His Majesty the King v. Thomas Prendergast

COURT FILE NO.: 15629/21

DATE: 20221125

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

THOMAS PRENDERGAST

COUNSEL:

Nenad Trbojevic and Curtis Sell, for the Crown

Kiran Grewal and Alan Richter, for Thomas Prendergast

HEARD: November 24, 2022

Speyer J.

JUDGMENT as to criminal responsibility

A. Introduction

[1] On November 23, 2022, I found that the Crown had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Thomas Prendergast committed the act that forms the basis of the offence charged, and that Thomas Prendergast unlawfully caused the death of his mother, Rita Prendergast.

[2] The Crown now seeks to prove that when Mr. Prendergast unlawfully caused the death of Rita Prendergast, he was suffering from a mental disorder that rendered him incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of his act or of knowing that it was wrong. Having raised this issue, the Crown bears the burden of establishing, on a balance of probabilities, that Mr. Prendergast suffered from a mental disorder so as to be exempt from criminal responsibility: Criminal Code, s. 16.

[3] Section 16(1) reads:

No person is criminally responsible for an act committed or an omission made while suffering from a mental disorder that rendered the person incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission or of knowing that it was wrong.

[4] The verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder reflects the principle that a person should not be held criminally responsible for something they did, if they were suffering from a mental disorder to the extent that they either could not understand the nature and quality of what they were doing or know that it was morally wrong. The defence is based on the principle that a person can only be held responsible for a criminal act where the act was voluntary, and to be voluntary, an act must be the result of the exercise of free will: R. v. Bouchard-Lebrun, 2011 SCC 58, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 575 at paras. 44-53; R. v. Luedecke, 2008 ONCA 716, 93 O.R. (3d) 89, at para. 58; R. v. Swain, 1991 CanLII 104 (SCC), [1991] 1 SCR. 933.

[5] Counsel for Mr. Prendergast, pursuant to what I am advised are clear instructions, supports the Crown’s submission that when Mr. Prendergast unlawfully caused the death of Rita Prendergast, he was suffering from a mental disorder that rendered him incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of his act or of knowing that it was wrong.

[6] Dr. Jennifer Pytyck was called to testify by the Crown. She was qualified by me to provide opinion evidence in the area of forensic psychiatry. Dr. Pytyck conducted a court-ordered assessment of Mr. Prendergast as to his capacity for criminal responsibility and wrote a detailed report describing her conduct of that assessment and her conclusions. That report was filed as an exhibit, pursuant to the agreement of counsel. The assessment was conducted in early 2022, at which time Mr. Prendergast was detained on the Forensic Assessment and Rehabilitation Unit at the Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (“Ontario Shores”) pursuant to a “Keep Fit” order. Counsel for Mr. Prendergast, acting on his instructions, did not cross-examine Dr. Pytyck.

[7] Dr. Pytyck is a forensic psychiatrist at Ontario Shores. She has both clinical and forensic responsibilities. Her review of the records relating to Mr. Prendergast and her examination of him were thorough. Her evidence was grounded in reliable information. She explained her opinion and the basis for it in a clear and thoughtful manner. Her evidence was neither challenged nor contradicted. I accept her evidence.

B. Did Thomas Prendergast suffer from a mental disorder when he killed his mother?

[8] Dr. Pytyck testified that it is her firm opinion, held with a high degree of medical certainty, that Thomas Prendergast suffers from treatment resistant schizophrenia, which is a chronic psychotic illness. He has displayed marked psychotic symptoms for many years, including hallucinations, delusions and disorganized thinking and behaviour, notwithstanding trials of moderate to high doses of multiple anti-psychotic medications, augmented by a mood-stabilizer. His symptoms were present before September 24, 2015, and have continued to manifest themselves to varying extents in the years after his arrest.

[9] Dr. Pytyck’s diagnosis is firmly grounded in the evidence of Mr. Prendergast’s interactions with mental health professionals, and with others, before and after he killed his mother.

[10] To make her diagnosis, Dr. Pytyck reviewed records relating to Mr. Prendergast’s mental state created during his decade long interaction with mental health professionals. She also interviewed Mr. Prendergast three times, and reviewed a psychosocial report prepared by a social worker who works with the Forensic Assessment Unit at Ontario Shores, who spoke with Mr. Predergast’s collateral contacts, including his father and sister.

[11] During a happy childhood and adolescence in a supportive family, Mr. Prendergast enjoyed playing sports and easily made friends. At around 17 years of age Mr. Prendergast changed. He began to experience mood swings and behavioural problems. He began to isolate himself and lost many of his friends.

[12] In late 2012, when he was 22 years old, he was admitted to hospital under the Mental Health Act after he threatened self-harm. The diagnosis then was an adjustment disorder, with angry mood, a history of substance use, low frustration tolerance and poor coping skills.

[13] In 2013, he was bought to the emergency department of the hospital twice by police after incidents at the family home. In February 2013, he was discharged after a diagnosis of impulse control disorder. However, in November to December 2013, he was admitted to Lakeridge Health in Oshawa under the Mental Health Act and remained in hospital for about three weeks. He had been involved in a motor vehicle collision two days earlier, reportedly after experiencing auditory delusions that instructed him to crash his car. On discharge to home, he was given a diagnosis of Schizophreniform Disorder, and was prescribed medications to address that disorder. He was referred to an early psychosis intervention program.

[14] Mr. Prendergast attended the Lakeridge Health Oshawa – Early Psychosis Intervention Outpatient Clinic from May 2014 until September 15, 2015, nine days before he killed his mother. He was prescribed medication, Invega Sustenna, that he received by injection. During this time, he continued to live at home, except for some time when he stayed with a neighbour because his behaviour at home was too difficult. During his visits to the clinic, he continued to experience auditory delusions. His medication was changed to Abilify Maintana in August 2015. Although his mother reported that he was not doing well with the change of medication, she was told by his treating psychiatrist that it would take time to work.

[15] Following his arrest for second degree murder, Mr. Prendergast was detained at the Central East Correctional Centre, he continued to take anti-psychotic medication, but his condition deteriorated. He was transferred to hospital on a Form 1 as he had become increasingly delusional, aggressive and uncooperative. He was discharged back to the correctional centre.

[16] On January 26, 2016, Mr. Prendergast was admitted to the Forensic Assessment and Rehabilitation Unit at Ontario Shores for a fitness assessment. He was found unfit to stand trial and a treatment order was made. He has been at Ontario Shores since then. Mental health professionals there considered it unquestionably obvious that he suffered from a psychotic disorder. Over the next few years, he was trialed on several antipsychotic medications and mood-stabilizing medication.

[17] When Mr. Prendergast was examined by Dr. Pytyck in early 2022, he was pleasant, polite and cooperative. However, he displayed clear residual psychotic symptoms including auditory hallucinations and bizarre persecutory, referential, and grandiose delusions. His thought form was disorganized, particularly when discussing his delusional beliefs and their relationship to the index offence. He had limited insight into his illness and the need for medication.

[18] I conclude that on September 24, 2015, Mr. Prendergast suffered from a mental disorder, namely schizophrenia, which is a disease of the mind: R. v. Stone, 1999 CanLII 688 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 290, at para. 195-218; R. v. Bouchard-Lebrun, 2011 SCC 58, [2011] 3 SCR 575, at para. 58-62, 71-71.

C. Did the mental disorder render Mr. Prendergast incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of his acts?

[19] Dr. Pytyck testified that Mr. Prendergast was, in some ways, incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of his actions when he stabbed his mother.

[20] The evidence indicates that Mr. Prendergast did appreciate that his actions could have adverse legal consequences for him. Mr. Prendergast told Dr. Pytyck that he prepared to destroy the evidence of his attack and to remove the body from the house because he knew that he could be arrested for what he did and go to jail, and he did not want to go to jail.

[21] However, according to Dr. Pytyck, although Mr. Prendergast understood some of the legal consequences of his actions, he was actively suffering from symptoms of schizophrenia at the time and believed that he was killing a clone of his mother and therefore did not understand that his actions would cause his real mother’s death. He did not believe that the clone he was killing was a real person. He explained his beliefs about clones to Dr. Pytyck and told her that clones were made by a machine and did not have a soul. She found his explanations to be disorganized, but genuine.

[22] Dr. Pytyck explained that when Mr. Prendergast killed his mother, he was experiencing a “Capgras delusion”, which is the belief that a person has been replaced with something else. He was also experienced auditory hallucinations in the form of a voice that sounded like it was coming from a “microphone” that commanded him repeatedly to kill his mother and that the voice “activated him” to carry out those commands. These symptoms, in conjunction with an overall state of agitation and disorganization, rendered Mr. Prendergast incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of his acts because he believed that his mother was alive, and that he was killing a “clone”.

[23] I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that when Mr. Prendergast committed the acts that formed the basis of the offence charged, he was incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of his acts. He knew that he was stabbing something, he knew that his actions would kill the thing he was stabbing, and he knew that he could be arrested for what he did and go to jail. But the delusions from which he suffered rendered him incapable of appreciating that he was stabbing a real person who would die as a result of his actions. He was deprived, by his disease of the mind, of the mental capacity to foresee the physical consequences of his acts: Cooper v. R., 1979 CanLII 63 (SCC), [1980] 1 SCR 1149.

D. Did the mental disorder render Mr. Prendergast incapable of knowing that his acts were wrong?

[24] Section 16(1) of the Criminal Code embraces not only the intellectual ability to know right from wrong, but also the person’s capacity to apply that knowledge in a rational way to their actions at the time an act is committed: R. v. Oommen, 1994 CanLII 101 (SCC), [1994] 2 SCR 507, at p. 523 [Emphasis added.]. Stated differently, at p. 520 of Oommen:

[T]he real question is whether the accused should be exempted from criminal responsibility because a mental disorder at the time of the act deprived him of the capacity for rational perception and hence rational choice about the rightness or wrongness of the act.

[25] In R. v. Dobson, 2018 ONCA 589, 48 CR (7th) 410, leave to appeal refused [2019] SCCA No. 70, at para. 24, Doherty J.A. explained:

In my view, Oommen, as interpreted in the judgments of this court, holds that an accused who has the capacity to know that society regards his actions as morally wrong and proceeds to commit those acts cannot be said to lack the capacity to know right from wrong. As a result, he is not NCR, even if he believed that he had no choice but to act, or that his acts were justified. However, an accused who, through the distorted lens of his mental illness, sees his conduct as justified, not only according to his own view, but also according to the norms of society, lacks the capacity to know that his act is wrong. That accused has an NCR defence. Similarly, an accused who, on account of mental disorder, lacks the capacity to assess the wrongness of his conduct against societal norms lacks the capacity to know his act is wrong and is entitled to an NCR defence.

[26] Dr. Pytyck testified that she did not believe that Mr. Prendergast had the capacity to understand the moral wrongfulness of his actions because of his Capgras syndrome and command hallucinations, which he experienced as compelling and difficult to resist. In addition, he experienced disorganized thinking that would have impaired his ability to appreciate the moral wrongfulness of what he did.

[27] I conclude that Mr. Prendergast’s mental disorder deprived him of the capacity to know that his actions were wrong by the standards of society. While he may have understood that he could be arrested and jailed for what he did, he did not have capacity to apply that knowledge to his actions when they occurred. His moral understanding of the wrongfulness of his actions was impaired to the point of incapacity by his Capgras delusion that caused him to understand that he was killing a clone that was made by a machine and did not have a soul, together with his hallucinations that his actions were directed by a voice that activated him to kill what he believed to be a clone of his mother.

E. Conclusion

[28] Mr. Prendergast committed the act that formed the basis of the offence with which he is charged, but he is not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

The Honourable Madam Justice J. Speyer

Released: November 25, 2022

COURT FILE NO.: 15629/21

DATE: 20221125

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

THOMAS PRENDERGAST

JUDGMENT

Justice J. Speyer

Released: November 25, 2022