Ontario Review Board
Re: Ryan G. Gorman
ORB File No: 8357
Hearing held on: Thursday, December 4, 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: Ryan G. Gorman
Counsel: Ms. F. Beaubien
Person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. J. Hwang
Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. E. Davies
AMENDED REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated January 2, 2026)
Please see underlined change to original reasons made February 11, 2026
Introduction:
On July 19th, 2023, Ryan G. Gorman was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of attempted murder, assault with a weapon, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, carrying a concealed weapon, and forcible confinement, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. Mr. Gorman is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated October 1, 2024, discharging him on certain terms and conditions. Those terms and conditions include a condition that he reside with his father, that he abstains absolutely from the non-medical use of alcohol or drugs and that he submits samples for the purpose of monitoring his adherence with the abstain condition. He is to refrain from all communication with both the primary victim of the index offence of attempted murder as well as other named individuals.
On December 4th, 2025, the Board convened at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre (hereinafter referred to as “the Hospital”) to conduct Mr. Gorman’s annual review hearing pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Gorman attended his hearing and was represented by his lawyer, Ms. Florence Beaubien. Ms. Davies, lawyer with the Office of the Crown Attorney, represented the Attorney General. Dr. J. Hwang, Mr. Gorman’s treating psychiatrist, represented the Hospital. Mr. Gorman’s father was also in attendance as was his ex-girlfriend who was a witness to the index offence and was one of the people named with whom Mr. Gorman was to have no direct or indirect contact.
The record for the hearing included the Notice of Hearing, dated November 5, 2025, the most recent Disposition, dated October 1, 2024, and the Reasons for that Disposition. On the consent of all parties, a Hospital Report dated November 27, 2025, was admitted into evidence as exhibit 1.
The parties were canvassed for their positions at the outset of the hearing. Dr. Hwang, speaking for the Hospital took the position that Mr. Gorman no longer represented a significant threat to the safety of the public and that he, as such, was entitled to an absolute discharge. Ms. Davies for the Attorney General took a different position. She submitted that the evidence would establish that Mr. Gorman did continue 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 expounded upon by the Supreme Court of Canada in Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625 and that a continuation of the reigning conditional discharge was necessary and appropriate having regard to the objectives set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code, the paramount of which is the assurance of the safety of the public.
Ms. Beaubien agreed with the Hospital and took the position that her client Mr. Gorman no longer represented a significant threat to the safety of the public, but submitted that, if the Board were to find that the threshold of significant threat was established by the evidence, a continuation of Mr. Gorman’s conditional discharge on its current terms would be necessary and appropriate to manage his risk.
For the following reasons, the Board has concluded that Mr. Gorman continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. In arriving at this conclusion, the panel has specifically noted the following:
In her evidence, Dr. Hwang indicated that stressors destabilize Mr. Gorman’s mental state and that he is currently subject to significant stressors including starting a new job, changing plans for further education, changes in his living arrangements that anticipate a return to live with his new partner, and the navigation of that new relationship.
Mr. Gorman continues to use cannabis which is a substance that proved destabilizing for him in the past. His new partner uses cannabis, and it is likely that Mr. Gorman will increase his use when he moves to his new apartment. This will require more careful monitoring by the forensic team to manage the increased risk.
Moving in with his partner deprives, at least in part, Mr. Gorman from the active supportive relationship he had with his father who provided supervision and who worked cooperatively with the Hospital to manage Mr. Gorman’s risk. As of the date of the hearing, Dr. Hwang had not met with Mr. Gorman’s new partner to determine whether that individual would collaborate with the forensic team going forward.
There is still lack of clarity surrounding the sufficiency of therapeutic support Mr. Gorman will receive in the community in the absence of the Hospital’s oversight.
- The Board has further concluded that the necessary and appropriate disposition is that of a continuation of Mr. Gorman’s conditional discharge.
Evidence at the hearing - Index Offences:
- The evidence for the hearing came primarily from the Hospital Report mentioned and the viva voce evidence offered by Dr. Hwang. Turning first to the Hospital Report, it is cumulative in nature and includes a synopsis of the index offences as contained in last year’s Reasons for Disposition:
“On April 13, 2023, Mr. Gorman was staying in his girlfriend’s apartment. Her roommate was Ronin McCallum. Mr. Gorman stabbed Mr. McCallum in the neck with a kitchen knife that he had concealed in a shirt. Mr. Gorman then punched the victim. Mr. Gorman closed the door to prevent Mr. McCallum from leaving the apartment. Mr. Gorman’s girlfriend’s mother, who lived in a nearby unit, heard Mr. McCallum call for help. She tried to help the victim up from the floor and out of the apartment. Mr. Gorman moved Mr. McCallum’s hair off his neck and stabbed him again.
Mr. Gorman’s girlfriend attended. Mr. Gorman then charged at Mr. McCallum and tried to stab him once more, this time in the abdomen.
Once at the scene, police officers seized the shirt and two knives at the scene.
Mr. McCallum sustained the following injuries:
Abrasion on forehead,
Abrasion on left cheek,
Laceration on upper right neck (stitches),
Puncture like wound on right side collar bone (stitches),
Laceration on top of right hand (stitches).”
Current Psychiatric Diagnoses
- The Hospital Report specifies Mr. Gorman’s main diagnosis as Major Depressive Disorder – in full remission. It notes contributory diagnoses of Generalized Anxiety Disorder and Cannabis Use Disorder. It defers a diagnosis of contributory personality features and notes contributory psychosocial stressors that include financial difficulties and instability of employment.
Personal Background
Regarding his personal background, Mr. Gorman is currently 25 years’ old. His parents separated when he was about 11. He described a “long and nasty separation” where both parents lived in distinct parts of the house until his father eventually moved out close to nine months later. He has a younger sister.
Mr. Gorman has described his father’s past physical violence in the home toward his mother and himself as a result of the father’s PTSD and explosive anger. Mr. Gorman was 14 when his father retired from the military.
Mr. Gorman described that his sexual orientation was not well received at home. His mother would laugh it off and his father would send him away to stay with one of his father’s friends who is a therapist for what he equated to “conversion camp” for his sexuality. His father would often comment on his being too feminine although Mr. Gorman had not told his father that he was bisexual. He has said that when he did attempt to discuss his sexuality with his father, this was poorly received with his father responding physically to the disclosure.
Mr. Gorman and his girlfriend lived at his father’s home for about eight months leading up to the index offence. His father did not approve of his dating a biracial woman. Mr. Gorman and his father became physical when Mr. Gorman moved out of the home. Mr. Gorman confirmed having punched or shoved his father. His parents did not allow him to socialize with this girlfriend when they were children because of her skin colour.
Mr. Gorman attended Algonquin College, as did his former girlfriend who was also a student. They had known each other from childhood and dated for about one year. He struggled academically and attributed this to doctors having found a mass in his girlfriend’s brain in October 2022, along with the stress associated with her condition and the medical tests. The brain mass was eventually found to be benign.
In the time leading up to the index offence, Mr. Gorman was using up to one gram of cannabis daily.
Criminal History
Mr. Gorman has no prior criminal record.
On July 19, 2023, Mr. Gorman was released from custody on bail and required to remain at his father’s residence unless in the presence of his surety and to attend all ROMHC appointments. There is no indication that he breached any of his bail conditions.
Psychiatric History
Mr. Gorman began noticing depressive symptoms when he was about 13 and was thereafter diagnosed with a generalized anxiety disorder. He attended therapy sessions to help him deal with his parents’ divorce. He felt “stressed out about everything” and was often irritable, snappy and had trouble concentrating. At age 15, Mr. Gorman began to have suicidal ideation. At age 18, his depression became persistent. This caused him difficulties in University. He used alcohol to cope with stress and cannabis to help him sleep.
At the time of the index offence in April 2023, Mr. Gorman felt that he was “attempting suicide”. He believed his girlfriend’s life was in danger because she was Black and had nowhere to live. Mr. Gorman also believed that the victim, Mr. McCallum, was trying to poison him and was laughing at him while Mr. Gorman tried to commit suicide. He experienced delusions that Mr. McCallum was attacking him.
In interviews with the previously involved psychiatrist, Dr. Wood, Mr. Gorman also described having Capgras, a rare neuropsychiatric condition wherein a person believes a familiar person or object has been replaced by an identical imposter. Mr. Gorman described delusions, ideas of reference, paranoia, and hallucinations involving all senses.
Last year’s Reasons for Disposition note the progress Mr. Gorman has made while under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board. It notes that Mr. Gorman was living with his father who was a support and who collaborated well with the Hospital. Mr. Gorman himself experienced no resurgence of psychotic symptoms and was responding well to his long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication. He attended faithfully at a community clinic to receive his injections and showed notable mood improvement notwithstanding periods of depressed mood. He was described as learning to cope better with stress and as faithfully engaging in various counseling and therapy sessions with the Hospital’s psychotherapist, Ms. Chan. He worked with an occupational therapist and coped generally well with changes in his employment status.
Last year’s Reasons note that Mr. Gorman had begun using alcohol and cannabis though, in response to stress. At that time, the panel noted that Mr. Gorman had only used cannabis on three occasions. There was no evidence of any further reliance on cannabis as a coping mechanism and no resurgence of psychotic conditions was noted as a result of the occasional use. The Reasons note that Mr. Gorman would attend the Hospital when he felt cravings for alcohol and cannabis.
Update from the Hospital Report
The Hospital’s update for the purpose of this hearing begins at page 57 of the Hospital Report. It confirms that Mr. Gorman had no relapses in his mood disorder or psychosis over the past reporting period. He has been assiduous with his medications and has shown insight into the use of his “as needed” medications when experiencing periods of stress. Stressors have included conflict with his father’s partner and difficulties with employment. While Mr. Gorman did experience thoughts of self-harm, he engaged with counseling appropriately to re-orient his thoughts around goals that helped him reduce his anxiety and prevent a relapse of a mood episode.
The Hospital Report notes however that Mr. Gorman began using cannabis again in June 2025. This began in the company of his friends and continued as Mr. Gorman experienced ongoing challenges associated with employment and stresses associated with his father’s new partner. He continued cannabis use with his friends and suggested to his therapist that he had “learned from his recent lapses that his emotion dysregulation could be triggered by highly stressful situations” and that peer influence was another contributing factor. He asserted that he regretted using cannabis in an unhealthy way to cope with stress and negative emotions and said that stopped seeing his “drug friends.”
The Hospital Report then includes an addendum detailing Mr. Gorman’s course in treatment from October to November 2025. It notes that Mr. Gorman continued to use cannabis as documented in his urine drug screens. He showed decreasing engagement with the treatment team, particularly in response to the team’s request to be able to communicate with his father. When the team was contacted by his father on November 19, 2025, they were advised that Mr. Gorman was no longer living with his father, contrary to the Board’s most recent Disposition. Rather he was living with his childhood friend with whom he had formed a new intimate relationship. Mr. Gorman’s father expressed concern that Mr. Gorman’s misrepresentation of facts to him and the treatment team mirrored the type of mental decline that he had noted leading up to the commission of the index offence.
Mr. Gorman attended at the Hospital as requested by Dr. Hwang as a result of these developments. Mr. Gorman indicated that he was tired of cooperating with the treatment team and said that he had arranged for counseling sessions outside of the forensic program. He indicated that he wanted to discuss his stressors freely without the concern that his personal information would be disclosed to the Board. He emphasized that he would continue to take his medications as prescribed but said that he wanted to limit his relationship with his father. He indicated that he intended to enroll in Algonquin College’s Community Justice program but did not want to discuss this intention with his father who he feared would disapprove.
Mr. Gorman described regular use of cannabis but suggested that it was “minimal.” He denied any alterations in his mood or any recurrence of psychotic symptoms. He said that he was still motivated to find employment.
A week later, Mr. Gorman met again with Dr. Hwang in the company of his father. This meeting confirmed that Mr. Gorman had moved into a new same-sex relationship with his partner and disclosed that he was overly invested in the same, which was leading him to neglect other aspects of his life, including his relationship with his father and his own mental well-being. He characterized his new relationship as being co-dependent and expressed a need for therapy on this issue. He said that his new partner supported this, but to the date of the hearing, the Hospital had had no contact with the partner in this regard. Mr. Gorman said that he was discontinuing his enrollment in the Algonquin College program and was instead going to pursue online education in the public policy sector. He described his mood as “anxious” – a state that was visible to Dr. Hwang – but denied delusions or suicidal or violent thoughts.
Risk Assessment
The Hospital Report includes a risk assessment employing the HCR-20 version 3. It focuses on clinical and risk management factors in arriving at the conclusion that Mr. Gorman represents a low clinical risk of future violence. In arriving at this conclusion, under “clinical factors”, the assessment notes that Mr. Gorman continues to experience episodes of affective instability, including anxiety and sadness associated with social stressors. It goes on to distinguish that affective instability from that experienced at the time of the index offences on the basis that “Mr. Gorman was able to identify his behavioural changes earlier on with the assistance of his father and the treatment team.” (our emphasis added).
The assessment does not mention that this assistance came not as a result of any form of initiative from Mr. Gorman, but rather as the product of a timely reaching out by his father over a period when Mr. Gorman was increasingly using cannabis to cope with stressors, had distanced himself from consistent reliable supports in favor of a new relationship that he described as “co-dependent”, and was showing less engagement with the treatment team. The omission of these factors in the Violence Risk Assessment is a concern affecting the reliability of its conclusion.
There is further concern as the Risk Assessment, when considering risk management factors, seems to discount the evidence that Mr. Gorman turned increasingly to cannabis and to a new co-dependent relationship to manage stressors as opposed to reaching out to the treatment team or proven supports. Rather the Risk Assessment frames Mr. Gorman’s cannabis use as a factor that exists independent of stressors and stress-management. The risk management factors considered in the Risk Assessment do not mention any consideration of treatment supervision or response concerns such as Mr. Gorman’s decreased engagement with the treatment team, taking up of residence away from his father’s home, contrary to a Board disposition, or non-disclosure of the new relationship with the treatment team. It does not mention that Mr. Gorman’s newest partner had no contact with the treatment team leading up to this hearing. These omissions in the Risk Assessment undermine the reliability of its conclusion.
Dr. Hwang’s evidence to the Board
- In her evidence to the Board, Dr. Hwang confirmed that Mr. Gorman continues to receive his long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication but confirmed, in response to questions from Ms. Davies that:
Mr. Gorman continues to use cannabis multiple times per week.
Cannabis use for Mr. Gorman can cause paranoia and low mood, similar to that experienced by him in the circumstances giving rise to the index offences.
Mr. Gorman’s father did not reach out to Dr. Hwang as a result of Mr. Gorman’s cannabis use, but because Mr. Gorman’s behaviours were increasingly similar to those observed by his father in the period leading up to the commission of the index offences.
Mr. Gorman had been living with his new partner for two weeks without disclosing this to the Hospital and in contravention of a Board disposition, and that this was only learned as a result of his father’s concerned contact with the Hospital.
Mr. Gorman’s disengagement with his father and the treatment team may not be related to Mr. Gorman’s increased use of cannabis, noting that Mr. Gorman did go through a period when he was both using cannabis and maintaining a good level of engagement with the treatment team.
Mr. Gorman has reported that he is increasingly using cannabis because it helps him cope with stressors, helps him sleep, and because his current partner uses cannabis. Dr. Hwang later confirmed that his current partner, as of the date of the hearing, was not engaged with the treatment team and had not received psychoeducation related to Mr. Gorman’s major mental illness and the risk it, and his cannabis use, poses to the public.
Mr. Gorman has not been open to other medication options to assist him with sleep.
Mr. Gorman had not just stopped living with his father, contrary to a Board disposition, but had distanced himself entirely from his father’s support.
It was only over the course of the two weeks preceding the hearing that Mr. Gorman began engaging again in a meaningful way with his father and the treatment team.
Mr. Gorman is now indicating that he will continue online schooling and will continue to live with his father as he works full-time at Costco.
Mr. Gorman, to his credit, is able to recognize symptoms of his own decompensation in terms of the efficacy of the medications he is taking, though the fact that he was not able to identify that his preference of cannabis as a coping mechanism to the supports and protections of the forensic system is a concern.
Mr. Gorman did, however, attend at the Hospital when requested following his father’s contact and concerns, and that he likely would do so again in the context of a conditional discharge. This likelihood increases if Mr. Gorman is living with and is open to receiving the active support provided to this point by his father.
Mr. Gorman has no interest in contacting the main victim of the index offence and has no interest in having a relationship with the persons involved in the index offence, including his ex-girlfriend who, as mentioned, was present in the hearing and was desirous of contact with him. Mr. Gorman has indicated that he has “moved on” into a new relationship and as such does not have any interest in having communications with his ex-girlfriend, preferring the relationship that he described, himself, as “co-dependent.”
She has concerns associated with Mr. Gorman’s new relationship. Over the two months preceding the hearing, Mr. Gorman has developed a significant attachment to his new partner and has had difficulties setting boundaries. His partner has not yet engaged with the Hospital and uses cannabis regularly. These are both concerns for her. She also expressed concern associated with the impulsivity with which Mr. Gorman moved in to live with this new partner. She said that, though Mr. Gorman has “no concrete plans” to move out of his father’s again to live with the partner, she would “be surprised if he did not.” This would be a major stressor. She indicated that the concern is that Mr. Gorman will immerse himself in that relationship and will neglect his mental health needs otherwise.
Mr. Gorman still has no family doctor though he does have access to a psychotherapist in the community – noting that she did not have significant contact with that psychotherapist leading up to the hearing.
While cannabis does not lower the efficacy of Mr. Gorman’s antipsychotic medications, it can cause him psychosis that the current antipsychotic does not treat.
Mr. Gorman’s father’s oversight is a significant protective factor. If Mr. Gorman were to cut ties to his father or if he had continued in this vein in November 2025, her recommendation of an absolute discharge would change. Commenting on the recent disengagement from the team and from his father, she added that, in her view, the new relationship was a causative factor. She said that this was something that no one foresaw and that it was only in the last week that Mr. Gorman had taken a step back in the intensity of that relationship. She placed significant emphasis on Mr. Gorman’s progress as seen over the last two years when explaining her position that, while there are risks, in her mind those risks do not attain to the standard of “significant”, notwithstanding the foregoing.
She confirmed that the only reason Mr. Gorman had contact with the treatment team was because his father had contacted the Hospital. This was in the context of
a. increased cannabis use,
b. noncompliance with a Board disposition regarding residence,
c. formation and preference of a new form of relationship that Mr. Gorman described as co-dependent,
d. his distancing of himself from historic relationships of importance and reliable supports such as those offered by the team and his father and
e. observed behaviors and attitudes to those that preceded the index offences.
Dr. Hwang confirmed that if Mr. Gorman continues in his new relationship, it will be important for the partner to be educated on the index offences, the nature and character of Mr. Gorman’s involvement with the Ontario Review Board, his major mental illness and its symptoms, his need for medication and the importance of his involvement with therapy, particularly over periods of significant stress. None of this has happened.
No further evidence was presented.
Submissions of the Parties
At the end of the hearing the parties renewed their submissions as stated at the beginning. Dr. Hwang maintained that, though there were concerns, Mr. Gorman showed insight into his illness, the index offences, his symptoms and need for medication. She highlighted that he had not experienced a relapse into psychosis. In her submission, this led to concerns, but not to the level of significance required to ground the threshold finding. As a result, she suggested that an absolute discharge was required.
Mr. Gorman’s lawyer, Ms. Beaubien, agreed. She argued that the stressors identified had not destabilized Mr. Gorman to the point of decompensation. He had not disengaged with psychotherapy nor with his antipsychotic medication. Ms. Beaubien relied on the conclusion drawn by the Risk Assessment contained in the Hospital Report, that Mr. Gorman represented a low risk of violence. She argued that, if the Board disagreed, then the evidence would support a continuation of Mr. Gorman’s conditional discharge on terms identical to the one ordered by the previous panel.
Ms. Davies for the Attorney General disagreed. She argued that the evidence had established a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined by the Supreme Court of Canada in Winko. She pointed firstly to the seriousness and relative recency of the index offences. Mr. Gorman’s actions were potentially lethal and committed in a context that was similar to what his father observed that prompted the father’s outreach to the Hospital and disclosure that Mr. Gorman had moved in with his new partner contrary to a Board disposition. While Ms. Davies acknowledged that Mr. Gorman had made gains over the course of two years, they were not in her submission where they needed to be when considering his increased use of cannabis as a preferred coping mechanism to major stressors, nor when considering his preference of unreliable, uninformed and untested supports to those provided by past relationships and most specifically his father and the treatment team. Ms. Davies noted with concern that Mr. Gorman engaged in this conduct in such a way that it could not be said that he would continue living with his father – a factor that Dr. Hwang had said would cause her to change her position from one where the threshold cannot be maintained to one where significant threat would be apparent.
Ms. Davies noted that the stressors that caused Mr. Gorman to increasingly use cannabis and to prefer alternatives to tested and true supports continued to exist. She pointed to his new partner’s regular use of cannabis, lack of involvement with the Hospital and to the fact that, at the time of the commission of the index offences, Mr. Gorman was using low doses of cannabis as a coping mechanism and had been manifesting the same behaviours as his father recently reported to the Hospital. She noted that Mr. Gorman prioritized cannabis and his new relationship over his mental health and that, while his father was a stabilizing influence, the evidence disclosed that this relationship was subject to some fragility. She suggested that Mr. Gorman’s coping strategies had fallen short in the period leading to this hearing. She argued that this needed to be considered in light of the several stresses Mr. Gorman was experiencing, including those associated with a new relationship. She submitted that other concerning factors included Mr. Gorman’s failure to disclose his new relationship and the need for that partner to be able to engage with the Hospital. She suggested that it would be important for Mr. Gorman’s partner to have an understanding of his history with major mental illness, the Ontario Review Board and stressors associated with his father and education.
Ms. Davies concluded that while one could not take away the gains that Mr. Gorman has made and the fact that he has not become psychotic, that does not mean that risk has been obviated against the backdrop of these factors. Accordingly, she submitted that Mr. Gorman continued to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that a conditional discharge was necessary and appropriate having regard to the objectives set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
Analysis and conclusion
As mentioned, the Board has concluded that Mr. Gorman continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. This finding, referred to as the “threshold finding” is a necessary condition precedent to the making of any disposition. If the threshold is not found to exist, then the patient is entitled to an absolute discharge.
As stated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Winko and by the Ontario Court of Appeal in numerous cases since then, the finding of “significant threat” is an onerous one. It cannot be driven solely by the fact that an individual suffers from a major mental illness. At no point in time is the mentally ill accused under an obligation to prove that they do not represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. At all times, the Board must satisfy itself on the basis of the evidence and a principled consideration of all factors that an individual poses a threat that is significant both as to likelihood of occurrence and as to seriousness of harm flowing from serious criminal conduct that is more likely than not to happen absent a disposition. It is insufficient to ground the threshold finding in a high likelihood of criminal conduct that is unlikely to give rise to serious physical or psychological harm to the public. Nor is it sufficient to make the finding where there is a high likelihood of serious physical or psychological harm arising from serious criminal offending that is not likely to take place. There must be both significance in terms of likelihood and of consequence.
In Mr. Gorman’s case this likelihood is grounded in the following circumstances:
Mr. Gorman suffers from a major mental illness that played a direct role in the commission of index offences that were extremely serious and potentially lethal. The index offences were committed against and were driven by relationships that were important to Mr. Gorman at that time and took place in a context where he was subject to significant life stressors associated with relationships, employment and education.
Mr. Gorman committed those index offences over a period where he was using small doses of cannabis regularly. His behaviour and demeanour leading up to the commission of the index offences included distancing from family supports in favour of new relationships.
These factors bear similarity to recent circumstances that are of concern to the panel. As indicated, Mr. Gorman is medication compliant and has not experienced the symptoms of psychosis notwithstanding his use of cannabis. It cannot be said however that his insight is well-established into all the factors informing the finding of significant threat. He does not express an awareness of the similarities between his recent conduct in coping with stresses by distancing himself from family and treatment team supports in favour of new relationships and increased cannabis use. That increased cannabis use manifests a decrease in what he previously manifested as an awareness of the role cannabis plays in the risk he poses to the public and to those close to him. Together with the distancing mentioned, it demonstrates an impulsivity that removes him from protective environments despite the external motivation offered by a Board disposition.
This behaviour is like that which preceded the commission of the index offence. It is influenced by stressors that existed then, exist now, and are likely to exist into the future – certainly over the next period of review. It shows fragility of protective factors, such as those offered by his father and engagement with necessary mental health supports without the buttressing required by new supports that were firstly not disclosed and secondly have not had the opportunity to engage with historic supports or psychoeducation that would help Mr. Gorman navigate factors that have proven decompensating in the past.
Mr. Gorman was doing well leading up to this hearing. Unfortunately, in the months preceding the hearing, his increase in cannabis use, the distancing mentioned, his formation of a relationship he described as “co-dependent” and his inability to recognize all of this as warning signs manifests, in our view, an impartial insight into his symptoms, the risk posed by use of cannabis, and the circumstances that informed the index offences. While the Hospital Report’s Violence Risk Assessment relies heavily on past conduct, lack of manifestation of primary symptoms of psychosis and treatment adherence, it fails to consider the similarity of these important factors in arriving at its analysis of risk. Dr. Hwang testified that, if Mr. Gorman was to leave the supportive residence offered by his father, she would arrive at a different risk conclusion. She then stated that it would “surprise her” if Mr. Gorman did not do exactly that thing, moving in impulsively with his current partner into an environment where that partner both regularly uses cannabis and has not received the education and training necessary to help Mr. Gorman appropriately manage stressors and recognize the early signs of decompensation.
In our view, these factors elevate the risk considered in the Risk Assessment. In the absence of a disposition, there is a real likelihood that Mr. Gorman will act impulsively to remove himself from historic supports that have been key to the management of his major mental illness in a context of static stressors. His use of cannabis will increase and, together with the ill-supported stressors and ill-advised coping techniques, he will experience deterioration like that experienced leading up to the index offences. In our view, the evidence satisfies the significant threat threshold set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Winko.
Turning then to the issue of disposition, to his credit, Mr. Gorman attended at the Hospital voluntarily when invited to do so following his father’s disclosures. He admitted to entering a new relationship, to breaching the Board’s disposition, to distancing himself from his father and from the treatment team and to increasing his use of cannabis all in response to stressors he was experiencing. While it would have been preferable for him to have recognized that a key indicator of insight is the voluntary accessing of important supports during times of stress or increased desire to use cannabis or act impulsively, the fact that he cooperated with the Hospital ultimately supports the conclusion that a continuation of the conditional discharge is appropriate. The necessity of the conditional discharge is driven by the same factors informing the threshold finding. The appropriateness of it is informed by this factor as well as by the fact that Mr. Gorman is assiduous with his anti-psychotic medications and by the fact that he has not experienced symptoms of psychosis over the course of this reporting period.
Though the months prior to this hearing could have represented a step back from the ultimate objective of reintegration into the public, in the weeks prior to the hearing Mr. Gorman seems to be returning to a path that will allow the Hospital to advance a plan that incorporates new social and psychotherapeutic relationships into his supportive care. It will be helpful at the next hearing to have information as to his engagement with his community psychiatrist, his community psychotherapist, and his ability to set boundaries around new relationships in the preservation of existing ones that have supported him to this point of his involvement with the Ontario Review Board.
As a result, the Board concludes that Mr. Gorman continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition under the circumstances, having regard to the objectives set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code is that of a continued conditional discharge.
The Board thanks all who have participated in this hearing and expresses its gratitude to Mr. Gorman, his father and ex-girlfriend who attended the hearing in his support, and the Hospital and treatment team and offers its encouragement to Mr. Gorman considering his renewed involvement with positive social and therapeutic supports.
An order will issue accordingly.
DATED this 2nd 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