Ontario Review Board
Re: B. (C.)
ORB File No: 8062
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: B. (C.) Counsel: Ms. N. Chugh Person in charge of the hospital: Representative Dr. B. Booth Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. E. Davies
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated January 2, 2026)
Introduction
On April 22, 2022, B. (C.), a young person pursuant to the provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on a charge of aggravated assault, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. Mr. B. (C.) is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated October 2nd, 2024, and an Order amending that Disposition dated October 16th, 2024. That Disposition discharges Mr. B. (C.) conditionally on certain terms and conditions, including that he refrain from communication and contact with the victim of the index offence and that he not be away from his residence unless accompanied by an adult or unless participating in indirectly supervised outings whose purpose and duration has been approved in advance by the treatment team or Mr. B. (C.)’s parents.
On December 4th, 2025, the Ontario Review Board convened at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre (hereinafter referred to as “the Hospital”) to conduct Mr. B. (C.)’s annual review hearing pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. B. (C.) attended his hearing and was represented by his lawyer, Ms. Neha Chugh. Mr. B. (C.)’s parents also attended the hearing. Dr. B. Booth, Mr. B. (C.)’s treating psychiatrist spoke for the Hospital. He took the position that Mr. B. (C.) no longer represented a significant threat to the safety of the public as that term is defined in section 672.5041 of the Criminal Code and as it has been further expressed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625.
Counsel for Mr. B. (C.) concurred with the Hospital. Ms. Davies, lawyer from the Office of the Crown Attorney representing the Attorney General reserved.
By the end of the hearing, the parties all agreed that the evidence had not established to the threshold established in Winko that Mr. B. (C.) represented a significant threat. As such, all agreed that he was entitled to an absolute discharge. The panel had opportunity to deliberate on the evidence and ultimately agreed with the joint submission. The Board’s decision was communicated to the parties and to Mr. B. (C.)’s parents orally by the alternate chair. These Reasons follow on the granting of that absolute discharge.
Evidence at the hearing
- The evidence for the hearing came primarily from the Hospital Report mentioned and the viva voce evidence of Dr. Booth. Turning first to the Hospital Report, it is cumulative in nature and provides a summary of the index offence as included in last year’s Reasons for Disposition:
On August 25, 2021, at 02 hours 35 minutes, Cornwall Police responded to the report of a stabbing. A. (J.) and his partner, H. (E.), were sleeping when they were woken by the sound of pounding. A. (J.) investigated and saw B. (C.) in the driveway banging against the house. He went out the front door saying, “What the fuck are you doing?” B. (C.) then stabbed him and attempted to leave down the driveway. A. (J.) followed him and brought him to the ground, knocking the knife out of his hand. He restrained him and told his partner to call 911. A. (J.) asked B. (C.) why he had done it and he said it was because he was evil.
Personal History
Mr. B. (C.) was a young person at the time of the offence. He is now 20 years old and continues to live with his parents in Cornwall Ontario. He benefits from a supportive family that has assisted him through delays associated with an initial Autism Spectrum Disorder diagnosis.
Mr. B. (C.) has not completed secondary school and struggles with peer relations. He did however have moderate success when benefitting from one-on-one assistance through to Grade 8 in elementary school and expresses a desire to complete his schooling.
Criminal History
Mr. B. (C.) has no criminal record. It is reported that in grade school he emailed a female peer who he wanted to be friends with, but she did not reciprocate. He called her 11 times and sent her messages threatening to kill her. Police were involved but no charge was laid. The victim’s mother had asked that he not be charged.
Mr. B. (C.)’s mother indicated that she does not believe that her son understands the seriousness of what happened at the time of the index offence because he does not understand the link between his behaviour and the consequences.
Psychiatric History
As already stated, Mr. B. (C.) was diagnosed with an Autism Spectrum Disorder when he was young. He denied any previous symptoms of psychosis. He had never seen a psychiatrist or received psychiatric treatment prior to the index offence. Starting in 2019, he was put on Abilify, which was increased following his arrest. He said that he had also started taking Zoloft at that time. Records indicate that these medications go back further, related to anxiety, obsessiveness, and aggression.
Mr. B. (C.)’s mother reported that a few days before the index offence, her son had reported seeing things and hearing voices. Following the index offence, he told Dr. Erin Kelly, a psychiatrist at CHEO, that he had stabbed the victim because the devil told him to murder someone.
Description of 14 incidents of aggressive and threatening behaviour on Mr. B. (C.)’s part, in the school setting from April 10, 2019, to November 13, 2019, can be found at pages 10 to 13 of the hospital report.
Mr. B. (C.)’s confirmed current psychiatric diagnoses include:
Schizophrenia
Autism spectrum disorder with likely mild intellectual impairment
Major depressive disorder, recurrent, versus bipolar affective disorder in remission
Social anxiety disorder
Generalized anxiety disorder
Obsessive-compulsive disorder
ADHD combined type
In spite of this, Mr. B. (C.) has made sustained progress over the course of the last two years while under the Board’s jurisdiction. Last year’s Reasons for Disposition explain that he tolerated adjustments to his medication fairly well and remained generally stable even over the course of a period of increasing visual hallucinations and frustration that was ultimately resolved with a move to the antipsychotic prescription medication Haldol in July 2023. For over two years he has not shown any significant violence, and he has not required hospitalization. He has been open and transparent with stresses and has been able to identify, with his parents’ support when he requires his “as needed” medication Clonazepam. He has worked diligently with the treatment team, has a broad base of support in the community and has engaged with a Behavioural Therapist as well as an Occupational Therapist. Strengths noted in last year’s Reasons as well as the Hospital Report include his supportive family and willingness to be universally cooperative with service providers.
The Hospital Report, though lengthy, provided hyperlinks that, together with keyword search capacities made it an extremely helpful document for the hearing. Its update for this hearing is found at page 37. The update opens by indicating that Mr. B. (C.)’s positive trajectory has continued. He has been stabilized on medications, has not required any further hospitalizations or contact with the police. He continues to live with his parents. Residual symptoms of psychosis were resolved with slight medication increases in July 2025. He met weekly with the Assertive Community Treatment Program of Stormont-Dundas-Glengarry until his observed improvement was such that the support of that program was decreased to once every four weeks. That service has indicated that they will be able to reactivate his file if necessary.
Mr. B. (C.) continues to receive support through Developmental Services and has participated in psychoeducation and coping strategies provided through the Hospital’s Outpatient Social Worker, Richard Robins. He has also received support from Behavioural Therapist, Vanessa Setter who has noted that Mr. B. (C.) “has shown tremendous growth in his ability to self-regulate in moments of stress.” He has demonstrated increased flexibility dealing with problems. While elevated voices are triggering, he is normally able to cope appropriately or take prn medications. While he still has ongoing intermittent hallucinations, these are friendly in nature and have not included command hallucinations as experienced at the time of the index offence. Several years have passed now since he has experienced a violent incident.
The Hospital Report indicates that Mr. B. (C.) has good insight into the clinical aspects of his major mental illness. While he still has some attenuated symptoms of schizophrenia that led to the commission of the index offence, they have not resulted in any form of aggression since that day. He may experience some difficulties in interpersonal situations and with rigid thinking associated with his Autism Spectrum diagnosis. That being said, the Risk Assessment incorporated into the Hospital Report notes that there has been some maturation on his part as a 20-year-old male that was 16 years old at the time of the index offence. It also notes the elevated level of support he receives from his family, his insight into his major mental illness and need for medications and support, and his pattern of cooperating with professional services. As a result, the HCR-20 (Version 3) – an instrument commonly employed in the clinical measurement of risk whose sufficiency and methodology was not questioned over the course of this hearing – concludes that Mr. B. (C.)’s risk has been so well managed that he no longer poses a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Hospital Report notes that the support network and safety plan that has so effectively supported Mr. B. (C.) over these last two years will remain in place independent of the Hospital’s involvement.
Dr. Booth’s viva voce update to the Board
Dr. Booth adopted the contents of the Hospital Report over the course of his evidence. He added that Mr. B. (C.) presents with no concerns in terms of substance use or antisocial behaviour. His support in the community from Inspire has increased to 4 days per week. His relationship with his family remains strong and he has sufficient insight to speak with his parents and to let them know of any distress or residual symptoms he may be experiencing. Dr. Booth explained that the ACT team has withdrawn their supports and transferred Mr. B. (C.) to outpatient support available through the hospital in Cornwall. Similarly, the Hospital itself has reduced their contact with Mr. B. (C.). All of this is in response to Mr. B. (C.)’s progress made over the course of the last 2 review periods.
In response to questions from Ms. Davies for the Attorney General, Dr. Booth indicated that Mr. B. (C.) is mentally capable to make decisions regarding his own treatment and that he is treatment compliant. This is entirely internally motivated. Dr. Booth explained that Mr. B. (C.) does not like experiencing symptoms and appreciates the impact of his antipsychotic medication.
Dr. Booth testified of Mr. B. (C.)’s transition away from forensic supports and towards those offered in the community. Mr. B. (C.) will continue to live with his family who will help him with his finances. He will be maintained on a waitlist for a group home for persons with disabilities. He will continue to have contact with a psychiatrist, social work support, and other services available to him through the outreach services available to him in Cornwall.
Dr. Booth explained that Mr. B. (C.) is no longer the 16-year-old that committed the index offence. He spoke to Mr. B. (C.)’s maturation. He said that Mr. B. (C.) has insight into his mental illness, symptoms, need for medication and into the circumstances of the index offence. Dr. Booth has no concerns whatsoever regarding Mr. B. (C.)’s family and their willingness to collaborate with community resources. He confirmed that the Hospital will continue to provide all services available through the forensic program for one year following the granting of an absolute discharge and that, for Mr. B. (C.), the Hospital will continue to permit him and his parents to access their services if there is a need that is not being answered in the community.
At the completion of Dr. Booth’s testimony, Ms. Davies advised that the Attorney General’s concerns had been addressed and that she supported the conclusion that the evidence did not support a finding that Mr. B. (C.) continued to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public.
Analysis and conclusion
As mentioned, the Board had an opportunity to deliberate on what became a joint submission on the threshold issue of significant threat and communicated its decision to grant Mr. B. (C.) an absolute discharge to the parties on the date of the hearing itself. The Board did not arrive at its decision lightly. Mr. B. (C.) suffers from a major mental illness and committed a serious and unpredictable criminal offence. He continues to experience residual symptoms of his major mental illness in spite of medication compliance.
But Mr. B. (C.) has not acted violently in response to his symptoms for a number of years. He is cooperative, insightful, and transparent with distress and symptoms when communicating with his parents and mental health supports that are available to him in both the forensic system and in the community. He is internally motivated. He listens to his parents who closely supervise and support him.
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 threshold for significant risk is onerous. 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. Upon a consideration of all of the evidence, the Board is unable to conclude that Mr. B. (C.) continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public. Accordingly, the Board orders that he be absolutely discharged.
The Board thanks all who assisted with today’s hearing and expresses its gratitude to Dr. Booth, the treatment team, Mr. B. (C.)’s parents, and all community supports that have brought us to today’s outcome. It wishes Mr. B. (C.) and his family the best in their future endeavours.
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