Ontario Review Board
Re: Trevor Bernard
ORB File No: 7077/7113
Hearing held on: Wednesday, January 21, 2026
Place of Hearing: Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care
Pursuant to: Sections 672.81(1) & 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. R. Bigelow
Members: Dr. P. Darby
Dr. K. Patel
Ms. C. Murray
Ms. D. Smith
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Trevor Bernard
Counsel: Mr. V. Zenobio (via Zoom)
The Person in Charge Counsel: Mr. J. Thomson (via Zoom)
Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. S. Curry
REASONS FOR DECISION & DISPOSITION
(Dated February 3, 2026)
Introduction
On December 16, 2016, Mr. Trevor Bernard was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on a charge of uttering a threat to cause death or bodily harm contrary to the Criminal Code. On February 24, 2017, he was also found NCR on charges of possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose (x2) contrary to the Criminal Code. He is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“the Board”) dated February 12, 2025, ordering that he be detained at the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care – Brebeuf Program for Regional Forensics (“the Hospital” or “Waypoint”) with privileges up to and including living in the community within the catchment area of the Hospital in accommodation approved person in charge.
By letter dated January 19, 2026, the Hospital notified the Board pursuant to section 672.56(2) of the Criminal Code that Mr. Bernard, who had been residing in the community had been returned to hospital on January 11, 2026, resulting in a significant restriction of his liberty which had lasted over seven days.
On Wednesday, January 21, 2026, and the Board convened a hearing to review Mr. Bernard’s disposition pursuant to section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code as well as to review the restriction of his liberties pursuant to section 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code. The issues to be determined at the hearing with respect to the annual review were whether Mr. Bernard continued to constitute a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and, if so, to determine what was the necessary and appropriate disposition that was also the least onerous and least restrictive taking into account the factors set out in 672.54 of the Criminal Code. The issues to be determined with respect to the review of the restriction of his liberties were to decide whether both the initial and continuing restriction of Mr. Bernard’s liberties were necessary and appropriate and the least restrictive option available to the Hospital to manage risk in all the circumstances.
Initial Positions of the Parties
At the commencement of the hearing the parties were requested to provide their initial without prejudice positions with respect to the issues before the Board. Counsel for the hospital advised that it was the Hospital’s position that Mr. Bernard continued to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition was a continuation of the current disposition without change. With respect to the restriction of his liberty counsel for the Hospital advised that it was the Hospital’s position that both the initial and continuing restriction of his liberties was necessary and appropriate and the least restrictive option available to the hospital to manage risk in all the circumstances.
Both counsel for the Attorney General as well as counsel for Mr. Bernard joined the hospital both with respect to the annual review and the restriction of liberties.
Evidence at the hearing
- The evidence at the hearing consisted of the Hospital Report dated December 4, 2025, an addendum to the Hospital Report dated January 9, 2026, and the oral evidence of Dr. Ismail, Mr. Bernard’s most responsible physician (“MRP”).
Findings:
- For the Reasons that follow, the Board finds that Mr. Bernard continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a continuation of the current detention order without change. The Board also finds that both the initial and continuing restriction of his liberties up to the date of the hearing were necessary and appropriate and the least restrictive option available to the hospital to manage risk in the circumstances.
Index Offences:
- The circumstances surrounding the index offence as summarized in last year’s reasons for disposition are as follows:
Charge of uttering threats
On June 21, 2016, Trevor Bernard had a normal conversation with his ex-wife. They had been separated for 20 years but had remained friends. About a half an hour later he called her back. She noted that he was not sounding himself and even his voice had changed. He stated that she “needed to be dead” and that she was a “whore mother.” He explained that he “should have killed her, rather than slowly killing himself,” and that he “finally figured out that his mission in life is to kill her.” She feared for her safety.
Charges of possession of a dangerous weapon
On June 22, 2016, numerous residents of Alliston observed Mr. Bernard walking down the street holding what appeared to be a handgun and waiving it about. Fearing for public safety, the police conducted a high-risk arrest, drawing their firearms. Mr. Bernard was arrested. The weapon was determined to be an Airsoft pellet handgun.
On June 23, Mr. Bernard showed a neighbour a closed gun case. He told her that it contained a handgun and that he was a federal agent. She feared for her safety. Police attended the scene and found Mr. Bernard carrying an empty gun case and a bible.
On June 24, 2016, officers responded to a weapons’ call in front of the Alliston Canadian Tire Store. One witness reported that a male was holding a black assault rifle that appeared to be an AR-15 and was pointing it at people and their motor vehicles. The male was holding the gun like he was going to use it. Another witness observed Mr. Bernard in a moving off taxicab pointing a rifle out the rear side window. His arm was fully extended, and he mimicked firing the weapon. The taxi driver who had driven Mr. Bernard to the store asked about the gun. Mr. Bernard told him it was a paint ball gun. While on the move, the driver all heard a click and then saw Mr. Bernard with the gun out the window. Mr. Bernard entered the Canadian Tire still holding the rifle. The store manager recognized the weapon as a paint ball rifle. He engaged Mr. Bernard in conversation, during the course of which Mr. Bernard pointed the rifle at the manager's face. The manager used his hand to move it away from his face. When police arrived at the scene they were prepared to use lethal force, as the weapon resembled an M16 rifle. The officer recognized Mr. Bernard from two days before. Mr. Bernard complied with having the assault rifle taken away. He handed over a briefcase that contained medical marijuana and prescription medicine. He told the officer he was in the store to purchase airsoft ammunition. Asked soon after why he was pointing the assault rifle at passing cars, he uttered: "Only at the red ones; well, it's just a red moving target.
Background Information Regarding the Accused:
- As of the date of the hearing, Mr. Bernard was 54 years old. He was born in Saskatchewan and has two siblings. Mr. Bernard’s parents are deceased. He worked in an auto shop for three years before moving to Ontario. After moving to Ontario in 1993, he completed his high school diploma. He then worked in an auto parts factory in Tottenham for almost 20 years until January 2016, when he stopped working due to his mental illness. He is divorced and has two adult children from his marriage.
Substance Use History
Mr. Bernard has indicated that he began drinking alcohol at the age of 12 when he started stealing it from his parents. Although he has attended treatment programs, he always returned to drinking prior to index offences. He has indicated that he has drunk alcohol to the point of black out in the past “more times than I can count”.
Mr. Bernard reports that he began using drugs at the age of 13 beginning with marijuana and hashish and that his highest use was within the year prior to the index offence. He also has a history of use of cocaine, LSD and crystal methamphetamine.
Legal History:
- Mr. Bernard’s criminal record is as follows:
Date
Date & Location
Charges
Disposition
1988-12-05 Regina, SK
Possession of Prohibited Weapon
$50 fine and 10 days
1989-04-27 Regina, SK
1)Break and Enter and Commit 2)Fail to Comply- Recognizance
1)Suspended Sentence and Probation 2 years and restitution $1473.56 2)Suspended Sentence and Probation 2 years
1990-02-05 Regina, SK
Fail to comply with Recognizance
$150 and 7 days
1990- 02-26 Regina, SK
- Possession of a Narcotic for the Purpose of Trafficking 2) Fail to Comply with Probation
1)3 months 2)1 month concurrent
1990-03-05 Regina, SK
Fail to Appear
10 days
1991-01-21 Regina, SK
1)Theft under $1000 2)Fail to comply with Probation order
1)30 days Intermittent and Probation 2)40 days Intermittent concurrent and Probation
2008-05-14 Bradford, ON
Driving While Ability Impaired
$1000 and Probation for 12 months and Prohibited drive for 1 year
2016-12-16 Alliston, ON
Utter Threat to Cause Death or Bodily Harm
Not Criminally Responsible
2017-02-24 Alliston, ON
Weapons Dangerous (2 counts)
Not Criminally Responsible
Psychiatric History
Mr. Bernard’s first admission to hospital with respect to mental health related issues was in 2008 when he was admitted to Waypoint due to strange behaviour at work. On admission he was noted to be extremely thought disordered and that substance use was a factor. Discharge diagnosis was substance-induced psychosis.
Mr. Bernard had numerous subsequent admissions to hospital with respect to mental health related issues after his discharge from Waypoint and received diagnoses of psychotic disorder secondary to substance abuse (rule of psychotic disorder NOS, rule out paranoid schizophrenia), mania and polysubstance use disorder.
Current Diagnosis
- Mr. Bernard’s current psychiatric diagnoses are:
Schizoaffective Disorder, Bipolar Type
Unspecified Cannabis-Related Disorder
Unspecified Cocaine-Related Disorder.
Evidence of Dr. Ismail
- Dr. Ismail indicated that:
He had been Mr. Bernard’s MRP up until the time of his readmission to hospital and that, although Dr. Jones was currently Mr. Bernard’s MRP, he expected to resume care for Mr. Bernard upon his discharge from the Hospital within the next few weeks.
Mr. Bernard had ceased taking his prescribed lithium at some point prior to his admission. Since his return to hospital lithium had been replaced by Quetiapine and Methotrimeprazine had been stopped. Mr. Bernard had showed a positive response to the medication change and was now more organized and less manic than at the time of his admission.
Although Mr. Bernard had a number of positive urine tests for cocaine prior to his readmission, no changes in his mental status were noted as a result. Mr. Bernard has no internal motivation to cease use of substances.
Mr. Bernard’s residence will still be available to him on discharge from hospital and he will continue to be followed by the forensic mobile treatment and support team.
In his opinion, the provisions of the Mental Health Act would not be sufficient to manage Mr. Bernard’s risk.
The circumstances surrounding Mr. Bernard’s return to the Hospital were that after attending at a pharmacy to pick up medication, Mr. Bernard entered a stranger’s car and began looking through the glove compartment. The owner of the car asked him to get out of the car and he refused. Police were called and upon their arrival they noted that he was extremely disorganized, and his speech was rapid. He was taken to a local hospital where it was determined that he was a patient from Waypoint, and he was transferred there. Upon his arrival at Waypoint, blood tests were negative for lithium but positive for cocaine and cannabis.
Analysis and Conclusion, Significant Threat:
Although the issue of significant threat was not contested at the hearing, the Board nevertheless makes an independent finding that the evidence clearly establishes that Mr. Bernard continues to constitute a significant threat to the safety of the public. Mr. Bernard suffers from a major mental illness, Schizoaffective Disorder, Bipolar Type, as well as cannabis and cocaine use related disorders. Although his mental status generally remained stable up until the time of his recent readmission, his insight into his mental disorder, associated risk factors and the need for ongoing treatment remains partial and fragile. He continues to experience difficulty understanding and integrating the factors that may aggravate the course of his illness and increase risk.
Although he has not demonstrated violent ideation or intent over the review period, this is in the context of significant external structure and supervision and his limited engagement in programming raises concerns about his ability to recognize early warning signs of decompensation and act proactively to mitigate risk.
Analysis and Conclusion Necessary and Appropriate Disposition
- The Board also finds that the evidence clearly supports a finding that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a continuation of the current detention order without change which was not contested at the hearing. Absent the level of supervision currently provided by his disposition, there is a substantial risk that he could fall away from medication and combined with the use of substances result in a return to the mental state he experienced at the time of the time of the index offences.
Analysis and Conclusion Restriction of Liberty
- The Board is also satisfied that both the initial and continuing restriction of Mr. Bernard’s liberties was necessary and appropriate and the least onerous option available to the Hospital to manage risk in all the circumstances. At the time of his readmission Mr. Bernard was disorganized, had consumed cocaine and had been nonadherent with medication for some period of time. His medication has been changed and he appears to be having a positive response to the change. However, it remains early days and the Hospital’s plan to discharge him within a few weeks from the date of the hearing is supported by the need to ensure a positive trajectory.
DATED this 3rd day of February 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. R. Bigelow
Alternate Chairperson
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board