious criminality absent a Board disposition. The harm to the public flowing from that criminality would be significant both physically and psychologically.

28The Board also agrees with the joint submission that Mr. McDonald’s sustained progress, consistent insight into his major mental illness, the role it played in the commission of the index offences, and his need for medication warrants the granting of a conditional discharge. While the threat he poses to the safety of the public is significant, Mr. McDonald has another year of treatment compliance in an environment where he is largely responsible for the taking of an oral antipsychotic medication relied upon to support the progress he has made with his long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication. He has participated well in Concurrent Disorders programming and has been able to consistently identify the intensification of symptoms that occurs when he uses any substances, including cannabis. He has tested negative throughout this reporting period and has progressed to a point where his family, including those who were direct victims of the index offences, have been able to restore relationships in an environment that continues to provide forensic oversight and support.

29Mr. McDonald is engaged in physical activity and programming with community resources, including those offered by the Canadian Mental Health Association. He is open and transparent with his anxiety and has turned to appropriate supports when experiencing cravings for substances during stressful periods of transition. He has visited and traveled with family on approved itineraries and attend regularly with Dr. Hwang’s clinic while living in the community. There have been no noted relapse of symptoms and no incidents of reported aggressivity or irritability. In our view a conditional discharge with terms as set out in the Hospital Report will provide the assurance of public safety mandated by the Board’s primary objective.

30The Board turned its mind to the proposed treatment order proposed by Ms. Davies and consented to by Mr. McDonald. Dr. Hwang testified that such an order would be “reasonable.” The Board had to consider whether it was “necessary and appropriate” having regard to the principle of minimal intrusion and the objectives set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code. In our view, it is. Mr. McDonald is undergoing adjustments to his medication in a community environment that exposes him to the stresses of independent living. While he has abstained from substances for a period of years, he now finds himself in circumstances of sobriety and progress that are similar to those that preceded the relapse into substance use and psychotic symptoms that informed the index offences.

31In our view there is a real risk in this setting that the protective qualities of his decreasing and adjusted antipsychotic medications will be strained as anxieties increase cravings for substances. Should this happen, Mr. McDonald will cease treatment compliance and may experience a withering or at least a straining of developing family and social supports. His risk of deterioration will increase. In our view, his consent while insightful is also informative. At this stage, Mr. McDonald’s internally motivated insight into his need for treatment is buttressed by the external motivation provided by a Board order mandating treatment. It is, in our view, necessary and appropriate having regard both to the primary objective of assuring the safety of the public and the other and ultimate objectives of ensuring that Mr. McDonald’s mental health and other needs are met as he reintegrates into the community.

32As a result, the Board concludes that Mr. McDonald continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that a conditional discharge is necessary and appropriate to manage his risk, having regard to the provisions set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code. The conditions proposed, including the section 672.55(1) treatment clause, are all necessary and appropriate and represent the most minimally intrusive course suitable to his circumstances at this time. An order will issue accordingly.

33The Board congratulates Mr. McDonald on a successful year and expresses its thanks to all who attended and participated in this hearing.