Ontario Review Board
Re: Dimitri D. Hesson
ORB File No: 8088
Hearing held on: Wednesday, December 3, 2025
Place of Hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(2) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. D. Sandor
Members: Dr. S. Prat Mr. J. Weinstein
Mr. A. Bernardo
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Dimitri D. Hesson
Amicus: Mr. M. Davies
Person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. J. Gojer
Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. E. Davies
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated January 15, 2026)
Introduction
On June 9, 2022, Dimitri D. Hesson, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on a charge of harassment by watching and besetting contrary to the provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada. Mr. Hesson is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated January 16th, 2025, that discharges him on terms and conditions that include that of reporting to the person in charge of the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre (hereinafter referred to as “the Hospital”) a minimum of once per month and to notify the Hospital 24 hours in advance of any change of address or phone number.
By letter dated November 7th, 2025, the Hospital advised the Ontario Review Board that it was seeking an early review of Mr. Hesson’s disposition. The letter indicated that Mr. Hesson had been displaying signs of mental health decompensation and presenting with symptoms similar to those experienced by him in the period leading up to the index offence. The letter explained that while Mr. Hesson was not yet meeting the criteria for a Form 1 admission, his treating psychiatrist, Dr. Gojer, had determined that it was best to admit Mr. Hesson to the Hospital as soon as possible in an effort to mitigate risks to himself and to the public. The letter advised that the Hospital would be seeking a detention disposition at the early review.
On December 3rd, 2025, a panel of the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing at the Hospital, to conduct an early review of Mr. Hesson’s Disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(2) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Hesson was, on his request, self-represented. Mr. Michael Davies was appointed as Amicus Curiae for this hearing.
Preliminary issues
As a preliminary issue, the Board advised Mr. Hesson that one of its scheduled members – Dr. R. Kunjukrishnan, had been involved on an earlier occasion with one of Mr. Hesson’s assessments and was disclosing a conflict. Mr. Hesson, with the assistance of amicus, agreed that Dr. Kunjukrishnan should recuse himself from sitting as a member of the panel on this hearing. Neither Ms. E. Davies, lawyer from the Office of the Crown Attorney representing the Attorney General in the hearing, nor Dr. Gojer, representing the Hospital, opposed the request that Dr. Kunjukrishnan be recused. Accordingly, on the consent of all parties, the hearing proceeded with a 4-member panel that included Dr. S. Prat as the psychiatrist member, satisfying the provisions of section 672.39 of the Criminal Code.
The record for the hearing included the Notice of Hearing, dated November 13, 2025, the letter from the Hospital seeking an early hearing, dated November 7, 2025, as well as the Board’s response to that letter, the most recent Disposition dated January 16, 2025, and the Reasons for that Disposition. On the consent of all parties, a Hospital Report dated November 15, 2025, was entered into evidence as exhibit 1.
The parties were canvassed for their initial positions. Dr. Gojer, speaking on behalf of the Hospital, expressed that the evidence would establish that Mr. Hesson 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. Dr. Gojer further took the position that a material change in circumstances had taken place since the making of the last order and that the risk Mr. Hesson was now posing to the safety of the public warranted the imposition of a detention disposition, consistent with the primary objective set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
Ms. Davies, for the Attorney General, concurred with the Hospital on both issues.
Mr. Hesson did not contest that the evidence would satisfy the threshold issue of significant threat. While the Board appreciated that submission, it should be noted at the outset that throughout the hearing it was, nonetheless, conscious of its obligation to arrive at an independent conclusion on the issue of significant threat, particularly in the context of a self-represented individual. Mr. Hesson continued to express his position that the reigning conditional discharge continued to satisfy all of the objectives set out in s. 672.54, including the primary objective of assuring the safety of the public. He took the position that the maintenance of existing disposition was minimally intrusive and accorded with the other objectives set out in section 672.54, including the ultimate objective of reintegration into the community.
Further issues – evidence from the Hospital leading to a request for an adjournment
As the hearing commenced, a further issue arose. Dr. Gojer began his evidence explaining that while Mr. Hesson had historically been cooperative, punctual with his appointments and assiduous with recommended treatment, he had, with the Hospital’s consent, decreased his medications. Following this, Mr. Hesson stopped keeping his appointments. Concerns then arose as to whether Mr. Hesson was taking his medication at all. Dr. Gojer explained that he worried that full psychosis could be imminent under such circumstances and that the safety of the public could not be assured by mere reliance on the provisions of the Mental Health Act. Dr. Gojer then explained that while it was necessary in his view for Mr. Hesson to return to the Hospital, the Hospital itself did not have a bed for him and was seeking his transfer on a Rule 13 Notice to the mental health facility in Brockville.
The Board had received a copy of a communication from Alica Quinn, Review Board Coordinator for the Integrated Forensic Program – Brockville, dated the day prior to this hearing. That letter was directed to the Hospital and indicated its consent to Mr. Hesson’s transfer to their facility based on Brockville’s review of the Hospital Report that formed exhibit 1 and on the fact that Mr. Hesson had previously been at that facility. The letter indicated that a bed at Brockville was immediately available for Mr. Hesson. The letter from Alica Quinn was entered into evidence as exhibit 2.
The panel had not received a Rule 13 request in written format as required by the rules governing its proceedings. More importantly, Mr. Hesson did not receive notice of the request and was entirely surprised at the need to respond to it over the course of an initial hearing that found him self-represented and lacking an opportunity to organize and marshal evidence in response to the proposed transfer. After speaking with amicus privately, Mr. Hesson’s concerns, and objection were expressed with a request that this hearing be adjourned. Amicus explained that Mr. Hesson had been prepared to proceed with the hearing on the basis that, if the Hospital were successful in establishing a need for a change to the reigning disposition, he would be brought here (the Hospital being a very short distance from his home in Ottawa).
Mr. Hesson’s request for an adjournment was opposed by the Hospital. Dr. Gojer argued that he was unable to assess Mr. Hesson and satisfy his statutory obligation to ensure the safety of the public as Mr. Hesson was noncompliant with the existing conditional discharge. He was not attending at the Hospital as required. He had been declining medication. He suffers from a major mental illness and had a history of violence including an index offence that was occasioned in the context of lack of treatment compliance and forensic support. Dr. Gojer argued that, even if Brockville had not been available as a placement option, and even if the Hospital had no beds to accommodate Mr. Hesson’s return, under the circumstances the Hospital would still be seeking a disposition detaining Mr. Hesson in the Hospital’s Secure Forensic Treatment program given the risk of violence of a serious nature manifest by Mr. Hesson’s noncompliance with treatment and with a Board disposition. Dr. Gojer explained that the last time he saw Mr. Hesson was on November 1, 2025. He said that Mr. Hesson was still refusing to keep appointments.
Ms. Davies, for the Attorney General, was likewise opposed to the adjournment request. She argued that substantively the main issues were those to be decided having regard to section 672.54 of the Criminal Code and that the purpose of the hearing as described in the Request for Early Hearing would be defeated if the hearing were adjourned.
Amicus for Mr. Hesson contested the urgency asserted by the Hospital and by Ms. Davies. He pointed to the fact that the Hospital Report was authored on November 15, 2025, giving rise to the question of why a Rule 13 request was not forwarded to Mr. Hesson at the time service of the Notice of Hearing and the Hospital Report was effected on him. It was argued that Mr. Hesson faced prejudice if an adjournment was not granted. He was prepared to represent himself under certain parameters that did not contemplate a move outside of the city of Ottawa. With the move to Brockville being a consideration, Mr. Davies expressed Mr. Hesson’s desire to once again be represented by counsel.
The panel made inquiries as to available dates for return and determined that any adjournment would result in the hearing being delayed for a period of weeks, if not months into the new year. It deliberated in that context and seriously considered the surprise occasioned by Mr. Hesson as a result of the Hospital’s failure to provide adequate notice to him of the Rule 13 request. It also considered Mr. Hesson’s current non-compliance with a Board disposition and the presumption that the condition that he reports to the Hospital a minimum of once per month was necessary and appropriate to ensure the safety of the public.
Conclusion on the adjournment request
- Mr. Hesson’s request for an adjournment was denied. In the Board’s view, the matter was urgent. Mr. Hesson was in a state of non-compliance with a Board disposition. In failing to report to the Hospital as required and at a minimum of once monthly, he crippled the Hospital’s ability to comply with its statutory obligation to ensure the safety of the public through the effective, Board-ordered monitoring and continuous assessment of its patient. All of this was taking place in a setting where Mr. Hesson had at least reduced his anti-psychotic medications. It was necessary, having regard to the Board’s ongoing obligation to ensure the safety of the public as a primary objective, and that Mr. Hesson’s mental health and other needs were met as further objectives, for this hearing to proceed without the inordinate delay an adjournment would occasion. In the Board’s view, any prejudice occasioned by Mr. Hesson as a result of the Rule 13 issues was of lesser concern. Firstly, Mr. Hesson was assisted by very competent Amicus. Mr. Hesson himself was organized and prepared to deal with the main issues the Board was prepared to consider. Finally, the information contained in exhibit 2 is balanced against the following important facts:
Mr. Hesson lives in extremely close proximity to the Hospital, easing the burden of daily check-ins in the context of a more intrusive disposition should a bed not become available at the Hospital.
The Hospital regularly deals with bed shortages that forces it to prioritize and organize services in an environment of constraint.
If circumstances prevailed that prevented Mr. Hesson’s actual admission into the Hospital warranted a reconsideration of a transfer to Brockville, there is nothing stopping the Hospital from requesting a further hearing and serving notice of a formal Rule 13 request and brief update explaining the circumstances, the Hospital’s efforts to work within the geographic and systemic factors pertaining to Mr. Hesson’s situation, and why it is that transfer to Brockville, at that time, would be necessary and appropriate having regard to the section 672.54 objectives.
The Board’s conclusion
- The Board has concluded that Mr. Hesson continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. It has further concluded that the reigning conditional discharge no longer satisfies the primary objective of ensuring the safety of the public, nor does it satisfy the other objectives set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code. A detention disposition is necessary. As will be explained below in more detail, it arrives at this conclusion based on the following factors:
Mr. Hesson has reduced the dosage of his long-acting antipsychotic medication below optimal levels.
Corresponding with his decision to reduce his medications, Mr. Hesson has not been attending the Hospital as required under the Board’s disposition, negating the Hospital’s ability to perform its statutory obligation to ensure that the conditional discharge ensures the safety of the public for the duration of the review period.
Mr. Hesson’s lack of engagement with service providers has extended to include lack of engagement and aggressivity to Salus workers causing him to lose access to that support in the community thereby jeopardising his housing.
Absent a detention disposition, Mr. Hesson will likely find himself homeless by December 31, 2025, exposing him to stress that risks further decompensation of his major mental illness.
Mr. Hesson has manifest decreased insight into his need for antipsychotic medications in a fashion that is identical to the circumstances that led to the commission of the index offences that brought him again under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board.
The Board is not, at this time, convinced that the necessary and appropriate disposition includes a provision that Mr. Hesson be transferred to Brockville “until a bed becomes available” in Ottawa. Mr. Hesson lives across the street from the Hospital. Though he is not engaging as needed with the Hospital he has not engaged in any acts of violence and there have been no incidents that have required police attendance at Mr. Hesson’s home. Mr. Hesson’s preference is that he remain in Ottawa – a factor to be noted when considering both his mental health and other needs including the ultimate objective of reintegration into the community.
If it becomes impossible to optimize Mr. Hesson’s treatment and level of engagement with the treatment team under the auspices of a detention disposition detaining him in the Secure Forensic Unit of the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, or if further concerns arise that necessitate his transfer to Brockville, the Hospital is free to seek a further hearing. The Board is confident that the Hospital will, in that situation, ensure procedural and substantive fairness by providing the Board and serving Mr. Hesson with a written Rule 13 notification together with an update from the Hospital setting out the Hospital’s efforts to either secure a bed for Mr. Hesson in Ottawa and/or its efforts to manage his risk while optimizing his treatment in the community.
Evidence at the Hearing - Index Offences
The evidence for the hearing came from Dr. Gojer’s viva voce testimony and the exhibits mentioned above. Though Mr. Hesson did not formally testify, the Board was mindful of his submissions and position, which will be set out more specifically below.
Dr. Gojer adopted the contents of the Hospital Report, which was cumulative in nature and included a synopsis of the circumstances giving rise to the index offences as set out in the preceding Reasons for Disposition:
“On December 10, 2021, the victim was in her apartment when she heard repeated knocking on her wall, which was adjacent to the ground floor lobby. She also heard knocking coming from below her apartment coming from the storage area. She called 911, but police did not locate anyone. On December 12, 2021, the victim was in her apartment when she observed Mr. Hesson standing on the raised lawn out front of her building, looking into her window, and staring directly at her. She recognized Mr. Hesson, as she had seen him earlier in the hallway. When she asked if she could help him, Mr. Hesson continued to stare at her and then climbed down from the raised lawn and entered the building. The Crown Brief Synopsis further reported that, on December 13, 2021, the victim was in her apartment when she heard knocking at her front door. She saw Mr. Hesson through the peephole. Mr. Hesson began shouting at her to open the door, saying “I want to screw!”, “I will pay you money to screw!” The victim yelled that she was calling police and dialed 911. Mr. Hesson left her front door and went to the lobby, where he was seen on the camera checking mail and then the names on the buzzer, where he seemed to see the victim’s apartment number and name. He then proceeded outside and again approached her window, banging on it and yelling, “Emmy, let me in! Emmy, open the door! Emmy, open the window!” Police arrived and observed Mr. Hesson standing at the victim’s window and yelling. He was placed under arrest and placed in the rear of the police cruiser. According to the Arrest Detail & Bail Report, it was noted that Mr. Hesson lived I the same building as the victim, and that the victim had no prior knowledge or involvement with Mr. Hesson.”
Because it is cumulative, the Hospital Report repeats much of what was stated in last year’s Reasons for Disposition. Mr. Hesson is now 46 years old. He completed CEGEP in Quebec and began studying philosophy at the University of Ottawa, leaving for financial reasons in his third year. He has generally worked in fields involving manual labor. His family describes a history of paranoia that impacted both his studies and employment.
Mr. Hesson has a limited criminal record but does have a lengthy history of involvement with the Ontario Review Board. He was under the Board’s jurisdiction for ten years, from 2008 to 2018 on one charge of assaulting a peace officer and one charge of injuring an animal. His psychiatric history is more extensive and begins at age 18 when he was diagnosed with schizophrenia. He experienced several periods of hospitalization as a result of his major mental illness outside of his involvement with the Forensic Psychiatric System.
The Hospital Report notes that Mr. Hesson became increasingly aggressive in the years leading up to 2008. When under the Board’s jurisdiction he maintained stability and treatment compliance and showed a good measure of insight into his major mental illness and the risk it posed to the safety of the public. This insight was supported by treatment compliance. When Mr. Hesson’s adherence to recommended antipsychotic medication decreased, his illness rapidly deteriorated. He became withdrawn, disorganized and exhibited persecutory delusions.
Last year’s Reasons for Disposition echoes the contents of the Hospital Report. Those Reasons explain that in 2018 upon being granted an absolute discharge, Mr. Hesson promptly stopped taking his medication, decompensated and committed the index offences that have brought him under the current Board’s jurisdiction. Those Reasons for Disposition specifically state that this most recent period of review was designed to assess Mr. Hesson’s insight into his need for antipsychotic medications and his ability to comply with treatment without the external motivation provided by a Board disposition ordering him to do so. It was also meant specifically to assess whether Mr. Hesson would continue to connect with necessary supports, including those at the Hospital. Mr. Hesson had, to the date of the previous hearing, been disconnecting and disengaging from the Hospital. Simply put, the last Disposition was an opportunity to assess Mr. Hesson’s insight in the context of a history that clearly established that he required ongoing medication, and treatment supports to control the risk he poses to the safety of the public.
The Hospital Report’s update for this hearing begins on its 32nd page. It explains that in June 2024 he began significantly disengaging from case management. He became increasingly private and guarded. Whereas he was under a Board disposition to report to the Hospital not less than once per month, he began going periods as long as two months without any contact. This pattern continued through to his last Board hearing in January 2025. He regularly cancelled scheduled monthly appointments. He began to manifest anger and verbal aggression directed to staff with the Forensic Supportive Housing Program such that he lost their services. This loss, coupled with Mr. Hesson’s failure to engage with the Housing Allowance Program has set his housing in jeopardy. Homelessness, absent a Board disposition, is a real risk for him as of December 31, 2025.
The Hospital Report further explains that Mr. Hesson’s insight into his need for antipsychotic medication has decreased. He has expressed upset with his medication and its side effects and has explained that he would like to discontinue treatment. He has asserted his capacity to consent to treatment to this end. He has begun expressing some delusions associated with his past psychiatric care, claiming that past psychiatrists have harmed him with their treatment.
Dr. Gojer gave further evidence to the Board. He said that Mr. Hesson continues to miss appointments and expressed worry that Mr. Hesson has ceased taking his medications. He worried that Mr. Hesson’s psychosis could be imminent. He explained that Mr. Hesson last received his medications a month ago on a substantially reduced dosage by two thirds the recommended dose. He expressed a lack of certainty as to whether Mr. Hesson had perhaps attended with his family doctor two weeks ago for a further needed injection. This uncertainty was, driven by Mr. Hesson’s lack of engagement and nonadherence with the reporting provisions of the reigning disposition.
Dr. Gojer expressed concern over Mr. Hesson’s decision to decrease his recommended dosage of antipsychotic medication. He said that the dose was at such a low level that risk of decompensation and resurgence of symptoms were high.
Dr. Gojer addressed the looming loss of Mr. Hesson’s housing and indicated that if Mr. Hesson would engage with the treatment team, that crisis could be averted. He indicated that if Mr. Hesson were subject to a detention disposition, he would be required to take his medication as required. Based on past experience, Dr. Gojer expects that Mr. Hesson’s level of cooperation then would improve, and the Hospital would be in a position to advocate for his continued involvement with the Salus program, thereby saving his housing. Dr. Gojer indicated that a loss of housing by Mr. Hesson, coupled with an insufficient dosage of antipsychotic medications and lack of engagement with the treatment team, threatened significant risk of mental decompensation and increased threat to the safety of the public.
Dr. Gojer was confident that, if a detention disposition was ordered, Mr. Hesson would be returned to the Hospital and, in that context, would engage in a discussion regarding possible changes of medication and some increase that would likely settle him at baseline fairly quickly. Mr. Hesson would be subject to initial observation, but the expectation is that he would progress to level 1 and 2 privileges quickly. He could be discharged from the Forensic Assessment Unit to his apartment across the street from the Hospital once substantial improvement was noted or, in the case of gradual improvement, he could be transferred to the Forensic Rehabilitation Unit and receive passes into the community and to attend there.
Dr. Gojer explained that there was a bed shortage at the Hospital, but that bed was available for Mr. Hesson at Brockville. He added, in response to questions from Amicus that if Mr. Hesson, in the context of a detention disposition, would engage with the treatment team and medication, then it was possible that Mr. Hesson would not have to be brought back into the Hospital. Dr. Gojer emphasized though that Mr. Hesson would have to engage openly and transparently and would have to show positive progress with treatment adherence for this to be the case. Dr. Gojer noted that the timing of Mr. Hesson’s disengagement corresponded with Mr. Hesson’s decreased dosage of his antipsychotic medication and has worsened, giving rise to the worry that Mr. Hesson has now ceased taking his medications altogether.
No further evidence was called.
Submissions
The parties’ submissions echoed their initial positions. All, including Amicus, agreed that the evidence had established that Mr. Hesson represented a significant threat to the safety of the public. Dr. Gojer and Ms. Davies argued that the evidence had established that a continuation of the reigning conditional discharge no longer achieved the primary objective set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code. In arguing that a detention disposition was now necessary and appropriate, they pointed to evidence indicating that Mr. Hesson’s treatment was no longer optimized, that this had led to his disengagement and prolonged state of nonadherence with his obligation to report to the Hospital no less than once monthly and to the observation that he was approaching a psychotic state. Ms. Davies argued that absent a detention order, Mr. Hesson would continue to refuse to comply with recommended treatment, would continue to refuse to comply with an order that he reports as required, and would continue the rapid deterioration that had already started. She highlighted that Mr. Hesson has a history of engaging in this pattern of conduct and related deterioration in the absence of a disposition. She argued that the conditional discharge no longer ensured the safety of the public and did not ensure that Mr. Hesson’s mental health and other needs were being addressed.
Dr. Gojer and Ms. Davies further argued that further conditions were required to manage Mr. Hesson’s risk in the context of a detention disposition. They sought an order that Mr. Hesson submit samples for the purpose of monitoring treatment compliance as well as abstinence from the use of any non-medically prescribed drugs or alcohol. They sought a condition that Mr. Hesson be detained at Brockville until a bed became available in Ottawa. They agreed that the recommended detention disposition should include a full range of privileges to that Mr. Hesson’s residence in the community could be maintained.
Mr. Hesson disagreed. He argued that his last appointment with the Hospital was “last month” and said that he had been reporting monthly. He argued that today’s appearance before the Board represented the 4th week from the date of his last attendance in November. He stated his position that his medications were treatments that do harm and that the source of all of his problems were the medications he has been prescribed over the course of his involvement both under the current index offences and the previous ones that were resolved with an absolute discharge in 2018. He said that he wanted to continue to take the minimum dosage of his medications and argued that a “mad person needs moral, not medical guidance” and that such a person must “cure himself.” He said that he was pursuing healing through autonomous therapy with “sages” and “highly experienced individuals.” He was opposed to any change in his disposition.
Amicus asked the Board to consider whether the evidence justified any change in the disposition at all. He pointed to the report from Salus relating to their involvement and to the fact that, while Mr. Hesson’s family doctor had not contacted the Hospital to advise whether Mr. Hesson had attended for his injectable antipsychotic medication, neither had the Hospital made sufficient efforts to inquire with the family doctor to ascertain whether Mr. Hesson had received the necessary medication. He said that Mr. Hesson was clearly asserting that he was taking his medications and that the absence of confirmation from the family doctor did not represent a contradiction of that assertion. He pointed to other options the Hospital had at its disposal rather than seeking a change to a detention disposition. This included that of calling the police to enforce the reporting condition of the conditional discharge.
Mr. Davies raised a concern directly associated with the proposal that Mr. Hesson be detained in Brockville until such a time as a bed become available in Ottawa. Noting that bed shortage was common in Ottawa, he argued that if Mr. Hesson were ordered detained at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, he had confidence that Mr. Hesson would be dealt with expeditiously in terms of progression of privileges as treatment was optimized and engagement with the treatment team improved. Mr. Davies did not have that confidence in the context of a detention at Brockville “until a bed becomes available” in Ottawa. He urged the Board not to grant the transfer to Brockville.
Analysis and Conclusion
As stated above, the Board has concluded that Mr. Hesson represents a significant threat to the safety of the public. While it benefitted from the joint submission in this regard, it was cautious to consider the threshold issue independently, especially given Mr. Hesson’s status as a self-represented individual.
The relevant legal principles to be applied to the evidence with respect to the issue of significant threat are summarized in the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Marmolejo (Re), 2021 ONCA 130 at paras 34-37:
…the role of the Board is first to determine whether an NCR accused represents a significant threat to public safety. If the answer to that question is "no" or uncertain then the NCR accused must be discharged absolutely: Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625, [1999] S.C.J. No 31, at pp. 659-61, 669 S.C.R. If the NCR accused does present a significant threat, the Board must either conditionally discharge or detain the individual: Winko, pp. 662, 669 S.C.R.
It is important to bear in mind that the Board's responsibility to grant an absolute discharge is non-discretionary in the event that it harbours any doubt about whether the NCR accused represents a significant threat: Carrick (Re), [2018] O.J. No. 4878, 2018 ONCA 752, at para. 16. As the majority of the Supreme Court emphasized in Winko, at pp. 652-53 S.C.R.: "Once an NCR accused is no longer a significant threat to public safety, the criminal justice system has no further application."
Individuals with mental disorders are not inherently dangerous: Winko, at p. 653 S.C.R. There is no presumption of dangerousness and no burden on the NCR accused to prove a lack of dangerousness: Winko, at pp. 660-61, 662 S.C.R. Rather, the legal and evidentiary burden of establishing significant threat rests on the Board or the court: Winko, at p. 663 S.C.R. The threshold for significant risk is "onerous": Carrick (Re) (2015), 128 O.R. (3d) 209, [2015] O.J. No. 6524, 2015 ONCA 866, at para. 17.
A significant threat to the safety of the public means a foreseeable and substantial risk of physical or psychological harm to members of the public: R. v. Ferguson, [2010] O.J. No. 5138, 2010 ONCA 810, at para. 8. The conduct must be of a serious criminal nature: Ferguson, at para. 8. A very small risk of grave harm will not suffice, nor will a high risk of trivial harm: Ferguson, at para. 8. The threat must be more than speculative in nature; it must be supported by evidence: Winko, at p. 665 S.C.R.; Pellett (Re) (2017), 139 O.R. (3d) 651, [2017] O.J. No. 5025, 2017 ONCA 753, at para. 21.
The significant threat finding in this case is driven by Mr. Hesson’s major mental illness, the seriousness of the index offence, and his lack of insight into his need for adequate levels of antipsychotic medication in order to mitigate the risk of serious physical and psychological that he poses to the public. Mr. Hesson was previously before the Board for a number of years. When adherent with treatment and motivated by the external influence of a Board disposition, he assiduously adhered to optimal levels of antipsychotic medication that mediated the primary and secondary psychotic symptoms that drove the commission of the initial index offence, which was violent and physical. When absolutely discharged, he quickly ceased taking his medications, had a resurgence of symptoms and committed the most recent index offences that have landed him again under the Board’s jurisdiction.
Mr. Hesson is capable of consenting to treatment and chose to decrease his long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication to a dose that is not optimal. He now claims that his medications have caused him harm over the years and that he needs to pursue a self-prescribed non-pharmacological course to “heal” himself. The evidence in this hearing confirmed that he lacks insight into the nature and character of his major mental illness and the importance of treatment adherence if he is to control the risk he poses to the public in the case of deterioration.
Mr. Hesson’s deterioration has already been noted. He has acted aggressively to Salus staff, has jeopardized his housing, and has maintained a lengthy period of nonadherence with a Board disposition that required him to report as directed to the Hospital, but not less than once monthly. Mr. Hesson’s lack of engagement with the Hospital and specifically with his treating psychiatrist is a concern impacting the threshold finding. The Hospital has a statutory duty to ensure the safety of the public. Mr. Hesson’s lack of engagement is an expression of his lack of insight. It effectively places him in the same circumstances he was in leading to the commission of the most recent index offences when he ceased taking medications at optimal doses, ceased engaging with treatment professionals in the community, deteriorated rapidly and engaged in serious offences that posed a risk of serious psychological harm to the public. The Board is satisfied that Mr. Hesson, in the current circumstances, continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public as explained by the Supreme Court of Canada in Winko.
Turning to the issue of disposition, the Board must consider the objectives set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code, the primary of which is the assurance of public safety. It has an obligation to do so while considering the principles of minimal intrusion upon the liberty interest of the NCR accused. If a lesser disposition would suffice to mitigate the risk to the public established by virtue of the threshold finding coupled with the NCR accused’s current circumstances, the Board is obliged to grant, or in this case maintain that lesser disposition. If a lesser disposition is available with added conditions that would ensure that the primary objective set out in section 672.54 is achievable, the Board must order that lesser disposition. This mandate is the product of the fundamental difference between a detention disposition and a conditional discharge. In the case of a detention disposition, the NCR accused is not permitted to experience a range of freedoms unless so permitted by the disposition. In the case of a conditional discharge, the NCR accused is free to exercise all liberties unless curtailed by the disposition.
It is clear that, here, a conditional discharge is no longer sufficient to satisfy the primary objective. Mr. Hesson suffers from a major mental illness that drove the commission of a serious index offence. He has chosen in the context of a conditional discharge to, again, steer away from recommended treatment such that his medications are no longer optimized. His lack of insight into his need for recommended levels of antipsychotic medications has impacted his insight into his major mental illness. He believes that he may pursue a self-directed path of healing. This is the same opinion that he held leading to the initial index offences that brought him under the Board’s jurisdiction in the past and that landed him again under the Board’s jurisdiction when committing serious offences most recently.
Mr. Hesson’s nonadherence with recommended treatment and levels of injectable antipsychotic medication is closely correlated with his decreased, almost non-existent level of engagement with the treatment team. It correlates with his lack of engagement with his Salus workers in the community and the aggressivity he directed towards them. This has threatened his housing and places the Board in an impossible position were it to maintain a conditional discharge. With the threat of homelessness looming, it is necessary for the Hospital to be able to approve Mr. Hesson’s housing. Furthermore, Dr. Gojer testified that, if a detention order were granted, Mr. Hesson would be brought into the Hospital, his medications would be titrated up and based on historic responsiveness to this process, he would likely quickly stabilize. Dr. Gojer expressed optimism that Mr. Hesson’s housing would be saved under such circumstances.
The Board considered whether the primary objective could be satisfied with anything less than a detention disposition. It could not. Mr. Hesson’s decision to decrease his medications below optimal levels and disengagement with the Hospital in breach of a Board disposition makes it impossible for the Hospital to satisfy its statutory mandate of ensuring the protection of the public. The Hospital simply cannot complete the necessary monitoring and ongoing assessment of Mr. Hesson needed to catch further deterioration of the kind that preceded the commission of the index offences.
The Board considered whether added conditions in the context of a conditional discharge would be sufficient to ensure the safety of the public. Mr. Hesson has no insight into his need for prescribed levels of medication and lacks insight into his major mental illness. He has no insight into the risk this all poses to the safety of the public. He utterly lacks any internally driven motivation to adhere to treatment. This is precisely what drove the commission of the most recent index offences. He requires a disposition that can ensure he receives the proper treatment if the primary and other objectives set out in section 672.54 are to be ensured. Such a condition is not available in the context of an absolute discharge absent an NCR accused’s consent, which was not advanced here. Indeed, Mr. Hesson rather expressed the opinion that medications have hurt him in the past and that he can be “cured” as he listens to the opinions of “sages” and other individuals with experience that, bluntly, simply cannot match the level of expertise and care that are offered to him by Dr. Gojer and the treatment team. Furthermore, given the looming possibility of homelessness, the Hospital must be able to approve Mr. Hesson’s accommodations in the community. Homelessness would certainly add decompensating stressors that would increase aggressivity, hostility to service providers and supports, and raise a real likelihood of further serious criminal conduct likely to cause significant harm, especially in the context of suboptimal or nonexistent levels of medication. For these reasons, a detention disposition is now necessary.
The question then arises as to both placement of Mr. Hesson’s detention and the range of privileges needed to ensure that all of the 672.54 objectives are met. The Hospital and Attorney General seek a detention disposition that moves Mr. Hesson to Brockville “until” a bed becomes available in Ottawa. Mr. Hesson is opposed to this. He is attached to the Ottawa community, takes pride in his apartment, and expresses concern associated with what Amicus described as systemic concerns affective pass-ladder and privilege progression at Brockville. Mr. Hesson’s opinions and reasonable desires in this regard must be considered. The Board is under an obligation not just to consider the primary objective but also that of ensuring that Mr. Hesson’s mental health and other needs are met, including the ultimate objective of reintegration into the community.
Mr. Hesson has been struggling in his decompensating state with effective engagement with his treating psychiatrist and the treatment team. When at baseline, he has experienced positive progressive levels of reintegration into the community of Ottawa. For the last number of years, his associations, service providers, family doctor and supports have taken root in Ottawa. He lives a truly short distance from the Hospital in housing that will be maintained if he returns to proper levels of medication, complies with the disposition to be ordered, and engages with service providers and the treatment team. A move to Brockville risks destabilising progress made.
The Board is aware of the bed-pressures the Hospital is under in light of its obligation to ensure the safety of the public. It also takes note that the Hospital did not seek assistance from the police over the prolonged period Mr. Hesson disobeyed the Board’s disposition and its conditions of reporting to the Hospital. Mr. Hesson, while displaying disengagement and some aggressivity, has not otherwise been in contact with any law enforcement agencies. He does not want to go to Brockville and knows from this hearing that lack of active participation in recommended treatment (including active participation in the process of titrating back up his antipsychotic medications to optimal levels), timely compliance with reporting to the Hospital, and an increase of transparent engagement with the treatment team may result in more intrusive measures on a further early review by the Hospital. This should provide the type of external motivation that proved successful in managing the risk posed by Mr. Hesson in the past. If it does not, and beds continue to be unavailable to the Hospital, then any signs of deterioration in Mr. Hesson’s symptoms may well be grounds to serve him and the Board with a written Rule 13 request coupled with another early review seeking his detention at Brockville. In that situation, lack of compliance with the Board’s disposition, lack of compliance with recommended pharmacological and other treatments, lack of reporting as required and lack of transparency and engagement with the treatment team may well represent significant concerns warranting a change of placement in and of themselves.
The Board also noted that the Hospital could require Mr. Hesson to report daily to the Hospital until a bed becomes available. As Mr. Hesson lives so close to the Hospital it is easy for him to report daily and yet remain in the community.
As a result, the Board has concluded that Mr. Hesson continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. It has concluded that a detention disposition, with a full range of privileges, is necessary and appropriate having regard to the objectives set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code. It has concluded that a move to Brockville is not necessary and appropriate for Mr. Hesson at this time but invites the Hospital to consider re-initiating process with the proper service of a Rule 13 notification should the circumstances described above warrant the same.
An order will issue accordingly.
DATED this 15th day of January 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. D. Sandor Alternate Chairperson
___________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board