Re Kerrick P. McNaughton, 2026 CanLII 8812

Ontario Review Board

Re: Kerrick P. McNaughton

ORB File No: 8113

Hearing held on: Wednesday January 21, 2026

Place of Hearing: Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care

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

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. R. Bigelow

Members: Dr. P. Darby Dr. K. Patel Ms. A. La Viola Ms. D. Smith

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Kerrick P. McNaughton Counsel: Mr. F. Bernhardt (by Zoom)

The Person in Charge of Hospital: Representative: Ms. M. Kraftschik

Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. S. Curry

AMENDED REASONS FOR DISPOSITION (Dated February 3, 2026)

Please see underlined change to original reasons made February 11, 2026

Introduction

1. On July 26, 2022, Mr. Kerrick McNaughton was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on a charge of arson – reckless disregard for human life contrary to the Criminal Code. He is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“the Board”) dated March 26, 2025, which ordered his transfer to the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (“CAMH”) and that pending his transfer that he be detained at the Provincial Forensic Programs Division of the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care with privileges up to and including hospital and grounds access beyond the secure perimeter escorted by staff.

2. On Wednesday, January 21, 2026, the Board convened a hearing to review Mr. McNaughton’s disposition pursuant to section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. McNaughton was present and represented by counsel, Mr. Bernhardt. Mr. McNaughton’s father was also present at the hearing by video.

3. The issues to be determined at the hearing were whether Mr. McNaughton 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.

Initial Positions of the Parties

4. Prior to the hearing and counsel for the Board contacted the parties to advise that that doctors Darby and Patel who were scheduled to be on the panel for Mr. McNaughton’s hearing were associated with CAMH where Mr. McNaughton been ordered to be transferred at his last annual review hearing. The parties were requested to advise the Board if they had concerns with respect to any possible conflict of interest with Dr. Darby’s or Dr. Patel’s presence on the panel. All parties indicated that they took no objection to the presence of either doctor.

5. 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. The Hospital Representative advised that it was the Hospital’s position that Mr. McNaughton 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 detention order without change.

6. Counsel for the Attorney general supported the Hospital position.

7. Counsel for Mr. McNaughton advised that he was not contesting either the issue of significant threat or that the necessary and appropriate disposition was a continuation of the current Order. He advised that the concern of his client and his client’s family was the delay in affecting the transfer to CAMH ordered at last year’s review.

Evidence at the hearing

8. The evidence at the hearing consisted of the Hospital Report dated December 24, 2025, and the oral evidence of Dr. Ismail, Mr. McNaughton’s most responsible physician.

Findings:

9. For the Reasons that follow, the Board finds that Mr. McNaughton 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.

Index Offences:

10. The circumstances surrounding the index offence as summarized in last year’s reasons for disposition are as follows:

On Tuesday, March 1, 2022, at approximately 2:29 a.m., the accused exited apartment 207 located at [addressed redacted] in the City of Toronto. The accused walked toward the victim’s apartment door located at apartment #202 at [address redacted] and poured an unknown fluid on the ground in front of the apartment. The accused ignited the fluid which initially produced a small flame as the accused walked back to the apartment he exited.

At approximately 2:50 a.m., the victim woke up in her apartment to the sound of the fire alarm going off. The victim was in her apartment with her three children, who were asleep at the time. The victim checked her apartment door and observed flames coming into her apartment between the front door and doorframe. The victim filled buckets of water and was able to put the fire out prior to the fire department responding on scene.

After the initial investigation, the damage caused to the apartment door and entrance was estimated to be approximately $1000.00.

At approximately 1355 hours, officers were made aware of CCTV footages available that observed the fire.

Officers observed the footage and saw the accused exit apartment #207 at [address redacted] and walk over to apartment #202 and start the fire. Toronto Police, building superintendent as well as the victim witnessed the CCTV footage and identified the accused as a previous resident of the building, Kerrick McNaughton.

Background Information Regarding the Accused:

11. As of the date of the hearing, Mr. McNaughton was 38 years of age and was born and raised in Toronto. He is the youngest in a sibline of three natural siblings and one adopted sibling. He is biological parents divorced when he was around six years of age and thereafter the children were raised by their father with only intermittent contact with their mother.

12. Mr. McNaughton was described as a smart child and got along well with teachers and peers until later in high school when he was diagnosed with schizophrenia. However, he was able to complete high school with his class. He also reports that he graduated from the food and beverage program at Everest College when he was twenty-three.

Substance Use History

13. Mr. McNaughton began drinking alcohol at the age of fifteen with friends and sometimes either attended school drunk or skipped school to drink. In terms of substance use, he also indicates that he began using marijuana at the age of fifteen but states he quit nine months prior to his criminal responsibility assessment. He reported that he has tried “everything” including magic mushrooms methamphetamine, crack cocaine, heroin, hashish, ecstasy, synthetic marijuana, opium and ‘liquid acid.’

Legal History:

14. Mr. McNaughton was charged with possession of a Schedule one substance and possession of a Schedule one substance for the purpose of trafficking however those charges were withdrawn in 2008. He was also charged with theft under which charge was withdrawn in 2010. Charges of indecent act, fail to comply with a release order (x2) and fail to attend for fingerprints were stayed.

Psychiatric History

15. Although the Hospital report notes that Mr. McNaughton was diagnosed with schizophrenia when he was 15, little information is provided with respect to the details of that illness prior to his falling from 5th floor balcony and suffering a traumatic brain injury in 2008 or 2009 resulting in his being in coma for 2 months. Records indicate it is unclear whether this was a suicide attempt.

Current Diagnosis

16. Mr. McNaughton’s current diagnoses are:

• Schizophrenia
• Personality Change Due to Another Medical Condition, Disinhibited Type

Evidence of Dr. Ismail

17. Dr. Ismail indicated that:

• He had read and adopted the contents of the Hospital Report. In particular he noted that he authored the clinical assessment of risk contained at pages 50 and 51 of the Hospital Report.
• By way of update, he indicated that there had been a change in medication. Olanzapine had been discontinued and was replaced by loxapine. An increase in sexualized behaviour was noted with the discontinuation of olanzapine, however, that behaviour has been decreasing since the introduction of loxapine.
• Due to his traumatic brain injury, Mr. McNaughton needs help with his activities of daily living which requires close contact with him. He noted that Mr. McNaughton’s sexualized behaviour constituted a risk of psychological and or physical harm to staff and co-patients but that the staff at Waypoint were well trained in dealing with that type of behaviour safely.
• It was his understanding that Mr. McNaughton was number seven on the waiting list for admission to CAMH but that he was not able to indicate what that may mean in terms of when the transfer may occur.
• In response to questions from counsel for Mr. McNaughton, he indicated that there was little that Waypoint could do with respect to the transfer and that he would suggest that counsel speak to the program manager at CAMH for further information.

Analysis and Conclusion, Significant Threat:

18. 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. McNaughton continues to constitute a significant threat to the safety of the public. He suffers from a major mental illness, schizophrenia, as well as continuing to suffer the effects of an acquired brain injury. Despite compliance with medication, his response to treatment is limited and his engagement in therapeutic and rehabilitative activities remains superficial. He continues to experience ongoing symptoms of his mental disorder including auditory hallucinations and racing thoughts. He continues to exhibit persistent sexualized behaviours including repeated genital exposure to female staff as well as verbal aggression.

19. Absent the supervision and controls provided by a secure hospital unit with well-trained staff whether at Waypoint or CAMH, there is no doubt that there would be a substantial risk of both physical and psychological harm to members of the public.

Analysis and Conclusion Necessary and Appropriate Disposition

20. The Board also finds that the evidence clearly supports a finding that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a continuation of the current disposition, including the transfer to CAMH, which was not contested at the hearing. As noted above, given Mr. McNaughton’s persistent sexualized behaviours and verbal aggression, his risk can be managed within a secure hospital unit and accepting that CAMH is a lower security hospital. Mr. McNaughton’s risk requires that he be placed on an all-male unit.

21. Although the Board has great sympathy for the concerns expressed by Mr. McNaughton’s family as well as his counsel with respect to the delay in his transfer to the Toronto area where his family will be able to have increased contact with him, the Board in this case is clearly not in a position to manage bed space availability of Hospitals such as CAMH. As noted by the Supreme Court of Canada in R v Conception (2014 SCC 60) the decision directing a hospital to accept a patient will likely affect the important rights and interests of other individuals needing the scarce resources of the hospital.

22. Absent a Charter Application and a full evidentiary record establishing a breach of an accused section 7 right, the Boad does not have jurisdiction to direct CAMH to when to accept an accused into hospital.

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