Re: Jason M. Hadfield
ORB File No: 8046
Hearing held on: Thursday, January 22, 2026
Place of hearing: Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. J. Mills
Members: Dr. P. Darby
Dr. K. Patel
Ms. C. Murray
Ms. D. Smith
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Jason M. Hadfield
Counsel: Mr. A. Stastny (via Zoom)
The Person in Charge of Hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Lefebvre
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. S. Curry
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated February 3, 2026)
On March 31, 2022, Jason Hadfield was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of robbery and manslaughter-culpable homicide, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada, (the “Criminal Code”). Further, Mr. Hadfield was designated by the Court as a high risk accused (“HRA”) pursuant to s. 672.64 of the Criminal Code.
Mr. Hadfield is subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”) dated February 12, 2025, which detains him at the High Secure Provincial Forensic Programs, Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care (“Waypoint”) with privileges up to and including hospital and grounds privileges, beyond the secure perimeter, escorted by staff.
On Thursday, January 22, 2026, the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing at Waypoint pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code.
Mr. Hadfield was in attendance and was represented by his counsel, Mr. Stastny.
A Hospital Report dated January 9, 2026, was entered as Exhibit 1. Six Victim Impact statements were collectively entered as Exhibit 2.
Position of the Parties
- At the commencement of the hearing, the alternate chairperson directed the parties to clause 2(a) of the Disposition, which reads as follows:
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the person in charge of the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care create a program for the detention in custody and rehabilitation of the accused within the High Secure Provincial Forensic Programs, Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care in which the person in charge, in his or her discretion, may permit the accused:
(a) to attend within or outside of the hospital for necessary medical, dental, legal, or compassionate purposes;…”
The alternate chairperson noted that clause 2(a) grants the privilege of attending outside of the hospital for various purposes including “compassionate” purposes, which is not a purpose contemplated in s.672.64(3) of the Criminal Code. The alternate chairperson requested submissions at the end of the hearing regarding whether inclusion of “compassionate” purposes in clause 2(a) of the Disposition complies with s.672.64(3) of the Criminal Code.
Ms. Lefebvre, on behalf of the hospital, recommended that Mr. Hadfield be detained at the High Secure Provincial Forensic Programs at Waypoint with no change to the terms of the Disposition, subject to their final submissions on whether clause 2(a) of the Disposition complies with s.672.64(3) of the Criminal Code.
Ms. Curry supported the hospital’s recommendations. She opposed a review of Mr. Hadfield’s HRA status at this time.
Mr. Stastny did not oppose the position of the hospital. He also advised that Mr. Hadfield took no issue with the content of any of the Victim Impact Statements nor the reading in of the statements at this hearing. He was not seeking a review of Mr. Hadfield’s HRA status at this hearing.
Psychiatric Diagnoses:
- Schizoaffective Disorder, Bipolar Type;
Cannabis Use Disorder, moderate, in sustained remission in a controlled environment
Cocaine Use Disorder, moderate, in sustained remission in a controlled environment
Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (by history)
Evidence at Hearing:
The evidence at the hearing consisted of the Hospital Report and the viva voce evidence of Dr. Bouskill, Mr. Hadfield’s treating psychiatrist.
Six Victim Impact Statements were collectively filed as an Exhibit. The Board advised the parties that the Board will follow the procedure approved by the Court of Appeal in the decision of Klem 2016 ONCA 119. The Board will only take into consideration those parts of the Victim Impact Statements that comply with the provisions of the Criminal Code.
Index Offences:
- The circumstances of the index offences are detailed in the Hospital Report and summarized as follows:
On October 12, 2018, the accused watched a male victim withdraw cash from an ATM machine located in an Esso gas station. The accused then followed the victim for several blocks to a shopping concourse where the victim made a purchase at a beer store. The accused continued to follow the victim back to the Esso gas station. As the victim paused and bent over, the accused moved quickly up to the victim and delivered a forceful kick to his upper body, knocking him off his feet. The force of the kick caused the victim to fall backwards and strike the back of his head on the pavement, rendering him unconscious. The accused then went through the victim’s pockets and stole his cigarettes and money. A passerby attempted to block him, but he broke free and fled. He was arrested by police three days later. The victim eventually died from his injury.
Background and History:
The Hospital Report contains extensive information regarding Mr. Hadfield’s background, history, and course since the last Disposition, the entirety of which need not be repeated in these Reasons in detail. However, the following particulars are noteworthy.
In brief, Mr. Hadfield is a 41-year-old single man. He was born in Toronto. In his teens he became defiant and was placed into foster care at age 15. Mr. Hadfield left school at age 15 or 16. He occasionally worked for moving companies.
Mr. Hadfield has an extensive history of polysubstance use. He began smoking cannabis and drinking alcohol at age 14. Among other illicit substances, he has used opioids, heroin, LSD, cocaine, crack cocaine, and magic mushrooms.
Mr. Hadfield’s criminal history began in 2014. He has an extensive criminal record for offences of violence and breaches of court orders. Mr. Hadfield reported being homeless at the time of the index offences.
Mr. Hadfield is incapable of consenting to psychiatric treatment. His pastor acts as his substitute decision maker.
The Hospital Report at page 88 notes that during this reporting period:
“He often presents with a euthymic and in some instances labile affect, along with loud and pressured speech; however his lability and intensity have improved over the past few months with the initiation of lithium. His thought process has varied, ranging from linear and organized to disjointed and tangential, wherein he will perseverate and become preoccupied on certain topics (i.e. perceived mistreatment in the past, homelessness, and the injustice of others not believing him about coordinating Bin Laden's killing). His thought content has been notable for delusions of grandeur, persecutory ideations, religious themes, ideas of reference, thought insertion and telepathy, and auditory hallucinations. Mr. Hadfield can quickly become irritable and boisterous if his delusions are challenged. His insight and judgement remain impaired.”
This reporting year, Mr. Hadfield reunited with his mother, and they communicate weekly by telephone. He is estranged from other family members.
In January 2025, Mr. Hadfield was physically attacked by a co-patient. He did not fight back or retaliate and voiced an understanding that the co-patient’s mental state was a major contributor to the incident.
Throughout May and June 2025, Mr. Hadfield exhibited increasingly disruptive and oppositional behaviour on the unit and was more sensitive to perceived provocation from others. The team believed that his increasing paranoia was a manifestation of the stress of undergoing his comprehensive risk assessment. He did not return to his baseline with antipsychotic medication. Therefore, in July 2025 lithium was added to his treatment regimen. Treatment with lithium has resulted in the lessening of his persecutory delusions regarding staff and the legal system.
Oral Evidence:
- Dr. Bouskill provided viva voce evidence at the hearing to supplement the documentary evidence as follows:
a. With the addition of lithium to Mr. Hadfield’s medication regimen, the treatment team has noticed significant improvements such that they believe that he has returned to his previous baseline mental state. Since the addition of lithium, Mr. Hadfield has been more engaged in on-unit activities, anger management groups, and vocational services. Mr. Hadfield has recently engaged twice with an addictions counsellor on a one-to-one basis.
b. In August 2025, Dr. K. Grimes completed a Psychological Risk Assessment Report regarding Mr. Hadfield. Dr. Bouskill agreed with the contents of this risk assessment and the Risk Summary contained therein, specifically that Mr. Hadfield’s long-term risk for reoffending in a high secure environment is moderately low. However, his risk for reoffending is moderate in a less secure environment.
c. Dr. Bouskill stated that Mr. Hadfield has no access to substances in the high secure setting of Waypoint. His risk would increase in a less secure environment where he may have access to substances. Historically, substance use has increased Mr. Hadfield’s risk to the public. Mr. Hadfield has poor insight into how substance use impacts his risk to the public. Mr. Hadfield does not believe that illicit substances would compromise his mental health. At this juncture, Mr. Hadfield would use substances if transferred to a less secure facility.
d. Mr. Hadfield had two periods of instability this reporting year. He has not exercised his full privileges permitted under his current Disposition.
e. It is the treatment team’s opinion that Mr. Hadfield is not ready to be transferred to a less secure setting this coming year.
f. To consider Mr. Hadfield ready to be transferred to a less secure setting, the treatment team would require that he maintain ongoing mental stability, engage in relapse prevention treatment, maintain a privilege level of C4 or higher, demonstrate improved engagement with vocational services, have improved attendance at courtyard, improve sleep hygiene, and demonstrate acceptable social interactions and emotional regulation.
g. Dr. Bouskill stated that she would be in support of amending the Disposition such that “or compassionate” is removed from clause 2(a).
h. In response to questions of the Crown, Dr. Bouskill testified that Mr. Hadfield continues to meet criteria for a HRA designation and continues to represent a significant threat to the public.
i. In response to questions from Mr. Stastny, Dr. Bouskill testified that Mr. Hadfield’s Schizoaffective Disorder is treatment refractory.
j. If Mr. Hadfield were in a facility with a lower staff to patient ratio his risk of harm to the public would increase.
k. Dr. Bouskill stated that Mr. Hadfield primarily suffers from ongoing and longstanding delusional thought content related to previous transgressions. He believes there is a conspiracy against him when his beliefs are challenged and has grandiose beliefs regarding his connection to God. He experiences disorganized thoughts and becomes fixated and ruminative in his fixed thoughts and beliefs.
l. In response to questions from the Board, Dr. Bouskill testified that with respect to clause 2(b) of the Disposition, hospital grounds extend to “beyond the secure perimeter”. “Beyond the secure perimeter” of the Disposition does not include any location off hospital grounds. She further stated that three staff members must be with him when he exercises this privilege.
- At the conclusion of the evidence, the Victim Impact Statements of Diane Henry and Megan Henry were read into the record.
Final Submissions:
- The parties maintained their initial joint positions in submissions. With respect to clause 2(a) of the Disposition, all parties submitted that “compassionate” purposes is not contemplated by s.672.64(3) of the Criminal Code. All parties agreed that “or compassionate” purposes should be removed from the Disposition and further agreed it would be appropriate to mirror the wording of s.672.64(3) in this regard. The hospital submitted that “legal” purposes are not contemplated by s.672.64(3) but would like “legal” included. The Crown submitted that “legal” is not required to be included in clause 2(a) of the Disposition as there are other means to ensure Mr. Hadfield’s attendance in court, should personal attendance be necessary. Mr. Stastny submitted that “legal” is implied and agreed with the Crown that there are other means to ensure his attendance in court when necessary.
Analysis and Conclusion:
Although significant threat was not contested at the hearing, the Board nevertheless makes an independent finding that Mr. Hadfield continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public.
Mr. Hadfield’s significant risk to the safety of the public arises from his treatment refractory schizoaffective disorder and substance use disorders. Mr. Hadfield experienced two decompensations of his mental state this year. Mr. Hadfield has a long history of violent and aggressive behaviour while mentally unstable. When untreated, Mr. Hadfield becomes profoundly psychotic and agitated. Mr. Hadfield’s mental state remains fragile and this year he experienced worsening of his symptoms in the face of predictable life stressors.
The Board is mindful that the index offences included a violent attack perpetrated on a stranger.
In coming to our conclusion regarding significant risk, the Board relies on the Risk Summary contained within the Psychological Risk Assessment Report of Dr. Grimes and extracted as follows:
“Based on all available information, Mr. Hadfield’s long-term risk for violent reoffending is moderately low in a high-secure environment and moderate in a secure environment. Should he become non-adherent to psychotropic medication, experience a decline in his mental status, and/or resume using substances, his risk for violence would increase.”
Absent the oversight of the Ontario Review Board and the care he receives from the forensic system, Mr. Hadfield would likely return to the use of substances, disengage from treatment, and experience an exacerbation of symptoms that would likely result in violence and criminal actions comparable to the index offences.
Section 672.64 of the Criminal Code limits the privileges available to a high risk accused. It prohibits the granting of unescorted privileges from the hospital. This Board finds that hospital grounds privileges are permitted for an HRA accused.
Section 672.64(3) of the Criminal Code does not contemplate an HRA accused’s absence from the hospital for “compassionate” or “legal” purposes. All parties agreed to the removal of “or compassionate” from clause 2(a) of the Disposition. The Board also agrees with the submissions of Ms. Curry and Mr. Stastny regarding the removal of “legal” from clause 2(a) of the Disposition. Therefore, the Board will amend clause 2(a) accordingly to maintain consistency with s.672.64(3) of the Criminal Code.
The Board orders a continuation of the Detention Disposition with changes to clause 2(a) as set out in our formal Disposition. In making this Disposition, the panel carefully reviewed the provisions of section 672.54 of the Criminal Code and carefully considered the need to protect the public from dangerous persons, Mr. Hadfield’s mental condition, his reintegration into society, and his other needs.
DATED this 3rd day of February 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. C. Murray
Legal Member
__________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board