Re Robert Kirkpatrick, 2026 CanLII 8805

Ontario Review Board

Re: Robert Kirkpatrick

ORB File No: 7671

Hearing held on: Tuesday, October 21, 2025

Place of hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre

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

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. P. Capelle

Members: Dr. S. Lessard

Dr. G. Boulais

Mr. R. Rainboth

Ms. J. Fuller

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Robert Kirkpatrick

Counsel: Ms. M. Munsterman

The person in charge of Hospital: Representative: Dr. Wood

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. M. Dufort

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated February 3, 2026)

Introduction

1. On December 20, 2019, the accused, Robert Kirkpatrick, was found not criminally responsible on charges of break and enter and commit, mischief, uttering threats, assault peace or public officer, obstruct/resist a public/peace officer, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”).

2. Mr. Kirkpatrick is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”), dated August 27, 2025, which discharges him on various terms and conditions. The current disposition stems from a Restriction of Liberties (“ROL”) hearing that occurred on August 19, 2025, and resulted in an amendment to the residency provisions of Mr. Kirkpatrick’s prior disposition order dated May 14, 2024.

3. Under the current disposition, Mr. Kirkpatrick has been discharged from the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Center (“ROMHC”), subject to conditions that he report to the Hospital, not less than once a week, abstain from the non-medical use of drugs or alcohol, submit samples as required, notify the hospital of a change in address, and travel while accompanied. The current terms do not include a residence specification.

4. On October 21, 2025, the Board convened a hearing at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre to conduct the annual review of the current Disposition.

5. Mr. Kirkpatrick was present and represented by his counsel, Ms. Munsterman. At the time of the hearing, Mr. Kirkpatrick was a voluntary patient of the ROMHC Forensic Rehabilitation Unit.

6. The Royal Ottawa Hospital document titled “Ontario Review Board - Addendum For Annual Report”, dated October 10, 2025 (the “Hospital Report”), was entered as Exhibit 1. The May 3, 2023, Disposition and corresponding June 12, 2023, Reasons for Decision and Disposition, were entered as Exhibit 2.

7. The issue at this hearing is whether Mr. Kirkpatrick 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.

8. For the reasons set out below and based on the expert evidence and opinions before it, the Board concluded that Mr. Kirkpatrick continues to present a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board ordered that the necessary, and appropriate, Disposition in the circumstances is the imposition of a Detention Order.

Current Psychiatric Diagnoses

9. Mr. Kirkpatrick’s current diagnoses are:

• Schizoaffective Disorder – bipolar subtype
• Cannabis Use Disorder – moderate severity

Index Offences

10. The circumstances giving rise to the Index Offences are detailed in the Hospital Report. A summary is extracted from the June 12, 2023, Board Reasons, as follows:

…the index offences all occurred on August 2, 2019. In the morning, Mr. Kirkpatrick approached a co-resident of his group home who was outside sitting in her wheelchair smoking. He repeatedly asked for a cigarette while hitting the back of her wheelchair. When he was not given a cigarette, he attempted to take hers. He then tried to grab her fanny pack, before slapping her across the face. The co-resident suffered a minor cut to the inside of her face.

That evening, Mr. Kirkpatrick entered the unlocked apartment of a stranger. He attacked the resident – hit him, kicked him, and poked him in the eyes. Mr. Kirkpatrick then pushed the resident out of the apartment, who went to a neighbour and called the police. When the police arrived, they could hear Mr. Kirkpatrick “rambling incoherent thoughts” over a loud television. He refused to come out and negotiations ensued. Mr. Kirkpatrick eventually opened the door but refused to show his hand. When an officer attempted to taser him, Mr. Kirkpatrick kicked the door and hit the officer’s hand. He then gloated that the officer had missed him and began punching the officer and his partner before they were able to subdue him.

After he was arrested, the officers heard Mr. Kirkpatrick talking to someone who wasn’t present. When asked about this, he told the officers he was schizophrenic. He later recounted in relation to going into the apartment, that he was “working with the Jedi forces against the Sith.” He also told the psychiatrist who conducted the NCR assessment that he had previously lived in the apartment and “either owned the land or the building” intimating he had a right to be there.

Background Information

11. Mr. Kirkpatrick’s history and background are outlined in the Hospital Report. Briefly, he is currently 48 years old and has a supportive relationship with his mother, sister and partner of approximately 10 years.

12. Mr. Kirkpatrick successfully completed high school and then completed a 9-month course run by Microsoft at Algonquin College. He completed the course with high marks and worked at an IT call centre until he was recruited by Microsoft. He worked at Microsoft for a year, until he left due to low mood. After that time, he did not maintain long-term employment and was eventually supported financially by ODSP.

13. Mr. Kirkpatrick has been diagnosed with either Bipolar or Schizoaffective Disorder for the past twenty years. He has heard voices for the majority of that time, and they rarely go away, even when he is medicated. Mr. Kirkpatrick has an extensive psychiatric history with documented hospital assessments and admissions for psychosis dating back to 2000.

14. He began daily cannabis use 30 years ago. Mr. Kirkpatrick has had difficulty abstaining from the use of cannabis for significant periods of time.

15. Mr. Kirkpatrick resided with his mother until 2006 when he moved into a transitional group home. He then moved into his own subsidized apartment and in 2019 into a supported living facility where the index offences occurred.

16. Mr. Kirkpatrick has no criminal history prior to the index offences.

17. Since Mr. Kirkpatrick’s initial ORB hearing in 2020, he has been subjected to a series of detention orders. He transitioned to a conditional discharge following his 2024 annual review, which remained in effect as of the hearing date.

18. There are two issues for determination before the Board:

1. Does Mr. Kirkpatrick pose a significant threat to the safety of the public?

2. If so, what is the least onerous and restrictive disposition?

Issue #1 - Does Mr. Kirkpatrick pose a significant threat to the safety of the public?

Positions of the Parties

19. At the outset of the hearing, each party provided its initial position:

• The Hospital indicated that Mr. Kirkpatrick continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public;
• Counsel for the Attorney General and Mr. Kirkpatrick’s counsel conceded that significant threat was made out.

Law on Significant Threat

20. 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. Wood, in addition to the documentary evidence before us.

Evidence at the Hearing

21. The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence from Dr. Wood.

22. Dr. Wood testified as follows:

• Mr. Kirkpatrick has been on the Forensic Rehabilitation Unit now for just over a month without issue;
• It would be helpful to have an OT and updated neuropsychology assessment to get a sense of whether there has been any decline in Mr. Kirkpatrick’s functioning and identify his strengths and areas that need focus in order to transition him back to the community;
• He has been having overnight stays at his partner’s house for up to 3 nights and has been maintaining his medication compliance while he’s there;
• He would benefit from a private room in a group home, which is more challenging to find, but his family is supportive and will help to top-off any extra expenses required for a private room. The team will support him to preserve that housing, should he require a future hospital admission.
• There were multiple attempts to have Mr. Kirkpatrick hospitalized due to concerns expressed by the group home about his mental statement and the concerning behaviour toward other tenants of the group, where other tenants were worried about their safety.
• Mr. Kirkpatrick was sent to the hospital twice before it was finally kept in hospital, which does raise concerns about the team’s ability to manage community risk.

23. In response to questions from counsel for the Attorney General, Dr. Wood agreed, that but for the intervention of the team and hospital admissions under a Form 1, Mr. Kirkpatrick’s decompensation could have quickly escalated to criminal offences.

24. In his oral testimony, Dr. Wood referred generally to the events leading up to the ROL, which contributed to his current level of risk. These are detailed in the Hospital Report, on pages 66-70 and involved Mr. Kirkpatrick being hospitalized on three separate occasions since the last annual review:

• November 2 – 19, 2024 – Admission to the Montfort Hospital psychiatric unit due to manic/psychotic decompensation
• December 12, 2024 – January 16, 2025 – Admission to the Montfort Hospital due to psychotic decompensation
• March 25, 2025 – readmitted to the Montfort Hospital psychiatric unit and then transferred to ROMHC Crisis Unit on May 20, 2025, and then to the Forensic Unit on September 19, 2025.

25. Mr. Kirkpatrick’s first admission to the Montfort on November 2, 2024, was via a Form 1. This was precipitated ACT Team, group home staff and his mother reporting that Mr. Kirkpatrick was disorganized, agitated, threatening others, was delusional and behaving erratically. He was observed responding to internal stimuli and was trying to have three conversations at the same time. When he was admitted to the hospital, he acknowledged that he was manic and oscillated between being pleasant one moment and extremely angry a few minutes later, for no reason.

26. While in the hospital, Mr. Kirkpatrick was treated with extra anti-psychotics and was discharged back to the Duford Residence once he had stabilized.

27. In December 2024, Mr. Kirkpatrick was again admitted to the Montfort Hospital on a Form 1, after members of the ACT Team and group home staff expressed concerns that he was more disorganized and aggressive in the group home. It was reported that he walked around the group home nude and was aggressive to his roommate and staff. His mother reported that he was taking longer baths when he was visiting at her home, which was a usual sign of decompensation. Dr. Sandhu assessed Mr. Kirkpatrick and found that he had “a labile effect, disorganized speech, and an inability to focus while excessively talking to himself.”

28. Mr. Kirkpatrick was discharged from the Montfort on January 16, 2025, after his symptoms had noticeably improved.

29. In March 2025, Mr. Kirkpatrick’s family and group home staff advised Dr. Sandhu that Mr. Kirkpatrick was consuming cannabis gummies with THC content. This led to an urgent appointment where Mr. Kirkpatrick confirmed to Dr. Sandhu that he was using cannabis gummies, and he was encouraged to refrain from cannabis consumption. The following weekend, Mr. Kirkpatrick showed signs of further decompensation and mental illness. His girlfriend reported that she found a ‘stash’ of THC cannabis gummies. Mr. Kirkpatrick decompensated and was again admitted to the hospital on a Form 1.

30. At a team meeting in early April 2025, the major concern identified for Mr. Kirkpatrick was that he would rapidly decompensate, requiring hospital admission, but then quickly improve. This was making it challenging to keep him in the hospital under the Mental Health Act. At a team meeting, which included his family and the ACT Team, all agreed that a longer-term hospital admission would be beneficial, with the goal of transferring Mr. Kirkpatrick to the Crisis Unit at the ROMHC, while waiting for a bed at the Forensic Rehabilitation Unit. At that time, a referral was also made to the Schizophrenia Recovery Ottawa Program.

31. Due to his lengthy hospital admissions, Mr. Kirkpatrick lost his housing at the Duford Residence in late April 2025, despite efforts of the team to retain his housing.

32. Mr. Kirkpatrick’s first two hospitalizations were tied to his excessive consumption of caffeine, which lowered his lithium levels. His third decompensation and subsequent hospitalization were linked to his cannabis consumption.

33. Since March 2025, while in hospital, Mr. Kirkpatrick has had episodes of agitation, where he was irritable with staff, yelling and hitting on the windows and experienced a decline in hygiene and self-care. His self-care and hygiene improved once he was moved to the Crisis Unit.

34. Mr. Kirkpatrick’s family and his girlfriend continue to be positive supports for Mr. Kirkpatrick and are involved with his treatment team.

35. No other evidence was called.

Analysis and Conclusions

36. Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence, as well as the submissions from the parties, the Board agrees with the joint submission from all parties: Mr. Kirkpatrick presents a significant threat to the safety of the public.

37. In coming to this conclusion, the Board relies on the oral evidence of Dr. Wood and the detailed Hospital Report on the events of the past year. In particular, the Violence Risk Assessment set out in the Hospital Report, indicates that Mr. Kirkpatrick’s dynamic risk factors are mainly his illness and treatment response, as well as his recent cannabis consumption that led to his hospitalization. The Board has considered Mr. Kirkpatrick’s multiple incidences of rapid decompensation over the past year, his lack of housing, and his physical outbursts while in the hospital.

38. The Board also took into consideration Dr. Woods’ comments at page 73 of the Hospital Report:

His insight and judgment appear to be limited with regards to his mental illness, need for medications, and the negative effects of substance abuse.

The Board finds Mr. Kirkpatrick’s lack of judgment and insight, coupled with his rapid decompensation, to be material factors in the determination that Mr. Kirkpatrick poses a significant risk to the safety of the public.

Issue # 2: What is the least onerous and restrictive disposition for Mr. Kirkpatrick?

39. In light of the Board’s finding of significant threat, it is charged with shaping a Disposition for the coming year.

Positions of the Parties

40. The parties were canvassed regarding their position with respect to disposition at the outset and conclusion of the evidence:

• The Hospital submitted that a detention order was necessary and appropriate. The Hospital sought a change from the current conditional discharge, due to the events that led up to Mr. Kirkpatrick’s recent ROL hearing as outlined above.
• Counsel for the Attorney General agreed that a detention order was necessary and appropriate in the circumstances.
• At the outset of the proceedings, Mr. Kirkpatrick sought a continuation of the conditional discharge, as it was amended at the ROL hearing. However, at the conclusion of the evidence, he indicated that his position had changed; Mr. Kirkpatrick agreed that a detention order was necessary and appropriate in the circumstances. Counsel for Mr. Kirkpatrick confirmed his agreement with the terms specified in the May 3, 2023, detention order.

Law on Least Onerous and Least Restrictive Dispositions

41. Section 672.54 of the Criminal Code requires the Board to make a disposition that is the “least onerous and least restrictive to the accused.”

Evidence Before the Board

42. Dr. Wood testified as follows:

• Despite the change to the disposition terms that occurred at the ROL hearing on August 19, 2025, Mr. Kirkpatrick remains a voluntary patient on the ROMHC Crisis Unit;
• In the initial stages of transition back to the community, a conditional discharge would not be sufficient to manage the risk to the public and preserve the housing for Mr. Kirkpatrick; that is why a detention order is preferred at this time;
• A detention order doesn’t impact Mr. Kirkpatrick’s ability to find a residence, but it preserves his housing if he needs a brief respite from his residence or a brief hospitalization;
• It was stressful for Mr. Kirkpatrick when he couldn’t be admitted to the hospital until the ROMHC was ready to receive him. This led to further decompensation. A Form 49 wouldn’t have forced another hospital without a forensic unit to admit Mr. Kirkpatrick, but he would have had faster admission through the ROMHC Crisis Unit. This would have reduced his transitions in and out of the hospital.
• Once Mr. Kirkpatrick’s housing is stable, he can move back to a conditional discharge with a specified address.
• There is a future potential for Mr. Kirkpatrick to reside with is partner. However, at this time, a private room in a group home would yield better success than a shared-room accommodation.

43. The Hospital Report at page 74 under “Opinion and recommendations” indicates:

The treatment team considered the potential of extending his Conditional Discharge due to his voluntary admission at The Royal since his initial arrival on the Crisis Unit, where he continues to be voluntary on the FRU. However, it is opined that his risk in the community was challenging to manage while relying on the Mental Health Act, resulting in the other admissions to hospital prior to finally getting him transferred to the Crisis Unit at The Royal. With uncertainty about his discharge plan (e.g., how he will tolerate the group home and abstaining from cannabis) and keeping in mind the rapid decompensations he had experienced, it is the team’s opinion that a Detention Order would be the most effective at managing his risk.

The hospital recommends conditions similar to what was outlined in the May 03, 2023, Decision and Disposition report from the ORB.

Analysis and Conclusions

44. The Board considered Mr. Kirkpatrick’s three hospitalizations over the past year due to his rapid decompensation and increase in psychotic symptoms, along with his loss of housing. The Board agrees that a conditional discharge is not sufficient to manage Mr. Kirkpatrick’s risk to the public, should he be discharged from the hospital. Mr. Kirkpatrick’s multiple hospitalizations and discharges under the Mental Health Act, did not serve to assist him in regaining stability.

45. The Board has considered Mr. Kirkpatrick’s ability to obtain overnight passes to stay with his mother as well as his partner, while under a detention order and the positive relationship between Mr. Kirkpatrick’s treatment team, family and partner. The team is already looking forward to options for decreasing Mr. Kirkpatrick’s restrictions when he has stable housing and appropriate supports. These factors allow Mr. Kirkpatrick significant community liberties while he is residing on the Forensic Rehabilitation Unit and as a result, a detention order with the terms proposed is the least restrictive means to manage Mr. Kirkpatrick’s risk to the public.

46. In consideration of all the evidence, submissions of the parties and criteria set forth in s. 672.54, the paramount consideration being the safety of the public, in addition to the mental condition of Mr. Kirkpatrick, his reintegration into society and his other needs, the necessary, and appropriate, Disposition is a return to a Detention Order on the same terms and conditions as the May 3, 2023, detention order.

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

Ms. J. Fuller

Legal Member

__________________

Office of the Registrar

Ontario Review Board