CITATION: R. v. Hatcher, 2026 ONSC 2168

COURT FILE NO.: CR-22-50000097-0000

DATE: 20260417

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

COLIN HATCHER

Defendant

Paul Zambonini, Miruna Birsan, for the Crown

Mary Cremer, Tyler Schnare, for the Defendant

HEARD: January 19 to February 5, March 27, 2026.

1On a clear cold winter morning in February of 2021, Colin Hatcher, a man with a long history of mental illness, repeatedly slashed his mother with a sharp instrument in a wooded area of the King’s Mill Park. Lying in a pool of blood, she called 911 for help. Tragically she succumbed to her injuries before that help arrived.

2Undisputed is the fact that Mr. Hatcher killed his mother, Katherine Boyle Hatcher (“Ms. Boyle”¹).

3The issue for me to decide at his first-degree murder trial is Mr. Hatcher’s mental state at the time he killed her. I must decide two issues: (1) Can Mr. Hatcher avail himself of the defence of not criminally responsible for the homicide due to a mental disorder under s. 16 of the Criminal Code (“NCR”), and (2) if he cannot do that, then has the Crown proven he is guilty of a planned and deliberate first-degree murder?

4Regarding the first issue, the parties agree, and I find that at the time he killed his mother, Mr. Hatcher was suffering from a mental disorder: schizophrenia. Also, it is not contested that he does not meet the first branch of the test of NCR. He was capable of appreciating the nature and quality of his act of killing his mother. The question is whether he was capable of knowing that this act was wrong.

5To begin my decision, I will briefly outline some basic principles.

6First, Mr. Hatcher is presumed in law not to have been suffering from an exempting mental disorder at the time of the homicide. The burden of proving that at the time he killed his mother, he was NCR due to a mental disorder lies upon him with the standard of proof being a balance of probabilities.

7Second, the burden of proof of all the essential elements of the offence of first-degree murder or any included offence, is on the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

8Third, while the expert psychiatric evidence heard in this judge alone trial is important, the whole of the evidence must be considered. Moreover, I need not accept any expert opinion evidence; even opinions that have not been challenged or undermined, although there must be a sound reason to reject them: R. v. Worrie, 2022 ONCA 471, 415 C.C.C. (3d) 45, at para. 102; R. v. Richmond, 2016 ONCA 134, 334 C.C.C. (3d) 315, at para. 58.

9Fourth, I must properly assess the admissibility and the weight of the evidence I have heard. In short, the laws of evidence must be respected. That said, the Crown and the defence have been most professional, diligent, and cooperative in this regard. They have come to an agreement regarding the admission and use of certain evidence which normally would be subject to the rules of evidence such as the inadmissibility of hearsay evidence. Significantly, the ante-mortem statements made by Mr. Hatcher to others are admitted for the truth of their content. As well, the statements made by Ms. Boyle are admissible for the same purpose.

10One area of evidentiary dispute arises when it comes to the assessment of the psychiatric evidence called in this case. I will deal with that when analyzing that evidence.

11I next move to outline the evidence heard at this trial. Much was not contested. However, a relatively detailed chronology of the evidence helps explain my ultimate decision. I will then analyze the important psychiatric evidence. From there, I will apply my assessment of the whole of the evidence to the primary issues that require my determination.

B. THE EVIDENCE AND FACTUAL FINDINGS

The Scene of Ms. Boyle’s Homicide

12At 10:47 a.m. of February 21, 2021, her life ebbing from her body, Ms. Boyle called 911 to seek aid. When the call abruptly ended, urgent police investigation revealed her location. Ambulance, fire, and police were dispatched to a wooded area near the Old Mill subway station. Once the first responders arrived and received information from civilians in the local area, they commenced a search of the vicinity.

13At 11:10 a.m. P.C. Anderson discovered Ms. Boyle motionless on her front in the snow. Efforts to revive her failed.

14There were pedestrians around at the time. Some were walking their dog. Skylar Sharpe, the paramedic, testified there were a lot of people walking about the paved path when they arrived at the scene. He described it as fairly heavy foot traffic. Including a young child, ill-dressed for the weather. A homeless man had an encampment close by, a minute or two away. A children’s camp was in the area. A group of kids were playing at the end of the pathway. There were foot paths in the snow trodden down by footprints where the deceased was found. From the body-worn camera of P.C. Anderson, it looks like Ms. Boyle lay on a path formed by people previously walking on the snow. Several witnesses described the area as icy and slippery.

15The body was found in a treed area but given the time of year, the trees were bare of leaves. There was no plant growth beneath the tree cover. As a result, the deceased was not hidden from view. No attempts were made to conceal her. While there was no one around at the time help arrived, from the totality of the evidence, a person could easily have walked through where Ms. Boyle was found. Despite the time of year, the park is well-used for those enjoying nature, getting some exercise and fresh air, and for walking dogs.

16All in all, I conclude that this was not an isolated setting.

17Two witnesses gave an account of what they heard and saw shortly before the homicide.

18Lisa Wright was walking her dog that day and taking pleasure photos of the scenery at King’s Mill Park which she regularly frequented. Her times are relatively accurate as she checked the time stamps of her photos. As she was walking at the Bloor St. Bridge around 10:10 a.m. and heading along a path by the creek, she ran into a man and a woman. Despite the fact the two were masked and other obvious frailties in her identification, I find they were Mr. Hatcher and his mother. This is not contested. Mr. Hatcher was walking five or six feet ahead of his mother on the small footpath. Ms. Boyle was having difficulties making her way due to the icy footing. Mr. Hatcher offered no assistance to her. Ms. Wright described Mr. Hatcher as just staring at Ms. Wright or the river, looking blankly, and not interacting at all with his mother despite her frustrated demeanor.

19Colin Simmons was also in the park that day babysitting his best friend’s child. At about 10:35 a.m., he heard a woman’s very long scream, lasting a minute or two. Then dead quiet. His time is accurate. Along with the assistance of a jogger and another passing pedestrian, they tried to locate where the scream came from. They could not.

20Dr. Lemieux performed the autopsy on Ms. Boyle. Ms. Boyle suffered at least seven separate wounds to her head, face, and neck area. There were defensive wounds on her hands. Dr. Lemieux could not provide a definitive opinion about how Ms. Hatcher received the wounds, but it was from a sharp-edged instrument. No weapon was ever identified to be the item that killed Ms. Boyle. The cause of death was the loss of blood.

The History of Mr. Hatcher’s Past Mental Disorder

21Tom Hatcher and Ms. Boyle raised three children. They separated in 2006. Laura Hatcher is Mr. Hatcher’s older sister by two years. Terence Hatcher is the younger brother. Mr. Hatcher’s early upbringing was stable and typical middle class.

22This changed when Mr. Hatcher turned 14. Mr. Hatcher became severely depressed, committed incidents of aggression, and began to self-medicate with illegal substances. There was a short stay at St. Joseph’s Hospital’s psychiatric ward.

23Mr. Hatcher began to spend more time out of the home. He was withdrawn and secretive. At age 16, he left for good. His contact with the family deteriorated to the point where his parents did not know where he was. Ultimately, he became homeless, staying on the streets or with friends. Laura Hatcher related a chance encounter with her brother in 2003, where he appeared to be panhandling on the street and on some form of substance. Although Mr. Hatcher was happy to see her, he was dismissive, superficial, and hard to communicate with.

24There were a couple of minor brushes with the law during this time but eventually Mr. Hatcher came back into family life in his twenties, received assistance for his substance abuse problems, and got back on his feet. He went to George Brown College for culinary arts. He lived with his mom for a year or two during that time. Then he started working as a cook/chef, which he did for about ten years.

25Laura Hatcher testified about Mr. Hatcher’s mental state over the years. Laura Hatcher also came into possession of her mother’s computer. She provided a timeline of relevant events surrounding Mr. Hatcher’s mental state from 2017 to the time of her mother’s death based on her knowledge and the evidence found on the computer.

26Ms. Boyle always showed care and concern for her son’s mental health issues. She was supportive but also exercised caution in discussing it with Mr. Hatcher as he had no insight or acceptance of his mental health symptoms, including his delusions and paranoia.

27In the spring of 2017, Ms. Boyle mentioned to her daughter that Mr. Hatcher had racked up substantial charges on his cellphone plan. When questioned by his mother, Mr. Hatcher said he needed to cancel the plan as people were spying on him.

28Around that time, in July of 2017, Terence Hatcher who was diagnosed with schizophrenia at age 20, decompensated and went missing. Mr. Hatcher, though he was close to his brother, in an out-of-character fashion, refused to help and sent bizarre responses such as looking for money from the family rather than helping find his brother. Laura Hatcher related an incident where the police became involved in the missing person’s report of Terence. She advised Mr. Hatcher that police officers were coming to visit him for information. Mr. Hatcher became most upset about their pending presence and showed little interest in Terence’s welfare. When she asked to speak to Mr. Hatcher about it, he refused to give her his new cellphone number. Previously, they had his phone number. Mr. Hatcher showed fear and mistrust of the family. Mr. Hatcher also indicated a concern about the tapping of his phone and being followed. He claimed the police had been peeping through his window.

29Laura Hatcher testified that this seemed to be the time when Mr. Hatcher’s personality changed, and he started heading in the wrong direction. He was very different from when he was doing well. He became withdrawn and hard to have a conversation with.

30In February of 2018, Mr. Hatcher was fired from work. Laura Hatcher’s understanding was that he threatened a coworker. This was the last time he worked as a chef.

31During March break, 2018, Mr. Hatcher and Ms. Boyle went on a pleasant mother and son trip to Niagara Falls. On the way back, they stopped at an outlet mall for a coffee. Mr. Hatcher told his mother that he wanted to return to Niagara Falls to go to the duty-free shop. When Ms. Boyle tried to dissuade him, he told her to go home, and he would go by himself. Then Mr. Hatcher told Ms. Boyle about how he had agreed with his grandfather in the past that he would work as a chef for 10 years and then would throw his mother over Niagara Falls. He told his mother she knew about the plan. Mr. Hatcher brought this up in a brazen, nonchalant manner as if it was totally normal, catching Ms. Boyle completely by surprise. He told her that Ms. Boyle was present for the family meeting when this plan was made and agreed with the deal.

32This belief was disconnected from reality. It hardly needs to be said that the grandfather, a retired schoolteacher, would not have made such an agreement. Mr. Hatcher was 10 years old at the time of the alleged agreement.

33After the Niagara Falls trip, on March 17, 2018, Mr. Hatcher dropped by his father’s girlfriend’s workplace without notice. Mr. Hatcher and his father’s girlfriend, Marina, had no relationship whatsoever. Mr. Hatcher told her of his plan to kill his father, Tom Hatcher, put in place by his grandfather (who was by then deceased). Mr. Hatcher asked for Marina’s help in executing the plan. Mr. Hatcher believed Marina knew of the plan and agreed with it. There were no problems between Tom Hatcher and his son at the time. Indeed, there had been little contact between the two for several years.

34Laura Hatcher testified that Mr. Hatcher has repeatedly articulated this grandfather-initiated plan to kill their father and mother. Mr. Hatcher believed that everyone in the family knew of these plans and agreed this had to be done. He also believed that the police knew of the plans. Two police officers had been at the family meeting when the agreement was made. In addition, Mr. Hatcher believed that his grandfather had helped certain psychiatrists and doctors get their positions and supplied them with street drugs to finance their lifestyle. He also believed that Laura was selling street drugs back in 1993 when the pact was made with the grandfather.

35Mr. Hatcher had no insight into his mental illness and would not accept that these thoughts were not based in reality.

36Mr. Hatcher was brought into St. Joseph’s Hospital involuntarily under a Form 2 under the Mental Health Act, R.S.O 1990, c. M.7, by the family. Laura Hatcher testified he blamed his parents for doing this. Mr. Hatcher stayed in the psychiatric ward from March 27 to April 13, 2018, under the care of Dr. Younker.

37In hospital, Mr. Hatcher related to the psychiatrist about this pact made with his grandfather at a family meeting with his parents and siblings present. As well, two police officers were present which Mr. Hatcher took to mean there would be no legal consequences to killing his parents. All his family were members of the Mafia. Mr. Hatcher had waited 11 years rather than 10 years of working as a chef as per the agreement because Ms. Boyle was “his mother and he felt it hard to carry through with it.” He said he was not comfortable doing it. In addition, the man who was supposed to help him throw her over the Falls did not show up.

38Mr. Hatcher also expressed other delusions while in hospital including that the family were sending people to his work to make sure nothing good came his way, that his father slips female hormones into people’s drinks to turn them into homosexuals, and that his mother threw babies over Niagara Falls. During hospitalization, Mr Hatcher had his social worker call the police to confirm he was a member of the Mafia. This was not confirmed. He also warned his sister that their parents were going to kill her and him and asked his sister to save him. He further advised that his parents were heavy drug users.

39While involuntarily committed, Mr. Hatcher was concerned about being poisoned by the family through food brought in from the outside. He wanted his family to purchase only vending machine food. He thought staff too were poisoning him. He also would not give the family a key to his apartment so they could look after his cat. He stated he would prefer to let the cat die than to do that.

40Dr. Younker found Mr. Hatcher legally incapable of making treatment decisions due to his lack of insight into his delusional beliefs and appointed his father as substitute decision maker.

41Initially Mr. Hatcher contested his involuntary committal and the appointment of his father before the Consent and Capacity Board. A hearing was scheduled but Mr. Hatcher’s lawyer did not continue with it when Dr. Younker revoked his involuntary admission status.

42Although injectable medication was discussed, the anti-psychotic medication, Abilify, was prescribed in pill form to Mr. Hatcher.

43After a stay of just over two weeks, Mr. Hatcher was discharged. Mr. Hatcher told Dr. Younker he was no longer sure about his membership in the Mafia or the pact with his grandfather. He denied any plan to harm his parents. Dr. Younker noted an improvement in his mental status with medication and a softening of his delusional system though his insight remained low. It was difficult for her to estimate his level of risk, but Dr. Younker advised the parents to take precautions in the future to protect themselves.

44The family were concerned the discharge was too early. They felt that Mr. Hatcher had no insight into his illness and there was not enough time for the medication to work.

45Aftercare was organized with Dr. Neszt, a psychiatrist.

46On April 24, 2018, Mr. Hatcher called Laura Hatcher telling her that her phone was tapped, his mother was trying to kill him as well as Laura and he wanted Ms. Boyle involuntarily committed. Laura Hatcher testified both she and her mother were concerned the medication was not working or he was not taking his medication. Even though Laura Hatcher spoke to him of his illness and told him they were delusions, Mr. Hatcher did not believe her. Mr. Hatcher called his sister several times about this. Mr. Hatcher also called his mother to tell her she needed to be locked up with crazy people and asked her to come voluntarily to the hospital or he would get somebody to take her.

47Before Mr. Hatcher’s April 30, 2018, psychiatric appointment with Dr. Neszt, the family discussed options including perhaps having Mr. Hatcher committed again. When Mr. Hatcher saw Dr. Neszt that day, he denied being in the Mafia and having other delusions. But on questioning, Dr. Neszt was of the view Mr. Hatcher’s insight was clearly impaired and overall remained acutely psychotic. Mr. Hatcher received a higher dosage of Abilify.

48From April to August 2018, Mr. Hatcher saw Dr. Neszt for monthly appointments. Mr. Hatcher remained guarded about what he told Dr. Neszt. He still suffered delusions including a longstanding belief his parents tried to murder him 12 years ago. Mr. Hatcher had no insight, and remained a risk due to his paranoia, but in Dr. Neszt’s view, the risk was mitigated as he never acted on any of his delusions. Instead, he had disclosed them to his intended targets. In the last two appointments, Dr. Neszt did not note any delusional content to Mr. Hatcher’s thoughts and since Mr. Hatcher no longer wanted psychiatric care from their clinic, Dr. Neszt recommended follow-up with his family physician, Dr. Sukerman.

49In June of 2018, Ms. Boyle did not feel safe being alone with Mr. Hatcher although she was in contact with him. She was concerned whether he was taking his medication.

50On July 23, 2018, Laura Hatcher and Mr. Hatcher went to a baseball game together. He was calm, a bit spacey, distant and quiet. He struggled to focus on what his sister said. He would stare ahead and not look at people who spoke with him. His behaviour was notable and more pronounced than usual. At the time, Mr. Hatcher planned to move his care to his family physician and to stop attending psychiatric outpatient services. The family was concerned about his steps to decrease his psychiatric care.

51In August of 2018, Mr. Hatcher called his sister as he was concerned that his parents had denied him and his siblings their share of an inheritance from their grandparents’ wills.

52Mr. Hatcher eventually began working again, but not as a chef. It was as a courier or delivery person for food or auto parts.

53Over the 2018 Christmas holidays, Ms. Boyle initiated lunch with Mr. Hatcher. Mr. Hatcher invited his uncle and cousin to the lunch. Ms. Boyle gave her son a Christmas gift.

54In January of 2019, Mr. Hatcher retained a lawyer to write a letter to investigate his parents’ withholding money from the grandchildren when the grandparents passed away. A cousin had received a modest inheritance. Based on that, Mr. Hatcher felt he was entitled to an inheritance and would not accept reasonable explanations for the difference in treatment. Laura Hatcher felt her brother was delusional about this. Tom Hatcher scheduled lunch with his son to discuss it.

55On the February 5, 2019, visit with Dr. Sukerman, Mr. Hatcher advised that his family had implanted microchips in his earlobes to listen to him. Mr. Hatcher wanted a CT scan. Dr. Sukerman noted his assessment was schizophrenia and that Mr. Hatcher’s medication was insufficient and likely he had no psychiatric care. He prescribed Abilify at a fairly high dose. Two days later, Mr. Hatcher and his father attended Dr. Sukerman’s office and there was much talk of microchips and mind control. Mr. Hatcher was resistant to medication and in-patient care. Delusional thinking was noted.

56On February 15, 2019, Mr. Hatcher sent texts to Laura Hatcher saying their grandfather had helped his doctors to become psychiatrists. This started with a random text of a photo of Mr. Hatcher amidst marijuana buds. Laura advised that marijuana was counterproductive to his recovery, but Mr. Hatcher believed, without any basis in reality, that his psychiatrist was advising he consume marijuana.

57Julie Amado was Mr. Hatcher’s girlfriend and began seeing him at the end of 2018. She moved in with him in April of 2019. Everything was fine at the beginning. She described him as nice and gentle. That later changed.

58Dr. Sukerman continued to prescribe Abilify and on June 6, 2019, noted Mr. Hatcher still believed there were microchips in his ears so that his grandfather could track him.

59In August and September of 2019, Mr. Hatcher texted Laura to try and get her to meet with his doctor as his doctor had admitted that their parents were paying him to say Mr. Hatcher has schizophrenia like Terence Hatcher. Though she told him this was not true, Mr. Hatcher would not acknowledge that it was false.

60In October and November of 2019, the family was concerned whether Mr. Hatcher was on his medication. Although communications were sporadic with him, there was always something off about his thoughts; there were delusions and bizarre behaviour.

61On October 16, 2019, Mr. Hatcher and his father visited Dr. Sukerman as Mr. Hatcher wished to be able to make his own treatment decisions. Mr. Hatcher still believed he had microchips in his ears and only mildly believed in taking medication. Dr. Sukerman noted that Mr. Hatcher had moderate insight and still had delusional thinking. With some reluctance, Dr. Sukerman agreed to reduce the dosage of Abilify. Tom Hatcher was supportive of being removed as substitute decision maker but did not have the documents to proceed with this. Later that month, Tom Hatcher suggested to the doctor that he remain as a substitute decision maker for another six months after which a capacity assessor be appointed to determine this issue. Dr. Sukerman noted Mr. Hatcher still had judgment issues and that “unresolved feelings toward his mother persist.”

62In November 2019, Tom Hatcher was called by Mr. Hatcher who was in a semi-manic state. Mr. Hatcher was insisting his father call Dr. Sukerman to get a letter stating his parents paid Dr. Sukerman to try and convince Mr. Hatcher that he had the same disease as his brother and he threatened to call the police on his father if he did not comply. The next time they spoke, Mr. Hatcher was fine.

63On November 11, 2019, an otolaryngologist determined that the scans of Mr. Hatcher’s sinus were normal, but Mr. Hatcher remained convinced there were microchips in his head.

64Mr. Hatcher last saw Dr. Sukerman on December 5, 2019, for toe pain. Dr. Sukerman wrote Mr. Hatcher had poor insight and blocked topics he did not want to talk about such as mental health. Mr. Hatcher wanted his substitute decision maker status terminated. He also wanted to stop taking medication. He disagreed that he was like his brother Terence. He said that he was fine with not seeing his mother. Mr. Hatcher requested a new family doctor.

65On January 6, 2020, Mr. Hatcher changed his family physician to Dr. Milan Atanackovic of the Mimico Medical Clinic. Mr. Hatcher told his new doctor that he wanted to discontinue his anti-psychotic medication. Although he was concerned about whether it was in Mr. Hatcher’s best interest to decrease his medication, Dr. Atanackovic ultimately agreed to do so. Dr. Atanackovic testified he was worried if he did not agree, Mr. Hatcher would just leave the Mimico Medical Clinic and be left unmonitored by a physician. Mr. Hatcher denied having any delusions or hallucinations in all his meetings with Dr. Atanackovic.

66On March 2, 2020, Dr. Atanackovic lowered the dosage of Abilify from 10 mg to 5 mg. He also received background information from Tom Hatcher about his new patient including paranoid beliefs that his father was spying on him, microchips were under his skin, and genetic testing had shown Tom was not his father.

67On March 26, 2020, Ms. Boyle sent Mr. Hatcher a text hoping he was taking care of his health given all the COVID-19 virus out there. A series of texts were exchanged between the two with Mr. Hatcher inquiring about where she worked. Mr. Hatcher then advised that he had just contacted her work. Mr. Hatcher left a message on Ms. Boyle’s voicemail at her place of work, the school board. In the voicemail, Mr. Hatcher identified himself, warning the administration that his mother was addicted to substances and was taking advantage of people she worked with. He stated it was concerning that she worked there. He asked to be contacted and provided his email address.

68Ms. Boyle listened to the voice message her son left. This upset her. She texted her son saying she was sorry he was feeling so hostile. Mr. Hatcher replied he was concerned for the people who might know her. Their contact lessened after that. Ms. Boyle advised Dr. Atanackovic about this in an email which also provided some additional background relating to Mr. Hatcher’s mental illness in the past. She noted that in the last two years, her son had been “distant, accusatory, hostile, even malicious”. She hoped the doctor could treat him.

69Based on this incident, Ms. Boyle and Tom Hatcher discussed perhaps getting another Form 2 from a justice of the peace. Ms. Boyle advised Dr. Atanackovic that she did not feel in danger of physical harm but felt her son was on an unhealthy trajectory. Some concerns about obstacles to treatment caused by COVID-19 were discussed in terms of the options they were thinking about.

70On March 27, 2020, Dr. Atanackovic spoke with Mr. Hatcher about the voicemail he had left. Mr. Hatcher said his mother abused drugs and should retire. Mr. Hatcher did not see his behaviour as erratic. The doctor was concerned Mr. Hatcher was not taking his medication, was delusional, and did not have insight into his illness. Dr. Atanackovic advised Tom Hatcher to seek a Form 2, but Tom Hatcher did not think he could obtain one since his son knew how to answer questions to avoid hospitalization. The next day, Mr. Hatcher asked for a copy of his medical records which contained the emails his mother sent to Dr. Atanackovic. These were likely given to Mr. Hatcher.

71On March 31, 2020, Tom Hatcher spoke with Dr. Atanackovic and discussed options in getting his son treatment for his psychosis. Tom Hatcher warned against waiting until some serious episode arose because Mr. Hatcher had been hospitalized in the past due to his attempts to recruit others in a plot to kill his father based on “his telepathic messages that he received from his dead grandfather.”

72On April 20, 2020, Ms. Boyle sent her son a Happy Birthday text. There was no response.

73On April 24, 2020, Dr. Atanackovic spoke with Mr. Hatcher about the phone message left on his mother’s voicemail, but no other events were reported. Mr. Hatcher denied any problems, said he felt very good, and was ready to stop his Abilify. Dr. Atanackovic decided to proceed with the discontinuance of medications under monitoring, noting that the parents would likely reach out if their son’s health worsened.

74In May of 2020, Dr. Atanackovic weaned Mr. Hatcher completely off Abilify. Mr. Hatcher said he was doing fine and wanted his father discontinued as his substitute decision-maker. Dr. Atanackovic provided a psychiatric referral for that purpose, but Mr. Hatcher did not follow through with it.

75In Mr. Hatcher’s apartment which was searched by the police after the homicide, there was a bin in the bedroom that contained a clear bag with prescription pills. It is not disputed that they contained Abilify; most of the medication was unused even from pill bottles dated in 2019. Terence Hatcher testified that his brother had told him that he did not take his medications regularly. I find as a fact that Mr. Hatcher was not taking his medication even when it was prescribed by Dr. Atanackovic.

76On May 10, 2020, without any earlier text contact, Mr. Hatcher sent his mother a text saying that her whole family hated her, no one appreciated her, and her moles on her face were disgusting. Her mother replied she was sorry he was so angry, hurt and disappointed. She asked him to please take care of himself.

77On June 6, 2020, Mr. Hatcher sent his mother an image of a turkey head and texted saying her neck looked like this. Ms. Boyle replied “cute”.

78In August 2020, Mr. Hatcher sent his mother two audio messages. The police were unable to open them. There was no response from his mother.

79From August to December 2020, Mr. Hatcher only saw Dr. Atanackovic for physical complaints like shoulder pain. No mental health symptoms were mentioned or inquired into.

The Four-month Period Leading Up to the Homicide

80Ms. Amado testified that in November and December of 2020, Mr. Hatcher’s behaviour changed dramatically. He had stopped working saying his shoulders hurt. He was unable to sleep and would go for walks at night, only to return when Ms. Amado was waking up in the morning. He became quiet and would not talk. He stopped doing activities with her. He began to turn off the Wi-Fi believing people were listening in. Mr. Hatcher believed a person who knew a neighbor of theirs was following him. One time in December, very unexpectedly, Mr. Hatcher was in his car waiting for Ms. Amado near her work as she was commuting there one morning. He believed someone was following her. His face was blank with no emotion.

81A few days later, when he picked Ms. Amado up at a bus stop, without explanation, he said she had to move out. He later changed his mind. He said for the next few days there was someone following them.

82Ms. Amado described Mr. Hatcher writing everything down for her as he was concerned people might overhear them in their apartment. He did not want to talk. It was very odd. He would then take the notes and burn them. He taped over the fire alarm speaker in their home believing people were listening. Despite Ms. Amado encouraging him, Mr. Hatcher refused to seek help. Terence Hatcher also testified that during this time, his brother would write him notes in a paranoid fashion as he was concerned about his conversation being overheard. Mr. Hatcher also wanted to buy equipment to detect tracking devices.

83On December 4, 2020, Mr. Hatcher picked up a copy of his full medical records from Dr. Atanackovic.

84On December 25, 2020, Mr. Hatcher sent his mother a Merry Christmas text. His mother responded with a “Merry Christmas, Colin. Love ya.” Mr. Hatcher then sent an image of the elaborate Christmas dinner he had made. His mom replied “Wow! Beautiful spread! Hope you enjoyed Christmas” and advised her son about her being in touch with some relatives they knew in Ireland who sent their regards to him.

85Ms. Amado moved out January 1, 2021. Mr. Hatcher gave her some money and said it was not safe for her to be in his apartment “as it was about him.” Around that time, Mr. Hatcher told Terence Hatcher that he was concerned about being poisoned by others including Ms. Amado, that he was being followed and watched, and he was scared for his safety.

86On January 1, 2021, Ms. Boyle sent Mr. Hatcher New Year’s best wishes. Mr. Hatcher replied with a “Happy New Years.”

87In early January of 2021, Terence Hatcher testified that he had a conversation with Mr. Hatcher. Mr. Hatcher tried to persuade his brother that there was a plot to frame Mr. Hatcher for murder and that Laura Hatcher’s husband had something to do with it. Mr. Hatcher said someone was going to kill their mother but he never said it was going to be him. Mr. Hatcher said he wanted to find Laura Hatcher’s husband so his mother would be alright and not be killed. Terence Hatcher could not dissuade Mr. Hatcher from this belief.

88On this point, I make the following factual finding. While I can accept that a general conversation of this sort may have taken place, I place little reliability in Terence Hatcher’s memory of this conversation. I was able to carefully observe Terence Hatcher’s testimony and have paid close scrutiny to his evidence. He was an honest witness but not much weight can be placed on his evidence.

89The timing of when this conversation may have taken place is suspect. Moreover what Mr. Hatcher may have said was not well remembered by Terence Hatcher given that Terence Hatcher made no note, written or mental, of the conversation. It is not referred to in emails or texts or corroborated in other ways. Also, the specifics of the conversation are not likely accurately recalled by the witness. What I mean by this is that Mr. Hatcher was saying a lot of paranoid and bizarre things to his brother at the time. There was no reason to accurately encode this specific conversation into Terence’s memory. It seems that Terence was tuning out a lot of these paranoid beliefs expressed by his brother. Moreover, Terence Hatcher suffers from his own challenges including his mental health illness of schizophrenia. Finally, I find that his recollections have been tainted by the homicide of his mother by his brother.

90Further, no weight can be put in Terence Hatcher’s testimony that he believed that Mr. Hatcher was referring to killing his mother himself in this conversation. I find this to be conjecture.

91By January 6, 2021, Mr. Hatcher was feeling strange and was having difficulties with his sleep, heart rate and anxiety. Mr. Hatcher told the walk-in clinic physician, Dr. Makar, that he had eaten something and believed he had been poisoned. He was reluctant to share any details. He denied any history of mental illness or hospitalization. A drug urinalysis came back as negative but for cannabinoids. The results were discussed with Mr. Hatcher on January 9, 2021, and he came back to pick up a copy of his results. Mr. Hatcher also contacted Dr. Atanackovic’s office on January 6, 2021, about being poisoned and asked for bloodwork and urinalysis.

92On January 6, 2021, Mr. Hatcher called Ms. Boyle from the lobby of her residence. He wanted to talk to her and go for a walk. Ms. Boyle was not at home at the time, but she received the call on her phone. Ms. Boyle said she was out and then had a class to attend after. Mr. Hatcher said he would come back the next day. Laura Hatcher overheard this conversation. Laura advised her mother to take safety precautions if she should meet up with Mr. Hatcher. It should be done in a public place. Ms. Boyle and Mr. Hatcher made plans to meet the next day.

93On January 7, 2021, Mr. Hatcher did not show up for the meeting with his mother. Ms. Boyle decided not to follow up at that time.

94Late in the evening of January 7, 2021, Mr. Hatcher showed up in the emergency room of the Mississauga Hospital and told the triage nurse that his penis had not been working for five days and he believed a woman who was in his house over the weekend put something in his food. He told the assessing physician he may have been drugged by his previous live-in partner. Any previous mental health issues were denied. A urine test and a sexually transmitted disease test were ordered.

95Mr. Hatcher’s urine and drug screen came back negative. On January 8, 2021, Mr. Hatcher told the emergency physician he saw the previous day that he was feeling much better and there were no new concerns. The physician’s impression was that Mr. Hatcher’s issues related to anxiety and cannabis use, and that he was not “formable”. Mr. Hatcher said he would follow up with his family physician.

96On January 10, 2021, Ms. Boyle and Mr. Hatcher met up for a walk. Mr. Hatcher suggested they meet in the park along the Toronto lakeshore. They had a long walk. There were some positive aspects to the walk; the conversation was light, and they talked about Mr. Hatcher’s passion for fishing, amongst other normal things. At other times, Mr. Hatcher was paranoid and asked for his mother’s advice. He did not cut her off but listened to her. He was not belligerent but he was hypervigilant.

97During this walk, Mr. Hatcher pulled out a one-page handwritten note that he did not want to talk out loud about. The note was about his girlfriend who had been living with him. She had moved out but to a residence on the same street with “the man with the cameras.” He reported that he had gone for coffee that morning and there was a bottle of hydrogen peroxide in his apartment that was not there before. He believed Ms. Amado left it there and that it was poisonous. Mr. Hatcher said that people were coming into his apartment when he was not there and leaving things like the hydrogen peroxide. He wanted to install a camera in the apartment.

98After his arrest, in Mr. Hatcher’s apartment, the police found an operating security camera pointing to the front door. It was connected to a hard drive and it appears that significant effort went into installing it.

99Mr. Hatcher talked to his mother about someone who lived five minutes away who had cameras on him. Also, a man who walked his dog in the neighborhood was spying on him. He was very suspicious about this man. Mr. Hatcher was also suspicious about a man walking by them on their walk. On the positive side, though he had been feeling off, it was better. He said he had gone to see his doctor for blood and urine tests, but they were normal. His mother told her son it was good to see him, and they should go for another walk sometime.

100Ms. Boyle was concerned about her son’s paranoia, but she did not feel it was a crisis. She intended to continue to be careful around him. It was after this walk that Laura and her mother talked about conveying this information to Mr. Hatcher’s family physician as they were concerned that the doctor did not know that Mr. Hatcher was not seeing anyone at Saint Joseph’s Hospital.

101On January 11, 2021, Mr. Hatcher contacted Dr. Atanackovic and told him he was concerned he had been drugged or poisoned. This was the reason why he had asked Ms. Amado to leave. Mr. Hatcher had visited emergency departments to get drug screens. They were normal. Dr. Atanackovic believed that this was delusional thinking but ordered further testing to see if there was an organic reason for what Mr. Hatcher was feeling. Mr. Hatcher was given a lot of reassurance, but he was mistrustful.

102On January 14, 2021, Mr. Hatcher called Dr. Atanackovic’s clinic as he had not heard about his bloodwork and was adamant saying he would “sit outside the clinic and call until you answer.”

103On January 15, 2021, Dr. Atanackovic met with Mr. Hatcher who still believed he was being poisoned by his girlfriend. He showed a lot of mistrust. He said he had gone to emergency three times without results. However, he admitted that he felt better. The tests ordered by Dr. Atanackovic were negative except for his testosterone level which was low. Dr. Atanackovic prescribed him testosterone as it could have explained his symptoms. However, the test only showed it was on the lower side and a subsequent test showed it was in the normal range. Low testosterone does not cause paranoia, delusions, or psychosis.

104On January 19, 2021, Ms. Boyle texted her son “Any chance you’d be up for a little stroll this afternoon? (now that I know which park is called Marie Curie”) it would put the ‘happy’ in my birthday today”. Mr. Hatcher replied “Sure. I’m available after 3 p.m.” Ms. Boyle texted “Good. I’ll see you in that same parking lot about 3:15…??”. Mr. Hatcher replied “Sure.”

105Ms. Amado testified that on January 19, 2021, Mr. Hatcher called her to meet up so he could give her vitamins. They did and Mr. Hatcher suggested they go for a walk in the park. On the way, Ms. Amado got him tea from a supermarket. Mr. Hatcher told her that he was concerned there was a listening device in the car and did not want to talk. Once they arrived at the park, to Ms. Amado’s surprise, Ms. Boyle was there. She had never met Ms. Boyle before. Mr. Hatcher wished her happy birthday. As a group, they walked through the park. Most of the time, mother and son walked ahead of Ms. Amado. The conversation was normal, and they spoke of things like fishing. Suddenly, Mr. Hatcher said he had spoken to the Prime Minister as Ms. Amado was stealing from the food bank. Ms. Amado had never done anything like that.

106Ms. Boyle took Ms. Amado aside and convinced her not to return with her son in his car. Ms. Amado rode back with Ms. Boyle who warned her about Mr. Hatcher’s mental problems and his history. Ms. Amado was shocked. Mr. Hatcher had only told her he had anxiety and depression. Ms. Amado stayed at a friend’s place for a week and then by phone, told Mr. Hatcher to never see her again. He just hung up the phone. He called a few more times after that. She did not respond back. In keeping with Ms. Boyle’s advice, Ms. Amado never told Mr. Hatcher that she and his mother had talked about his mental health issues.

107Laura Hatcher was advised by her mother about this walk. She told her daughter that Ms. Amado was worried about Mr. Hatcher’s strange behaviour. On the walk, Mr. Hatcher told Ms. Boyle that he believed that the tea his girlfriend bought for him was poisoned. He had given the tea to his mother and told her that she would know after she finished it. Stunned, Ms. Boyle asked why he would give it to her then. Mr. Hatcher merely shrugged. To Laura, her brother did not seem to understand the situation or the consequences of what he was doing.

108At 9:11 p.m. the evening of January 19, 2021, Mr. Hatcher texted his mother “Did you notice anything different about that tea? I still have the one form [sic] the time before here”. Ms. Boyle texted back “No it was completely standard.”

109On January 20, 2021, Dr. Atanackovic received a lengthy email (dated January 19) from Ms. Boyle setting out her belief her son was paranoid and delusional, believing someone left a bottle of poison in his apartment. She also reported that her son told her that he believed someone in the park was following him, wrote things out as he did not want to be overheard, the Prime Minister had spoken to him and had told him that Ms. Amado was robbing food banks but the Prime Minister would take care of it. Mr. Hatcher further told his mother that someone several blocks away from his residence had installed a camera to track him, tracking devices were on his car, and a man walking his dog was spying on him. Ms. Boyle related how on the walk Mr. Hatcher had handed a tea to her and told her he could not trust that his girlfriend had not poisoned it. He merely shrugged when Ms. Boyle questioned why he would hand her mother poisoned tea. Mr. Hatcher told his mother that he had an appointment with Dr. Atanackovic next week. As a result, Ms. Boyle wanted to advise his physician of these concerns since the appointment may have been set up by his son for only the shoulder issues he had.

110This email was placed in Mr. Hatcher’s chart. Ms. Boyle also sent a copy of the email to Ms. Amado and advised her not to let her son know she was in touch with the doctor because he would not see that they were just trying to help him.

111On January 25, 2021, Dr. Atanackovic followed up with Mr. Hatcher and although he cannot be precise, he believed the email of Ms. Boyle was raised and discussed with him. In the month of January, Dr. Atanackovic believed that Mr. Hatcher needed to go back on anti-psychotic medication as he was having a mental health crisis and heading in the wrong direction to a psychotic break. However, though Mr. Hatcher showed no insight into his illness, in the doctor’s opinion, he did not seem to be a threat to the community or to himself.

112On January 27, 2021, Mr. Hatcher called his mother about a pardon that he just received for a criminal conviction he had. The call was short as Ms. Boyle was going to bed. Mr. Hatcher was pleasant on the phone. He told his mother he was not working at the moment due to tendonitis in his shoulder.

113On January 29, 2021, Mr. Hatcher consulted with Dr. Atanackovic as he was feeling unwell and still believed he was being poisoned. His testosterone was in the normal range and the doctor felt it had self-corrected. But Mr. Hatcher was adamant about getting testosterone supplements.

114On February 9, 2021, Mr. Hatcher saw a colleague of Dr. Atanackovic for his shoulder pain.

115On February 11, 2021, Mr. Hatcher texted his mother: “she got me for $1255 also and it’s tough times cause I’m not working and had additional expenses like throwing away all my food, buying a new bed etc.” Ms. Boyle texted back with empathy. She hoped his doctor was helping him manage the stress and getting his health back so he could feel better when working again.

116That day, Mr. Hatcher went to the emergency room of St. Joseph’s Hospital with a complaint of a lump in his chest for the last three years thinking it might be a tumour. He received an ultrasound.

117On February 12, 2021, a phone consultation was conducted with Dr. Atanackovic. An extensive discussion took place about Mr. Hatcher’s concern about the subjective input from his family regarding his health that the doctor was receiving. Mr. Hatcher discussed his mother’s email of January 19, 2021. Mr. Hatcher sounded cool, calm, and collected without anger. Mr. Hatcher asked his doctor to no longer communicate with his family and to delete the email sent by his mother. While Dr. Atanackovic was not completely happy in doing so, it was his patient’s right and Mr. Hatcher’s request did not appear delusional or psychotic. Thus, pursuant to Mr. Hatcher’s direction, the January 19 email from Ms. Boyle was deleted from his chart that day. Mr. Hatcher wanted a copy of the email for legal reasons just in case his family took legal action over him. The clinic printed out a copy of the email and asked if he wanted to pick it up that day.

118In the evening at 10:48 p.m. Mr. Hatcher texted his mother with an image of a quilt that she had made for him, asking “Do you want this. I’m finished with it.” The next morning, Ms. Boyle texted back “Sure. I can give it a place. A lot of love went into making it for you.”

119On February 16, 2021, Mr. Hatcher contacted his physician’s clinic as he wanted tests for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) done. The clinic then asked Mr. Hatcher if he still wanted his mother’s email. He said he would stop by that day or the next.

120On February 17, 2021, Mr. Hatcher picked up the email and asked about his STIs testing. Dr. Atanackovic testified that that unlike the drug testing, Mr. Hatcher did not appear to be acting urgently in getting a copy of his mother’s email. The copy of the email was found in Mr. Hatcher’s apartment when his father went there to clear it up after Mr. Hatcher’s arrest.

121On February 17, 2021, Mr. Hatcher went to the emergency room of St. Joseph’s Hospital wanting a complete blood work up as he was very sick believing it might be from a gas leak at home or in his car. After his arrest, in Mr. Hatcher’s apartment, a gas mask was found hanging near the front door.

122On February 19, 2021, Mr. Hatcher and Dr. Atanackovic spoke on the phone and Mr. Hatcher was adamant that he should receive intramuscular testosterone injections. In the end, a prescription for testosterone injections was supplied to him.

123On February 22, 2021, Mr. Hatcher called his family doctor’s clinic and advised he had done STIs testing at St. Joseph’s Hospital, and it came back negative. However, he still wanted more testing. He also advised he was having pharmacy issues and told the clinic staff about his change of pharmacy to one in Oakville. There was further contact with the clinic about testosterone on February 24 and 25, 2021.

124On February 22, 2021, Ms. Boyle texted Mr. Hatcher asking if they could reschedule. She did not want to drive when there was snow on the roads. She apologized. There was no text back from Mr. Hatcher.

125On February 24, 2021, Mr. Hatcher texted his mother, “Looks like a nice day today”. His mother replied that it does but she was babysitting her grandson all day and the next. She suggested Friday. Mr. Hatcher texted back with “sure Friday morning.” Ms. Boyle texted perhaps at 10 a.m. as she had a Zoom at noon. Mr. Hatcher texted “Yeah. Around 10 is fine”. Ms. Boyle texted “Ok.” Mr. Hatcher texted “I’ll probably be by old mills.” His mother asked if she should park in the lot by the Old Mill Restaurant and look for him. Mr. Hatcher agreed and asked if she could be there a bit earlier as he had some stuff to do. Ms. Boyle texted “Sure will try to be there earlier. See you soon.”

126On February 24 and 25, 2021, Ms. Boyle was at Laura Hatcher’s place babysitting. Ms. Boyle did not mention any plans to meet her son with her daughter, just that she was helping him out.

127On February 25, 2021, Mr. Hatcher visited the Mimico Medical Clinic and talked to staff about his testosterone prescription and why it was taking so long. It was noted by staff that Mr. Hatcher did not blink once, and his eyes were the size of pinpricks during his minutes long interaction with staff.

128On February 26, 2021, Ms. Boyle texted at 9:55 a.m. “I’m here.”

129Based on the evidence including from video surveillance obtained by the police, I find that Ms. Boyle drove to the parking lot off the Old Mills subway station. Mr. Hatcher also drove there to meet his mother. The quilt Mr. Hatcher wanted to return to his mother was found in the rear of her car.

After-the-fact Conduct of Mr. Hatcher

130On February 26, 2021, after the homicide, Mr. Hatcher purchased a jacket that he was later wearing when the police arrested him. He also stayed at the Holiday Inn in Oakville that evening. The receipts were found upon him on arrest.

131After the killing, Mr. Hatcher drove his vehicle away from the scene in a normal fashion. He did not drive with speed or erratically.

132Mr. Hatcher drove to Oakville. He drove into a parking lot at the rear of a Shopper’s Drug Mart Plaza around noon. He sat in the car for a while. He got out and went to the trunk of the car. He retrieved something, walked to trash bins in the distance, placed something in the bin, and returned to the car. He was unmasked and walking normally. He closed the trunk, seemed to rinse his hands with a bottle, and then drove to the front of the plaza. He entered the pharmacy putting on a COVID-19 mask and got his testosterone prescription filled.

133That evening, Mr. Hatcher checked into the Holiday Inn in Oakville. Police investigation revealed he had stayed at this hotel earlier in February of 2021.

The Statements of Mr. Hatcher on Arrest.

134Police investigation quickly focused on Mr. Hatcher after family members were spoken to. The following are the statements given by Mr. Hatcher to the police. Their admission was agreed to by the parties.

135On February 27, 2021, Inspector Mathews left Mr. Hatcher a text message to contact him. Inspector Mathews testified that Mr. Hatcher advised he had been told of his mother’s death by his father. To the officer, Mr. Hatcher seemed upset but not as upset as his siblings. Mr. Hatcher said he was driving to Burlington to return boots. Mr. Hatcher did not wish to meet at the police station, and suggested meeting for coffee at a McDonald’s restaurant.

136In the parking lot of that restaurant at 2:09 p.m., Mr. Hatcher met up with Inspector Mathews and Detective Akeson. Mr. Hatcher provided some background on his mother. He divulged that he met his mother the day of her death, at the Old Mill Park, as his mother was going to fix a quilt she had given him. He had texted her to arrange the meeting. He talked to her three days prior to give her the blanket but he could not. He drove over to meet his mother and parked under the bridge. His mother drove in after him and parked nearby. This was around 10 a.m. Mr. Hatcher told his mother that he needed to get an injection for low testosterone and could not stay long. His mother talked about her grandson and showed him photos on her phone. His mother said she had a meeting at noon. They went for a walk. He said they talked about fishing. They were only there about 10 minutes before parting. His mother went south and he returned to his car. Mr. Hatcher said he last saw his mother by a children’s group. He said he did not see where she went and he did not see anyone suspicious. He said he did not see anyone but people walking their dogs. The police asked him if he had any injuries and he advised his right shoulder was injured from a car accident. Inspector Mathews testified that when Mr. Hatcher initially approached them, he had his hands in his pockets. When he took them out, the hands were either in a fist or cupped. When asked about any cuts, Mr. Hatcher showed numerous cuts and nicks on his hands which appeared red, fresh, and not scabbed over. At that time, Mr. Hatcher was arrested for second-degree murder.

137Uniformed officers took Mr. Hatcher to the police station. He was booked and paraded. In the booking video, Mr. Hatcher advised he did not wish to speak to a lawyer. When asked if he understood the charge, he oddly said “sure do!”. During the booking, Mr. Hatcher was concerned that his testosterone which was seized on arrest be kept at the right temperature. He advised of only injuries to his shoulders, and said his mental health was very good. Additionally, he said he never had been diagnosed with mental health conditions and never apprehended for such conditions. He did not wish to harm others or himself.

138Later when further police checks showed mental health apprehensions, Mr. Hatcher was brought back before the booking sergeant for a strip search. When told about what the police checks revealed, Mr. Hatcher continued to deny any hospitalizations.

139During the booking, Mr. Hatcher appeared cooperative and responsive to police requests and questions. He seemed hyper-calm, his answers were concrete. He was wearing pajama pants under his regular pants. When he placed his COVID-19 mask on as the booking process continued, he did so in a peculiar fashion, the mask not properly covering his face, and left it there for a while. All in all, he seemed somewhat oblivious to the gravity of the situation he was facing.

140At 5:21 p.m., Mr. Hatcher was taken to an interview room and questioned by Inspector Mathews and Detective Akeson. Again, generally, Mr. Hatcher was calm and responsive and mainly did not want to answer any questions. Several times, he said that he preferred to just listen. Ultimately, the interview ended with Mr. Hatcher asking to speak to a lawyer. When brought back after speaking with counsel, despite further questioning by the officers, Mr. Hatcher advised he was going to follow the legal advice given and not say anything. Unlike his previous interaction with the officers in the parking lot, Mr. Hatcher divulged nothing relating to his interaction with his mother.

141That said, there are aspects of his statements to the officers that are relevant to my task at this trial.

142I find that Mr. Hatcher provided an accurate and reliable insight into his mental state at the time of the interview. In other words, he was not faking it. Watching the video recording carefully, skeptically, and placing it in the context of the evidence as a whole, I have arrived at this conclusion. Mr. Hatcher’s responses were not self-serving evidence from an accused for the purpose of contriving a defence or excuse.

143Two other factual findings.

144First, I find Mr. Hatcher did not give accurate responses to how he got the cuts to his hand. While I do not have any evidence about the mechanism whereby a perpetrator of a knife attack could receive cuts to his hands and while some of the cuts may be old as Mr. Hatcher said during the interview, his explanation that he received them, especially the ones to the back of his hand, when he was cooking chicken and sweet potatoes, seems on its face, implausible.

145Second, Mr. Hatcher makes statements consistent with him operating under delusions at the time of the police interview. A mixed statement of an accused led by the Crown is admissible for its truth both for and against the accused when the accused does not testify: R. v. Rojas, 2008 SCC 56, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 111, at para. 37.

146When it was pointed out that he was wearing new clothes, Mr. Hatcher told the police that there had been white powder placed in the clothes dryer and he discarded all his clothes as a result. He said he told his father and the superintendent of the apartment building about this.

147I find Mr. Hatcher was referencing his deluded belief that he was being poisoned. I observe that a receipt found on Mr. Hatcher indicates that he purchased clothes on February 24, 2021, at Value Village. This supports his statement to the police that he threw out his clothes as he believed that they were poisoned.

148Mr. Hatcher tells the police there is a surreptitious hidden camera involving the radiator in the laundry room that requires a detector to find it.

149Mr. Hatcher also talks about suspicious trap doors in the ceiling of his apartment with smells coming out of them. He had been dizzy that morning and upon waking up other mornings. He said “they” might have put something in the ceilings and they might be trying to poison him somehow. Mr. Hatcher had spoken to a guy upstairs who said they had put something at the back of his sink. This man was acting differently lately, losing weight with a change in his voice. Mr. Hatcher said he had seen a doctor for being poisoned.

150On at least three different occasions during the interview, Mr. Hatcher tells the police that they should contact the Prime Minister.

151Early in the interview, Mr. Hatcher said he was a friend of the Prime Minister, knew him well, a close friend of the family and if the police reached out to him, “he could definitely help us get things resolved.” When asked how long he has known the country’s leader, Mr. Hatcher said most of his life and “my mother is very close with them as well.” Mr. Hatcher said that he was told by the Prime Minister that if he got into trouble with the police or anything, the police should call him.

152A second time, Mr. Hatcher asks the police to call the Prime Minister because “me and my family are part of those [sic] certain project that’s not supposed to be interfered with and he’s asked us to contact him if there is ever any issues.” He advises the officers that it would be best to help “us out.” Mr. Hatcher said he was not answering any questions, but he reiterated that the Prime Minister has asked him to let you guys know to call “if there’s ever any situation.”

153A third time when the police asked him if there was anything he wanted to say to his family, he said the Prime Minister mentioned to tell “you guys to call him if I ever got into trouble. He’s a close friend of me and my family’s. He knows me, my mother very well as well.” He later repeats his request for them to contact the Prime Minister for the sake of his family, for “me and my mother”. When asked by the police what he meant about the police interfering with a “project”, Mr. Hatcher did not give more details; it was just what the Prime Minister had advised him to do.

C. THE PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE NCR DEFENCE

154As I said at the beginning of my reasons, the only issue at this trial is whether Mr. Hatcher’s mental illness made him incapable of knowing that his actions were wrong. Section 16(1) of the Criminal Code provides that 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 knowing that it was wrong. "Wrong" in this context means not only "legally" wrong, but also "morally" wrong. As Lamer C.J. explained in R. v. Chaulk, 1990 34 (SCC), [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1303, at pp. 1354-55, a person may know that an act is contrary to the law but be incapable of knowing that the act is morally wrong according to the moral standards of society.

155Recently, the principle was summarized in R. v. Pereira, 2025 ONCA 545, at para. 18:

The parties agree on the case law governing the second branch of the NCR threshold. In R. v. Oommen, 1994 101 (SCC), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 507, at p. 517, the Supreme Court explained that the focus must be on the accused's particular capacity to understand that their "act was wrong at the time of committing the act." The court held that the focus is on the accused's particular capacity to make a rational choice, a capacity which could be interfered with by their delusions. The court held, at pp. 519-20:

A person may have adequate intelligence to know that the commission of a certain act, e.g., murder, is wrong but at the time of the commission of the act in question he may be so obsessed with delusions or subject to impulses which are the product of insanity that he is incapable of bringing his mind to bear on what he is doing and the considerations which to normal people would make the act right or wrong. [Emphasis in original.]

156The morally wrong inquiry requires the court to determine whether an accused was incapable of understanding that their acts were wrong according to the ordinary moral standards of reasonable members of the community, not any subjective standards of the accused: R. v. Ratti, 1991 112 (SCC), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 68, at p. 80; R. v. Woodward, 2009 ONCA 911, at para. 5; R. v. Campione, 2015 ONCA 67, 321 C.C.C. (3d) 63, at para. 41.

157Delusions or other psychotic symptoms do not necessarily deprive a person of the capacity to know the moral wrongfulness of their acts. Regarding the effect of delusions, the determination must be fact specific. An example of a delusion that makes available an NCR verdict on the second branch of the test would be where an accused knows that murder is illegal, but due to a delusion, believes they were acting under God’s order to kill Satan: R. v. Landry, 1991 114 (SCC), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 99, at paras. 11, 19.

158In R. v. Dobson, 2018 ONCA 589, 48 C.R. (7th) 410, at para. 24, leave to appeal refused, [2019] S.C.C.A. No. 70, Doherty J.A. described it in this way:

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.

D. THE EXPERT PSYCHIATRIC EVIDENCE

163Dr. Derek Pallandi was called by the defence. Dr. Jonathan Gray by the Crown. Both are very experienced and eminent forensic psychiatrists, though Dr. Gray admits that Dr. Pallandi, has considerably more experience.

164The two qualified experts examined Mr. Hatcher in the spring and fall of 2024 while he was in custody. They both reviewed a voluminous amount of medical records, police investigation materials, preliminary inquiry transcripts, and prison records. And they agree on several things:

Mr. Hatcher has suffered for some time from the major mental illness of schizophrenia;
At the time of the index offence, Mr. Hatcher was unmedicated and highly symptomatic with his illness with increasing paranoia and delusions as well as negative symptoms;
Mr. Hatcher has been guarded about revealing his symptoms, and demonstrated little insight into his illness;
Mr. Hatcher has long-standing fixed delusions about having an agreement with his deceased grandfather about killing his family; and
During his illness, Mr. Hatcher was likely suffering from auditory command hallucinations. Until he was detained in custody for the murder of his mother, however, he has not revealed them to anyone as he likely hid the symptoms either because disclosure could result in involuntary hospitalization and pressure to take medications or due to his lack of insight into his condition.²

165Based upon my own assessment of the evidence, I agree with these conclusions.

166Mr. Hatcher informed both psychiatrists about what happened when he killed his mother. There are some inconsistencies in the two accounts, but fundamentally, they are the same. In brief, it is the following. Mr. Hatcher denies having any plan or intent to kill his mother when he went for a walk with her on February 26, 2021. He described his relationship with his mother at the time to be basically good. He wanted to return the quilt she made for him. After doing that, they went on a walk in the park talking about topics like fishing and his new nephew, whom his mother was babysitting. Mr. Hatcher was carrying a knife on his person at the time because the day before his superintendent told him that she had had a brain transplant and warned him that a Ben (an employee from a previous place where Mr. Hatcher had worked) or Ben’s father, was planning to kill him. Therefore, he had a butcher’s knife for self-protection in his coat. While on the walk with his mother, without warning, he heard a loud and demanding voice in his head saying, “stab her, stab her, stab her”. In response, Mr. Hatcher stabbed her in the neck three times. He lost control of himself and felt he had no choice but to do that.

167Both experts opined that at the time of the homicide, Mr. Hatcher suffered from a mental disorder/disease of the mind but was capable of appreciating the nature and quality of his act in stabbing his mother.

168These similarities acknowledged, the two experts differed on the central question at this trial: whether Mr. Hatcher was capable of knowing that his act was morally wrong.

169Dr. Pallandi opined that Mr. Hatcher was not capable of knowing it was wrong. In his opinion, Mr. Hatcher was responding to a command type auditory hallucination and was robbed of rational choice over his conduct given that psychosis was the governing feature of his reasoning. Accordingly, Mr. Hatcher would not have been able to know the wrongfulness of his conduct given that he killed his mother as a response to an overwhelming psychotic experience. Put another way, the severity and intensity of his psychotic symptoms at the material time overrode his ability to apply his pro-social reasoning of right and wrong.

170Dr. Gray opined that Mr. Hatcher was likely capable of knowing his acts were morally wrong. Dr. Gray called into question Mr. Hatcher’s self-reported description that he acted in response to an overwhelming command auditory hallucination to kill his mother. Instead, in Dr. Gray’s opinion, Mr. Hatcher likely killed his mother in response to his longstanding delusional pact with his grandfather to kill his family members including his mother. Moreover, though it is connected to his illness, Mr. Hatcher’s relationship with his mother was fraught with difficulties with increasing levels of animosity towards her. The narrative of events revealed a degree of planning and the attempts to cover up his killing suggested an awareness of its legal and moral wrongfulness. In Dr. Gray’s opinion, Dr. Pallandi’s opinion that Mr. Hatcher was NCR is based almost solely on Mr. Hatcher’s self-report which was not supported or was contradicted by other collateral information.

171For the moment, this abbreviated summary of the expert opinions will suffice. This is because the evidentiary basis for the opinions depends significantly on the self-report of Mr. Hatcher to Dr. Pallandi and Dr. Gray, which I address next.

The Hearsay Issue

172Mr. Hatcher did not testify at his trial. As is his right. No negative inference is drawn from that. And the Crown gains no advantage on the s. 16(1) issue due to that. That said, the evidence I must consider at this trial is affected by the absence of Mr. Hatcher’s testimony. This is because what Mr. Hatcher told the two expert psychiatrists about what happened on February 26, 2021, when he killed his mother is fundamentally hearsay.

173Although the trier of fact is not bound by the expert psychiatric testimony and its probative value is to be assessed in the same manner as any other testimony"[a] proper understanding and weighing of expert opinion often plays a central role in the determination of whether or not an accused should be found not guilty by reason of mental disorder": R. v. Molodowic, 2000 SCC 16, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 420, at paras. 7, 10.

174A psychiatrist expressing an opinion about the mental condition of an accused can relate what he has been told by the accused when that information forms the basis of the psychiatrist's opinion. What is being introduced, however, is the expert's opinion, not the truth of the statements on which the opinion is based. The statements are not proof of the truth of the facts stated: R. v. Abbey, 1982 25 (SCC), [1982] 2 S.C.R. 24, at pp. 44-45; R. v. Lavallee, 1990 95 (SCC), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 852, at para. 76; R. v. Kirkby (1985), 1985 3646 (ON CA), 21 C.C.C. (3d) 31 (Ont. C.A.), at paras. 58-60.

175It does not matter if the expert opinion is being tendered by the Crown or was conducted pursuant to a court ordered assessment under the Criminal Code.³ The statements of the defendant do not gain admission as a party admission or pursuant to any statutory exception; it remains hearsay: R. v. Palma (2000), 2000 22807 (ON SC), 149 C.C.C. (3d) 338 (Ont. Sup. Ct.), at paras. 23-43; R. v. Mehl, 2021 BCCA 264, at para. 233.

176This hearsay nature of the evidence affects the probative value of the expert opinion. The authors of the text Hill, S. Casey et al., McWilliams’ Canadian Criminal Evidence, 5th ed. (Toronto, Ont: Thomson Reuters, 2013), at pp. 12-225 and 12-226 succinctly provide guidance on the appropriate weight to give expert evidence in light of this:

The more the expert relies on case-specific or primary facts not proved in evidence or found to be accurate, the less weight the jury may attribute to the opinion. The resulting impact on the weight which can reasonably be afforded the opinion may range from minimal to destructive of the evidence depending on the quality and amount of remaining foundation facts. [Citations omitted.]

177Where the hearsay statements of the accused to a psychiatrist form only a part of the factual foundation of an expert opinion that relies upon other admissible evidence at trial, it remains open to the trier of fact to give weight to that opinion as they feel is warranted provided inadmissible hearsay evidence is not considered: Lavallee, at paras. 74, 76; R. v. Skrzydlewski (1995), 1995 219 (ON CA), 103 C.C.C. (3d) 467 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 9; R. v. Plein (2018), 2018 ONCA 748, 365 C.C.C. (3d) 437 (Ont. C.A.), at paras. 60-61.

178Not all information received by an expert from the accused is hearsay. There may be hearsay exemptions involved, whether traditional or under the principled approach.

179Moreover, especially pertinent to cases involving an NCR defence, are statements made by the accused that may be received as original evidence and not hearsay. What I mean by this are statements that may reveal the mental condition of an accused at the time when those statements were made, which in turn may be circumstantial evidence of the mental condition of that accused at an earlier or later time, namely the time when the offence occurred.

180In the leading authority on this point of Kirkby at para. 61, Martin J.A. held that provided they are not contrived, something the trier of fact can determine, statements of a preposterous nature may be relevant to the issue of mental disorder and criminal responsibility and may be original evidence on the issue and not hearsay. Referencing leading evidence text writers, Martin J.A. gave as examples statements by an accused that he is Julius Caesar, that a neighbour is killing the accused with "thought waves", or that the accused hears voices issuing commands to them, as constituting original evidence to prove that the accused suffers from a delusion or is hallucinating without reliance on any fact asserted in them.

181The Learned Justice also referenced the famous 1843 McNaughten case which established the legal standard for the insanity defense in many common law jurisdictions, as an “excellent example” of the use of statements made by an accused as original evidence to infer insanity. Daniel McNaughten was found not guilty by reason of insanity after murdering a man having mistaken him for the Prime Minister. At his trial, a number of witnesses, in support of the defence of insanity, testified as to statements made by the accused showing he suffered from persecutory delusions of being followed, mocked, and threatened. This included several medical men who had examined the accused while he was in custody in Newgate prison after his arrest and testified that the accused told them that he was being persecuted by a "system" or "crew" who followed him wherever he went. Given the legal system existing at the time, the accused could not testify in his own defence. However, the medical opinions that the accused suffered from a delusion based on the accused's statements to various witnesses, including those made to medical men following his arrest, were admissible to prove McNaughton was insane.

182This aspect of the Kirkby judgment was further considered in R. v. Scardino (1991), 1991 13919 (ON CA), 6 C.R. (4th) 146 (Ont. C.A.), at paras. 19-28. In that case, similarly, the defence psychiatrist relied upon what the accused told him during the forensic assessment about what happened and his mental state at the time when he shot his wife, in the formulation of his opinion that he was NCR. The trial judge directed the jury not to rely on that account. It was hearsay. It was submitted on appeal based on the authority of Kirkby, that these statements by the accused to the psychiatrist about hearing a voice and having no control over his body were original evidence on the issue of insanity, as distinct from hearsay. They were admissible, not to prove any fact asserted by them, but as circumstantial evidence to support an inference that the appellant suffered from delusions or hallucinations.

183Finlayson J.A. rejected this submission and distinguished Kirkby on the grounds that the statements of the accused to the psychiatrist were not “contemporaneous” utterances indicating delusions. Rather, they were a narrative that purported to describe a hallucinatory or delusional state of mind in the past. The former were original evidence and admissible if they were capable of supporting a finding of mental disorder, but the latter remained hearsay and inadmissible.

184Two comments before moving on to the application of these principles to the case before me.

185First, while Kirkby describes “preposterous” statements as qualifying as admissible non-hearsay original evidence,⁴ this term does not constitute a rigid threshold consideration. In other words, a statement does not have to be “preposterous” to qualify as evidence of a delusion, hallucination, or a symptom of a mental illness. In my opinion, Martin J.A. merely used that word to illustrate the examples he chose to outline. Aside from the inherent problems associated with the subjectiveness of the term “preposterous”- what is “preposterous” undoubtedly varies in the eyes of the beholder - it misses the point of the analysis. It is the nature and quality of the statement or utterance that suggests a delusion, hallucination, or other symptom of a major mental illness, that is pivotal to the delineation of it as original evidence of such. This is where expert opinion assistance can be invaluable in that assessment since what amounts to original evidence of a psychiatric illness may not be readily apparent to a lay person. The key issue is whether the statement or utterance, is, in the context of the whole of the evidence, of a nature and quality that it falls within this category of a non-hearsay statement.

186Second, “contemporaneity” must be a contextual and nuanced factor. There is a continuum of time captured by the term. To qualify for admission, a statement should not be confined to one revealing the person is suffering a delusion or a hallucination immediately at the time of the self-report. That would be artificial, impractical, and would eliminate much valuable original evidence without there being any heightened hearsay dangers involved. For example, a patient’s report of hearing a voice a short time before he told a psychiatrist about it during an assessment should not be considered hearsay.

187On the other hand, at some point, the time that passes between the utterance and the delusion, hallucination, or psychiatric symptom that it represents, will cause it to slide into hearsay. At that point, it is essentially being offered for the truth of the assertion that a person experienced these symptoms in the past. Where it is led only as proof of the assertion contained within it, it raises all the attendant hearsay dangers: R. v. Fell, 2003 49919 (ONSC), at para. 434, aff’d 2009 ONCA 551, 254 O.A.C. 62.

188In some cases, the assessment of contemporaneity may remain somewhat elusive given the timing involved. In such circumstances, it is probably best assessed as a factor in terms of the weight to be given to the opinion.

189In the case at bar, it is unnecessary to expound further on what “contemporaneous” means. Here the self-report of Mr. Hatcher to Dr. Pallandi and Dr. Gray took place over three years later. Under any definition, this does not satisfy this requirement. It is hearsay.

Application of the Principles to the Expert Opinions

190Applying these legal principles then to the two expert opinions.

191Dr. Pallandi testified that Mr. Hatcher’s self-report to him was highly significant. In Dr. Pallandi’s words, Mr. Hatcher’s perception at the moment he killed his mother is “critically important”. Dr. Gray does not opine differently about the significance of what Mr. Hatcher told him. For me, this is a commonsense conclusion. I accept it.

192I observe that this state of the expert evidence is similar to the defence expert in Scardino, at para. 15. The expert in that case testified that the "central" and "most important" factor in forming his opinion as to the appellant’s mental status was the factual account provided to him by the appellant of his state of mind at the time of the homicide. Noteworthy is that there were other sources of information that the expert relied upon. Nevertheless, Finlayson J.A. held that what the accused told his defence psychiatrist about shooting his wife and his feelings at the time, that he was in a “dream-like” state, was hearsay. The Justice concluded that the trial judge did not err in instructing the jury that the expert’s opinion based on this evidence was to be given no weight.

193Likewise, the self-report of Mr. Hatcher about his state of mind at the time of the killing is hearsay. It is not evidence of a command auditory hallucination at a relevant time proximate to the killing. Said differently, it is not circumstantial evidence of a delusion. It is rather a narrative of a past command auditory hallucination that Mr. Hatcher says he experienced. Mr. Hatcher’s report that he was overwhelmed by the voice is also a narrative of his mental experience and perception at the time. Both were reported to Dr. Pallandi over 3 years after Ms. Boyle’s death. These narratives are being presented by the defence for the truth of their assertions; that is, that Mr. Hatcher heard the loud and commanding voice “stab her, stab her, stab her” and that he could not resist its directive.

194In sum, Dr. Pallandi’s opinion on NCR is largely based upon what Mr. Hatcher told him during his interview with him and, like the psychiatric opinion in Kirkby, at para. 58, is not inferred from other utterances and behaviour of Mr. Hatcher.

195Thus, Dr. Pallandi’s opinion on the ultimate NCR issue is significantly weakened given his central reliance on this hearsay evidence, which is not supported by any other source of evidence. This was made abundantly clear, when under cross-examination, Dr. Pallandi readily agreed if the auditory command hallucination to stab his mother was taken away, the foundation for his opinion that Mr. Hatcher was NCR evaporates. In that circumstance, Dr. Pallandi testified that he could not support a NCR finding.

196Therefore, I have no choice but to give little if any weight to Dr. Pallandi’s opinion that Mr. Hatcher was NCR at the time he killed his mother.

197The self-report of Mr. Hatcher to Dr. Gray must be treated in a similar fashion. Although it makes little difference in the final analysis, Dr. Gray does not support an NCR defence.⁵

E. THE OVERALL ANALYSIS OF THE NCR DEFENCE

198A significant mental disorder suffered by the defendant during the commission of a homicide is on its own insufficient to meet the test under s. 16. On the other hand, it can be important supportive evidence of it.

199The defence submits that the evidence that is properly admissible when assessed as a whole, establishes on a balance of probabilities the defence of NCR due to mental disorder even if reliance on Mr. Hatcher’s self-report to the expert psychiatrists is eschewed.

200I do not agree.

201First, as explained, Dr. Pallandi’s central opinion regarding NCR was significantly weakened to the point that it does not advance proof of this issue in any meaningful way. The fact Dr. Pallandi relied on other admissible evidence such as Mr. Hatcher suffering from untreated schizophrenia does not overcome this frailty.

202Dr. Gray’s expert opinion, looked at holistically after cross-examination, does not support an NCR finding. I appreciate in cross-examination that Dr. Gray agreed that a scenario of a person feeling they had no choice but to obey a command hallucination due to a mental disorder could form the basis for an NCR defence. However, Dr. Gray’s opinion essentially is that he does not accept Mr. Hatcher’s self-report of an overwhelming auditory command hallucination to kill his mother at the material time.

203Simply, the psychiatric expert opinions, given their proper weight, when looked at in the context of the evidence as a whole, do not have much probative value in proving the NCR defence.

204Of course, that is not the end of the matter. Even in a case where no psychiatric expert evidence is led, an NCR finding can still be made.

205Second, the determination that Mr. Hatcher was suffering from schizophrenia, untreated and worsening, at the material time is important supportive evidence. Moreover, his various delusions, including his past delusions about the grandfather pact, are also relevant to the s. 16 determination. This evidence is relied upon by the experts and available to me to make my own conclusions from. However, while it is some proof that Mr. Hatcher was likely not in a “normal” state of mind at the time of the killing and was likely suffering from some form of psychosis, it does not, even inferentially, significantly advance proof as to what was going through Mr. Hatcher’s mind at the time of Ms. Boyle’s killing. In other words, the common symptoms of schizophrenia and Mr. Hatcher’s particular history of his illness, do not move the needle much past speculation as to what did happen on that fateful walk.

206I can accept based upon the expert opinions that Mr. Hatcher likely suffers from auditory command hallucinations which he has not revealed in the past. The fact that it is a common symptom of schizophrenia, and the jail records that denote more contemporaneous command auditory hallucinations, suggest that it was possible for Mr. Hatcher to have had a command auditory hallucination while he was on his walk with his mother. In addition, some of his historic delusions involving the grandfather pact made to kill his family, could well have involved some “telepathic” communications with his grandfather that came by way of auditory hallucinations. Dr. Gray’s opinion on this makes sense to me. Nonetheless, the possibility of this occurring at the relevant time, does not significantly advance proof, in the absence of evidence from Mr. Hatcher, that he suffered from this specific command hallucination that had this specific effect on his capacity to reason, at the specific time when he killed his mother. As both experts point out, even if one accepted that Mr. Hatcher experienced command auditory hallucinations to punch someone at other times during his illness, he has always been able to resist them and refrain from acting on them. Dr. Pallandi recognized that this was somewhat “confounding”. Dr. Gray also was keenly aware of the difference in this purported command auditory hallucination to stab his mother and the other ones that commanded a simple physical assault. Put differently, this other evidence relied on by the defence does not lead me to draw a reasonable inference that the specific psychotic episode or something similar was suffered by Mr. Hatcher when he slashed at his mother. Dr. Pallandi admitted that command auditory hallucinations are variable and so is an individual’s ability to resist them.

207Without admissible evidence from Mr. Hatcher or some other admissible evidence from another source about what occurred, it is conjecture that Mr. Hatcher heard a relevant auditory hallucination that was also so overwhelming he was not capable of knowing that his act was morally wrong.

208Third, setting aside the reliance on Mr. Hatcher’s self-report to the psychiatrists about what happened, the admissible evidence does not establish the NCR defence on the requisite standard of proof. Clearly, Mr. Hatcher was paranoid and psychotic at the time. It was significant enough that he could not make his own decisions regarding his own medical treatment and he required a substitute decision-maker. However, he was still able to function in most areas of his life. He lived on his own. He could drive. He could make plans. There was nothing unusual about his getting together with his mother on February 26, 2021, to return a quilt and go for a walk. His thought processes were organized. While there was delusional thinking in his interactions with the police, he knew where he was and was responsive to the police actions and questions. He appeared calm and cooperative. These were all events close in time to the offence.

209Then there is the grandfather pact. No one can argue that this is not significant evidence of a mental illness and a relevant factor to consider. The evidence that Mr. Hatcher believes there would be no criminal consequences for killing his family as well as his belief that the police and family were present at the time of the agreement is pointed to by the defence. There is also what he told the police during his interview when he urged the police to contact the Prime Minister. The defence submits that this is in itself an important factor that assists the proof of NCR. In my opinion, while all of this is relevant evidence, the existence of this long-standing delusion does not substantially support the finding that Mr. Hatcher was incapable of knowing his actions were legally or morally wrong. The delusion that he might not face criminal consequences is not equivalent to not having the capacity to know it to be legally or morally wrong in accordance with the moral standards of society. Especially when there is evidence that Mr. Hatcher believed that both he and his grandfather were members of the Mafia and that he had a special relationship with the Prime Minister. In these circumstances, the belief that he would suffer no legal consequences could readily be attributable to his status with a powerful illegal entity or through his political connections. If viewed in this way, these comments to the police can be interpreted as Mr. Hatcher trying to get assistance of persons in power and authority to extricate him from the consequences of what he appreciated was morally and legally wrong behaviour.

210Finally on this factual point, while I am keenly aware that no causal connection need be shown by the defence (Pereira, at paras. 21-24), there is little nexus between these delusions regarding the grandfather pact and the circumstances of the death of his mother. I explain this more fully when assessing the proof of first-degree murder.

211Fourth, there is some force to the Crown submission that Mr. Hatcher’s after-the-fact conduct of leaving the scene, disposing of items in the garbage bin, and lying to the police demonstrates that he is aware that the homicide was both legally and morally wrong.

212Helpful guidance on the treatment of after-the-fact conduct in the NCR analysis is found in Worrie, at para. 142:

In the NCR context, after-the-fact conduct may be relevant to an assessment of an accused's NCR defence. Evidence, for instance, that an accused concealed the weapon or fled the scene of the offence may bear upon the accused's capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of their conduct. At the same time, however, after-the-fact conduct is often highly ambiguous and carries the risk that the trier of fact may "mistakenly leap from such evidence to a conclusion of guilt" without taking into account alternative explanations for the accused's behaviour. Like any other evidence, after-the-fact conduct "takes on its full significance and probative value only in the context of the other evidence in the case". [Citations omitted.]

See also Pereira, at paras. 33-38; R. v. Jacquard, 1997 374 (SCC), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 314, at para. 50.

213The probative value of the after-the-fact conduct, although not great in this case as there may well be other alternative explanations for it, is also not minimal on the NCR issue. I will analyze this more carefully in determining whether the Crown has met its onus on first-degree murder. For now, it suffices for me to say when it is added to the NCR assessment, it diminishes rather than strengthens Mr. Hatcher’s proof of the defence.

214In conclusion, on the NCR defence, I do not give much weight if any to Dr. Pallandi’s opinion regarding the issue of whether Mr. Hatcher was capable of knowing that his actions were morally wrong. Dr. Gray’s evidence is that he was capable of knowing it was morally wrong. While I do not accept the totality of Dr. Gray’s evidence, as it suffers the same frailties as Dr. Pallandi’s evidence, it certainly does not support the defendant’s proof of the NCR defence. I accept that Mr. Hatcher suffered from auditory hallucinations during the overall course of his illness. This does not depend on the hearsay self-report to the experts regarding the events of the day in question. There is a factual foundation for this based upon the nature and long-standing delusions that could be a result of auditory hallucinations such as “telepathic” messages from his grandfather,⁶ the expert opinion evidence that such hallucinations are common for schizophrenics, and the original evidence of Mr. Hatcher to various people while in custody that he was hearing voices at the time, This then does support the possibility that he could have had an auditory hallucination while on his walk with his mother on February 26, 2021. As Dr. Gray opined, auditory hallucinations can be intermittent and the chance of Mr. Hatcher hearing voices on the day in question is a possibility, but only a possibility. However, after careful assessment, the collective evidence does not raise this inference beyond the mere possibility. It does not provide an adequate factual foundation to support the proof of the NCR defence based on Dr. Pallandi’s opinion on the balance of probabilities. This is especially so when there is no evidence that Mr. Hatcher ever acted upon any of the command auditory hallucinations that he may have heard both before the homicide and after, even when he was in an unmedicated state and under increasing stress. Thus, the defense has not established that Mr. Hatcher heard an auditory command hallucination to stab his mother, and that this hallucination overwhelmed his capacity to reason right from wrong. Therefore, the second necessary requirement has not been met.

215Lastly looking at the totality of the evidence, as I have done above, even though I can readily conclude that Mr. Hatcher was mentally ill and unstable at the time of the homicide, I do not find it more likely than not that Mr. Hatcher was incapable of knowing that his actions were morally wrong.

216I now turn to the issue of whether the Crown has proven first-degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt

F. PLANNING AND DELIBERATION

217In defining the terms “planned and deliberate” courts have long adopted the definitions given in the jury instructions provided by Gale J. in; R. v. Widdifield (1961), 6 Crim. L.Q. 152 (O.H.C.J.), at p. 153. This includes giving “planned” its ordinary meaning of “a calculated scheme or design which has been carefully thought out, and the nature and consequences of which have been considered and weighed.” This includes an assessment of the time involved in developing the plan, but not the time between developing the plan and carrying it out. There is no minimum amount of planning time required, but a murder carried out on a sudden impulse, even if it is intentional, is not planned. “Deliberate” carries its natural meaning of "considered" "not impulsive" "slow in deciding" "cautious" implying that the accused must take time to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of his intended action: R. v. Nygaard, 1989 6 (SCC), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1074, at p. 1084; Jacquard, at para. 26; R. v. Robinson, 2017 ONCA 645, 352 C.C.C. (3d) 503, at para. 34; R. v. Bauman, 2026 ONCA 173, at para. 139.

218In deciding whether a murder was planned and deliberate, the trier of fact must consider the accused’s actions, conduct, statements, and capacity and ability to plan and deliberate. I must consider the whole of the evidence in relation to the issue of planning and deliberation. In nearly every case there will be some evidence both for and against the finding of planning and deliberation. The existence of alternative explanations will not automatically militate against a verdict of first-degree murder. The trier of fact can find that individual pieces of evidence against planning and deliberation do not raise a reasonable doubt as long as planning and deliberation can be reasonably inferred from the proven facts: R. v. Tremble, 2017 ONCA 671, 354 C.C.C. (3d) 27, at paras. 76-79; R. v. Mitchell, 1964 42 (SCC), [1964] S.C.R. 471, at pp. 478-479; R. v. MacKay (1992), 1992 5990 (BC CA), 16 C.R. (4th) 351 (B.C.C.A.), at para. 91, leave to appeal refused, [1992] S.C.C.A. No. 522.

219The requirement that the murder be “deliberate” has not “imported a requirement that the offender’s previous determination to kill the victim must be the result of reasonable or normal thinking or must be rationally motivated”: Kirkby, at para. 87.

The Psychiatric Evidence on the Issue of Planning and Deliberation

220Evidence of a mental disorder may negative proof of planning and deliberation required for first-degree murder depending on the nature of the mental disorder and the effects produced by it, although merely suffering from one at the material time does not automatically do so: Kirkby, at para. 87; Jacquard, at paras. 22-31.

221While neither expert evidence, nor a psychiatric diagnosis are necessary to find that the accused’s mental disorder negatives planning and deliberation, such evidence is an important consideration, especially as it relates to the severity and impact of the mental disorder and to the issue of planning and deliberation: R. v. Lawlor, 2022 ONCA 645, 418 C.C.C. (3d) 87, at paras. 45-46.

222Other than the hearsay issue I have already outlined, I give weight to Dr. Pallandi’s opinion. Criticisms by the Crown and Dr. Gray that the report is less extensive and had omitted some references/analysis, are either stylistic critiques or shortcomings that do not affect the essential weight of much of the opinion offered by Dr. Pallandi.

223On the issue of planning and deliberation, the nature and severity of Mr. Hatcher’s schizophrenia is most relevant. The condition itself can be quite debilitating. Schizophrenia is a chronic lifelong major mental illness. Hallucinations, delusions, disordered thinking, passivity, apathy, loss of spark, emotional disconnection are symptoms. Impaired relationships, vocational, and interpersonal, follow the course of the disease. The disability marginalizes people. As Dr. Pallandi described it, it is a very, very, serious illness. It is not curable but manageable. There are relapses and remissions. Gets better or worse. Sometimes hospitalization is needed. A lot depends upon compliance with treatment. Stay on treatment, outcomes are much better. Adherence to medication is at the top of the list. Untreated schizophrenia is malignant, leading to a high degree of suicide and violent victimization. The burden of the illness increases the longer it is untreated by medication.

224Mr. Hatcher’s schizophrenia was very severe (ie. he had past involuntary hospitalization, lots of negative symptoms, functioning was markedly impaired and was incapable of making his own treatment decisions), and he was untreated for a lengthy period by the time of the homicide. His symptoms were significant including marked paranoid delusions which he acted upon, auditory hallucinations, and involution or negative symptoms including apathy and social withdrawal.

225I find that these symptoms were very active on February 26, 2021. Both Dr. Pallandi and Dr. Gray come to this view based upon collateral sources of information. I find there is little doubt about that based on the totality of the evidence including Ms. Amado’s testimony, the ante-mortem statements, his police statements, and the observations of the overall behaviour of Mr. Hatcher.

226I also accept Dr. Pallandi’s expert opinion that stabbing the face multiple times, from a psychological point of view, is an intense and very personal interaction suggesting a loss of control and indicates emotional intensity at the time. It is not deliberative or something that advances the formulation of a plan. There was a frenzied quality to the act that is apparent given the number of injuries and the location of them.

227Dr. Pallandi also testified that Mr. Hatcher has a poor prognosis as he had been symptomatic for some time, non-compliant with his medication, and had relapsed more than once. The progressive and non-reversible symptoms include emotional blunting, withdrawal, and cognitive decline. Untreated, this cognitive decline has a negative effect on the thinking part of the brain, including memory, focus, concentration and planning. This opinion, which I accept, applies to Mr. Hatcher.

228Dr. Gray also agreed that untreated schizophrenia can have a physiological impact on the brain and can affect cognitive processes and lead to irrational decision making.

229While Mr. Hatcher was functioning in certain parts of his life, at the time of the homicide, his life was under stress, he had lost his job and his relationship. He was unable to sleep and was paranoid and fearful for his life. He was so concerned about being poisoned he made numerous hospital trips, insisted on testing, and could not be reassured. He was so concerned about being spied on or surveilled that he would write notes to communicate and bought what appears to be a rather expensive surveillance camera. He was getting more and more sick moving into February of 2021.

230Simply put, this makes it harder for the Crown to prove planning and deliberation.

231Turning to the Crown’s expert, Dr. Gray does not specifically comment on the intent for murder. His opinion was formulated pursuant to an assessment order canvassing the s. 16(1) issue. That said, there are aspects of his testimony that are relevant to proof of planning and deliberation.

232Much of Dr. Gray’s testimony focuses on his disagreement with Dr. Pallandi’s opinion in relation to s. 16(1). Significant to much of his disagreement is Dr. Pallandi’s reliance on Mr. Hatcher self-report of what happened and a failure to adequately consider collateral sources of information. It is not necessary to canvass specifics of this disagreement given my conclusion that Mr. Hatcher has not met his onus to prove NCR due to mental disorder. Moreover, a significant part of Dr. Gray’s opinion about why Mr. Hatcher was not NCR at the time of the killing is also reliant on Mr. Hatcher’s self-report of what happened which is hearsay.

233In addition, as the Crown conceded in oral submissions, the statements by Mr. Hatcher to Dr. Gray made during the assessment are protected statements within the meaning of s. 672.21 of the Criminal Code and are inadmissible against Mr. Hatcher on the issue of the proof of first-degree murder.

234Finally, Dr. Gray’s opinion that in killing his mother, Mr. Hatcher was likely responding to his long-standing delusion about having a pact with his grandfather to kill his family is a legal question that I must decide based on my findings of fact and not something that is delegated to expert psychiatrists.

235Therefore, strictly speaking it is not necessary for me to assess Dr. Gray’s opinion on what motivated Mr. Hatcher to kill his mother. That said, I did not find Dr. Gray’s opinion persuasive for several reasons including: he relied upon evidence like Mr. Tom Hatcher’s statements about what his son told him post-offence that was not presented at trial; he wrongly used Mr. Hatcher’s right to remain silent in the face of police questioning, in a fashion that supported an inference of consciousness of guilt: R. v. A.B., 2026 ONCA 116, at paras. 14-17; R. v. Malcolm, 2026 ONSC 1508, at para. 140; he made certain factual assumptions that have not been established in the evidence including his reliance on Terence Hatcher’s account that shortly before the homicide his brother said that someone would kill their mother.

236In sum, Dr. Gray’s opinion suffers from the flaws of looking at events with hindsight and making certain assumptions, some unsupported by the evidence, that Mr. Hatcher’s actions fit within this delusional plan made with his grandfather to kill his family, even though it is entirely plausible that it had nothing to do with this delusion.

The Analysis of the Whole of the Evidence Regarding Planned and Deliberate Murder

237As already noted, the psychiatric evidence and the findings I have made from them are a significant obstacle to the Crown’s proof of first-degree murder on both planning and deliberation. The common sense inference that sane and sober people intend the consequences of their actions is generally impacted by evidence of a mental disorder: R. v. Spence, 2017 ONCA 619, 353 C.C.C. (3d) 446, at paras. 44-45. But to be clear, the whole of the evidence and not just the psychiatric evidence must be carefully considered.

238I now turn to this.

239In the absence of admissible evidence on this point, based on the post-mortem and forensic evidence, the most I can determine is that Mr. Hatcher used a sharp-edged instrument to kill his mother. I cannot determine its character or dimensions, ie. size or designed use. Nor can I say when or for how long Mr. Hatcher may have been carrying such an item. No knife or sharp-edged instrument was ever identified to be the weapon used.

240It is logical that carrying a murder weapon to the scene of a murder can be evidence of a planned and deliberate murder. It is unlikely that Mr. Hatcher could have just picked up such an instrument lying out in the open in a public park. However, in this case, there is a more likely scenario as to why he had a sharp-edged instrument. Given the evidence about Mr. Hatcher’s severe and multi-faceted paranoia that people were spying on him, following him, poisoning him, and wanting to harm him, it is equally if not more logical that he would arm himself in light of those paranoid delusions. Dr. Pallandi’s opinion is that arming themselves with a weapon is very common in paranoid people suffering from schizophrenia. In other words, I find that Mr. Hatcher was not carrying that sharp-edged instrument to further his plan to kill or harm his mother.

241The Crown relies on the delusional pact made with his grandfather to murder his family members as being the motive behind the homicide. Just like in the Niagara Falls incident, as Mr. Hatcher fell progressively more ill in his untreated state, the Crown submits that he acted on that delusion. This was his plan, deluded though it was, and he deliberately carried it out. Thus, the Crown theory is that the plan to murder his mother was a longstanding one, persisting to the day of the killing, and one he deliberately executed during the walk in the park.

242I do not accept this theory for several reasons.

243First, the deluded pact with his grandfather, which caused Mr. Hatcher’s thought to throw his mother over Niagara Falls, is years old. In a similar fashion, threats to kill his mother and other family members are longstanding. Despite many opportunities to do harm to his mother, it was never acted upon by Mr. Hatcher. This is to be compared to Mr. Hatcher’s behaviour regarding other delusions such as getting tested for poisoning or hiring a lawyer for being wrongfully disinherited. He acted upon those delusions almost immediately.

244Second, the delusion was not a simple straightforward plan to kill his family. According to Mr. Hatcher, there were police officers present at the time. Moreover, his whole family was present and agreed to the pact. Thus, it does not immediately follow that acting on that delusion would lead to a clandestine plan to lure Ms. Boyle out into the woods to kill her to fulfill the pact. Rather, if she and agents of the state were agreeable to this plan, there would be no need for any surreptitious conduct to commit the killing and no need to hide or cover it up afterwards.

245Third, the pact was not isolated to killing his mother. It was also to kill his father and other family members. There were also other delusional beliefs. His parents were going to kill his sister, and he was afraid they would kill him. As well, he believed in the past his father was putting female hormones into men to turn them into homosexuals. His sister was selling drugs. His mother was throwing babies over the Falls. His grandfather gave money to doctors to be his psychiatrists. All of this is to say that the paranoid delusion suffered by Mr. Hatcher regarding his family was not simply fixed upon killing his mother; it had broad boundaries and was nebulous and variable. It does not readily lead to this plan to kill his mother in the park as suggested by the Crown. Put differently, it is easy with hindsight to pick one aspect of his delusions out amongst the many delusions Mr. Hatcher had over the years and to fix sole blame on it as the basis for a planned and deliberate murder of his mother. Easy but also uncertain.

246In the same vein, the Crown relies on what Mr. Hatcher told the police on his arrest. I do not agree that Mr. Hatcher’s reference to the “project” and the Prime Minister’s assistance are references to the grandfather pact. I admit this could be the case, but to come to this conclusion requires leaps of reasoning given the lack of details provided. There are also comments made by Mr. Hatcher about it that are not quite consistent with the grandfather pact. He talks about how he and his family were part of certain projects. It was not just about him and his actions in working on or executing a project. As well, he references his mother, as if she was still alive, in his urging of the police to contact the Prime Minister. Lastly, the Prime Minister also came up previously in a different context when Mr. Hatcher stated he had spoken to him about Ms. Amado’s stealing from or robbing food banks.

247In general, I find that even when assessed in the context of the evidence as a whole, Mr. Hatcher’s police statement given its vagueness and it being a product of delusional thinking, do not reasonably support a connection between the homicide to a pre-existing plan to kill his mother.

248Fourth, the evidence shows that when Mr. Hatcher evinces any belief he was going to act on the pact, he tells the victim of it. This not only goes for his mother but also his father. Indeed, Mr. Hatcher seems to confide in his mother to a significant degree about what he was going through.

249Fifth, in the four months leading to the homicide, Mr. Hatcher does not express this grandfather pact to others. As well, his paranoia appeared to be directed at others such as Ms. Amado, a neighbor, and a person walking a dog.

250The Crown relies significantly on the utterance to his brother Terence Hatcher about someone killing his mother. I have already examined this and for the reasons given, do not give it much weight.

251Sixth, the Crown submits that moving up to the time of the homicide, there was evidence of Mr. Hatcher viewing his mother with acrimony, hostility, or resentment. While there is some evidence of this, I find that this evidence viewed carefully, is not of a quality that reasonably supports a motive to commit a planned and deliberate murder.

252There is Mr. Hatcher giving the “poisoned” tea received from Ms. Amado to his mother on the January walk. I do not find that this act was one whereby Mr. Hatcher was trying to kill or to harm his mother. It was based on his belief that Ms. Amado was trying to poison him. He did not covertly attempt to get his mother to drink it. Rather, it seems he was confiding in his mother his fears about Ms. Amado. By giving her the tea, he was asking her to confirm his views about it. By saying it so openly, it belies any hostile intention. When queried by his puzzled mother why hand her the tea if he believed it to be poisoned, he merely shrugged. Far from being supportive of a plan to kill or harm his mother, it shows more of a confidence in her and his own disorganized delusional thinking.

253There is no evidence to suggest that Mr. Hatcher had anything but a good relationship with his mother when he was well. All the evidence points in the direction of his mother being a kind, considerate, caring, and compassionate parent to him throughout his whole life. Ms. Boyle gave no reason whatsoever to her son to wish her evil. That acknowledged, Mr. Hatcher’s mental state, though fluctuating, at the time was progressively worsening.

254In these circumstances, the communications and actions of Mr. Hatcher must be carefully assessed. The texts must be interpreted cautiously. As Dr. Gray noted, Mr. Hatcher has substantial negative symptoms from his schizophrenia including diminished emotional expression and lack of motivation. He has a paucity of speech and he makes brief comments without elaboration. This could well lead to cryptic texts composed indifferently. Moreover, his persecutory delusional beliefs could lead to communications that may appear hostile although there may not be hostile intent behind it.

255So, when one assesses the behaviour and words of Mr. Hatcher, they may on the surface display ill will to his mother but when viewed contextually and carefully, may not be as hostile as they seem. The voicemail left at her work was upsetting to Ms. Boyle. But Mr. Hatcher deludedly believed his mother was a drug addict and was concerned about those she served. Therefore, the intent may not have been so aggressive. As he told Dr. Atanackovic, it may be that he just felt that she should retire. Another example. The texts telling her that her family hated her or her moles were ugly along with the picture of the turkey neck, even if they were meant in a form of deranged humour, were insulting and demeaning. But seen in context, it could have been a fleeting deluded thought going through Mr. Hatcher’s mind. I agree with the defence that there is a juvenile character to them.

256This evidence must be viewed in the context of other communications that expressed closeness and goodwill. Many of these are closer to the time of the offence. Mr. Hatcher wished his mother a happy birthday and a Happy New Year. He sent her a photo of the Christmas meal he made. He wanted to go on a walk with her and did so, once by the lake, another time with his girlfriend. He talked about the passions he had. He confided in his mother. His mother offered him advice. There were good times close in time to the homicide. This is not to discount the likelihood that at other times he may have felt anger or had deluded thoughts about his mother, but it shows the reality of the situation was far more complex and variable. It does not demonstrate a linear, deluded acting out of a years old pact to kill her made with a deceased grandfather or based upon some hostile motive.

257The Crown also points to Ms. Boyle’s email of January 19, 2021, to Dr. Atanackovic about her concerns about Mr. Hatcher’s mental health in the month before the murder and Mr. Hatcher’s receipt of it as a spur for him to carry out the homicide.

258I do not agree with this position for a few reasons.

259The content of the email would not be that concerning to Mr. Hatcher. In the past, Mr. Hatcher knew his mother told others similar things to get him help. It would not have come as news to him that when she wrote Dr. Atanackovic, she felt he was ill and needed help. She does not suggest anything like involuntary committal in the email and just comes across as the caring mother that she was.

260In addition, the objection raised by Mr. Hatcher to having the email deleted was legitimate and the reason he gave for wanting a copy of the email, potential legal reasons, was also reasonable.

261Although the timing of the email in the context of the surrounding events, if viewed in the broadest sense, is consistent with the Crown position, when the timing is assessed more carefully, it does not greatly support the email as being part of a motive to murder his mother. Mr. Hatcher was told about the email and its content by Dr. Atanackovic likely on January 25, 2021. It was not until February 12, 2021, that Mr. Hatcher voiced his objections to the email. While the medical notes suggest that the topic of family input into his illness was discussed at some length with Dr. Atanackovic, there is nothing to indicate that Mr. Hatcher’s reaction was angry, hostile, or unreasonable. The doctor agreed with his request and the email was deleted that day. In between January 25, 2021, and when he ultimately received a copy of his mother’s email, Mr. Hatcher saw his doctor without referring to the email and Mr. Hatcher had communications with his mother that were prosaic in substance without a hint of him being greatly upset by her actions. Furthermore, there was no great urgency in Mr. Hatcher picking up a copy of the email. He did not pick it up until February 17, and that was at the suggestion of the clinic staff. He seemed more focused on being poisoned or getting lab work done.

262The Crown further argues that it was too coincidental that on the same date he had asked Dr. Atanackovic to delete the email, he texted his mother to give the quilt back. In the Crown theory, this was a lure to murder her.

263I do not agree. In my view, Mr. Hatcher’s text about not wanting the quilt, though it may have been hurtful to his mother, is not evidence of any hostility given the style of the text is consistent with his past cryptic texts and the negative symptoms of his schizophrenia. Moreover, Mr. Hatcher was aware of the email sent by his mother as early as January 25, 2021, and he had done nothing up to this point to set up a meeting to exact revenge or retribution. Lastly, this was not the first time Mr. Hatcher received a similar type of communications by his mother to Dr. Atanackovic. Early on in their patient-physician relationship, Dr. Atanackovic advised Mr. Hatcher about the information he received from his parents about his mental health conditions. In March of 2020, Ms. Boyle sent Dr. Atanackovic a similar email that Mr. Hatcher received a copy of. None of this led to any violence, anger, or upset on Mr. Hatcher’s part.

264In sum, the timing of events does not show Mr. Hatcher to be so greatly disturbed by the email it moved him to murder his mother.

265Seventh, I find that the circumstances of the murder do not support a plan to kill his mother. He did not lure her to an isolated place in the woods to kill her. If he wanted to lure her into the woods, it does not make sense to give her the quilt early on in their meeting up so that she would put it into her car before effecting that plan to get her into the woods. She had already advised him that she had a meeting at noon. Indeed, he did not even have to use the quilt as a lure as his mother had been agreeable to meet with him previously. Moreover, as I have described in the evidence above, this was not an isolated wood with no people. It was well-travelled. Something that Mr. Hatcher was well aware of as he lived close by and fished the Humber River very frequently.

266Eighth, let me address the Crown’s reliance on the after-the-fact conduct of Mr. Hatcher. After-the-fact conduct should be considered with care because it carries the risk that the trier of fact may "mistakenly leap from such evidence to a conclusion of guilt" without taking account of alternative explanations for the accused's behaviour: R. v. White, 1998 789 (SCC), [1998] 2 S.C.R. 72, at para. 22; R. v. Bauman, 2026 ONCA 173, at paras. 158-159.

267The psychiatrists have described this behaviour as purposeful behaviour, not indicative of grossly disorganized thinking. These opinions were given when assessing the NCR defence, but it also has relevance to the mental state required for a planned and deliberate murder. It supports a finding that Mr. Hatcher was psychiatrically capable of planning things.

268However, this does not mean that the illness was in retreat immediately after the homicide. He was still very symptomatic. Mr. Hatcher’s hyper-focus on fulfilling his testosterone prescription has a nonsensical and bizarre quality to it. Testosterone injections are a long-term treatment with no urgency. This behaviour demonstrates some disconnect from reality.

269The fact that Mr. Hatcher did not express shock or emotions after the murder can be evidence of a pre-arranged plan to kill: R. v. S.B., 2018 ONCA 807, [2018] O.J. No. 5186, at para. 63. However, caution must be exercised as Mr. Hatcher was suffering from untreated schizophrenia whereby his negative symptoms were significant. Dr. Pallandi further viewed Mr. Hatcher’s over-all behavior as seemingly emotionally disconnected to the circumstances and dispassionate. It speaks to his psychotic state that continued after the offence. I agree with that assessment.

270While one cannot ignore apparently purposeful after-the-fact conduct, I agree with Dr. Pallandi that this does not evince from a psychiatric perspective that Mr. Hatcher’s thought processes at the time of the killing support deliberative thought. There are other reasonable explanations arising from the evidence. It could be just a realization after the killing regarding what he had just done or his psychological state of mind may have changed afterwards. It is not dispositive of his mental state at the time of the killing. If Mr. Hatcher later came to a realization of what he had done, then feeling guilty or panicky makes sense and would explain such conduct as changing clothes, disposing of evidence, and lying to the police. This explanation is a reasonable alternative explanation and has probative value: Lavallee, at para. 76.

271The fact he did not call 911, remain at the scene, admit his responsibility, etc. does not mean he planned and deliberated a murder. It may be some evidence he viewed it as morally wrong in the legal sense of that concept. But to attach any great significance to this type of omission would convert most murders into a planned and deliberate murder.

272Some other behaviour is not probative. The fact he drove away and stayed at a hotel in Oakville is not any evidence he was trying to flee from the crime. He had stayed in that hotel before and the prescription for his testosterone was at the Shopper’s Drug Mart in Oakville, a new pharmacy that he had just changed to. These actions should also be placed in the context of when he was contacted by the police, he readily agreed to meet up with them.

273The other factor that must be considered when assessing the after-the-fact conduct is his schizophrenia. His behaviour in slowly driving away from the scene obeying all traffic rules may be behaviour not to draw any attention to his crime as the Crown argues. But equally it could be the result of his emotional disconnection to what he had done due to his illness. As well, the lies he told to the police, could well have been affected by his illness. Mr. Hatcher’s conduct after the commission of the offence is overall consistent with his psychosis affecting him and not consistent with a planned or deliberate action.

274Finally, all the after-the-fact conduct relied upon by the Crown could equally if not better be explained by Mr. Hatcher’s appreciation of the fact that he had just inflicted serious injury to his mother as opposed to having planned and deliberated upon her murder.

Conclusion on First-Degree Murder

275I am not satisfied that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that this was a planned and deliberate murder. As reasoned above, the evidence relied upon by the Crown does not meet the high threshold required for either of these essential elements.

276The commission of the homicide is largely unexplained due to the lack of evidence regarding what happened at the key moment. Inferences that reasonably can be drawn from the whole of the evidence, are complicated by Mr. Hatcher’s severe mental illness.

277In concluding this, I further find there is evidence that could reasonably support a finding that the killing was committed impulsively without deliberation.

278Significant is the evidence of Mr. Hatcher suffering from serious, worsening, and untreated schizophrenia with all that this entails. This includes the possibility that he may have had auditory hallucinations on his walk with his mother. While the nature of them or its effect cannot be determined on the evidence led at this trial, it remains a reasonable possibility on the evidence that Mr. Hatcher heard voices that said insulting or negative things such that it led to a sudden emotional upset or a loss of control.

279I observe that there were past instances where Mr. Hatcher has become aggressive to his mother without justification. For example, in an April 25, 2018, email, Ms. Boyle writes that her son called and was at first quite calm but quickly got worked up about the idea of taking his mother for a psychiatric evaluation. In an email of April 27, 2018, from Ms. Boyle to a friend, Ms. Boyle writes that almost out of the blue, Mr. Hatcher became quite angry and hostile with his mother for no reason.

280We will never know for sure what happened. There could have been a hallucination. It could have been an argument or some delusional reaction to a perceived insult. Regardless, the evidence suggests it was more impulsive than deliberate. Certainly, it was affected by his illness such that it calls into question planning and deliberation. Said differently, the killing of his mother, could well have been a hasty or rash act seriously affected by his mental disorder. I am not sure that it was a deliberate act based upon a plan which Mr. Hatcher has taken the time to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of the intended action: Kirkby, at para. 83.

281As I have a reasonable doubt about both elements of the offence of first-degree murder, Mr. Hatcher will be found not guilty of it.

G. THE INCLUDED OFFENCE OF SECOND-DEGREE MURDER

282Second-degree murder is an included offence.

283Section 229(a)(ii) provides that culpable homicide is murder where the accused meant to cause bodily harm that they knew was likely to cause death and was reckless as to whether death ensued. This requires that there be: (a) subjective intent to cause bodily harm, and (b) subjective knowledge that the bodily harm is such that it is likely to result in death: R. v. Cooper, 1993 147 (SCC), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 146, at pp.155-156.

284Recklessness is proven where the accused foresees a likelihood of death flowing from the bodily harm that they are occasioning the victim, sees the risk but nevertheless persists in their conduct despite it: Sansregret v. The Queen, 1985 79 (SCC), [1985] 1 S.C.R. 570, at p. 582.

285The requisite intent need not exist simultaneous to the act that causes death, or that it be present throughout the unlawful act or series of acts that causes death; rather, the two must coincide at some point during the "transaction" that results in death: Cooper, at pp. 156-158.

286Caution must be exercised in drawing inferences from the evidence to prove intention and it is crucial that all evidence that may impact on the accused's formation of the requisite intent is considered: R. v. Seymour, 1996 201 (SCC), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 252, at paras. 19-21. This includes evidence of a mental disorder that falls short of establishing an NCR defence: R. v. Spence, 2025 ONSC 4579, at para. 82. Thus, Mr. Hatcher’s mental disorder must also be considered here regarding whether he had the intent for second-degree murder.

287None of the parties directed any submissions regarding proof of second-degree murder. None of the experts opined on this issue.

288I find that the included offence of second-degree murder has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt after considering the whole of the evidence, including the psychiatric evidence and the mental illness Mr. Hatcher was suffering from. Although Mr. Hatcher’s mental state was affected by delusions and even perhaps auditory hallucinations, I am sure he committed the homicide with the requisite intent. Mr. Hatcher’s thinking and the ability to appreciate what he was doing was relatively organized and clear, and he was aware of the nature and consequences of his actions.

289While Mr. Hatcher may not have intended to kill his mother, given the severity of the wounds inflicted by Mr. Hatcher (multiple slash/stab wounds to a very vulnerable part of the body, the face and neck) I am sure he meant to cause bodily harm that he knew was likely to cause death and was reckless as to whether death ensued.

290The Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt all the essential elements of second-degree murder. Mr. Hatcher will be found guilty of that included offence.

Justice S. Nakatsuru

Released: April 17, 2026

CITATION: R. v. Hatcher, 2026 ONSC 2168

COURT FILE NO.: CR-22-50000097-0000

DATE: 20260417

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

COLIN HATCHER

Defendant

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

JUSTICE S. NAKATSURU

Released: April 17, 2026

Footnotes

Henceforth I refer to the deceased as “Ms. Boyle” to avoid confusion. No disrespect is intended.
There is circumstantial evidence of delusions in the prison records where Mr. Hatcher reports to psychiatrists and other staff bizarre thoughts that is original evidence of a contemporaneous auditory hallucination: November 4, 2021, Mr. Hatcher reported hearing auditory hallucinations but did not want to speak of the content of the voices at the time; December 20, 2021, Mr. Hatcher told the psychiatrist he was still hearing voices, sometimes weekly, but not lengthy voices. He denied any command hallucinations to hurt himself or others; January 26, 2022, Mr. Hatcher reported to his psychiatrist he was still hearing ongoing voices but they did not include command hallucinations; February 16, 2022, the auditory hallucinations were “much softer” with the anti-psychotic medication he was taking; April 4, 2022, Mr. Hatcher reported to the psychiatrist auditory hallucinations but did not want to discuss the content; August 23, 2022, Mr. Hatcher reported that a voice of an unknown man was speaking to him but he refused to follow the commands of the voice; September 12, 2022, Mr. Hatcher said he had a little bit of the voices that made fun of him and told him to punch people; October 10, 2022, the male voices made fun of him and called him names; December 10, 2022, the voices told him to punch people; February 21, March 22, 2023, the voices made fun of him or issued command hallucinations; the same voices reported on July 18, September 11, 2023 (the medication is said to be really good and voices were not heard that often); voices not mentioned November 6, 2023, and on January 5, 2024, they were explicitly not present; February 26, 2024, Mr. Hatcher asked the psychiatrist for a move to the Special Needs Unit as he was hearing voices to kill or hurt people and he did not want to be in a shared cell; March 2, 2024, Mr. Hatcher told a nurse he can cope with the voices and he will let officers know if he plans to kill someone; April 8 and June 10, 2024, Mr. Hatcher told staff the voice is that of his grandfather; August 12, 2024, Mr. Hatcher stated he only heard the voice a little bit; October 4, 2024, he reported he last heard voices two months ago.
Dr. Gray’s assessment was conducted pursuant to an order made by Bawden J.
I note that other authorities have used the descriptor of “preposterous” statements: ie. R. v. Chang, 2021 ONSC 6309, at para. 43; R. v. Worrie, 2019 ONSC 4548, at para. 55; R. v. Pestill, 2024 ONSC 4459, at para. 185.
I observe that Dr. Pallandi and Dr. Gray did not reach the same view with respect to the reliability and credibility of Mr. Hatcher’s self-report to them. Dr. Pallandi opined that Mr. Hatcher was not malingering while Dr. Gray had significant doubts about Mr. Hatcher malingering for various reasons including the secondary gain motive that existed. Given my finding about the hearsay nature of this self-report and its consequence to the weight to given to the expert opinion, it is unnecessary to resolve this issue.
Evidence that Mr. Hatcher receives “telepathic” messages from his deceased grandfather does not only come from Dr. Gray’s opinion testimony and his post-homicide prison records. In an email dated April 27, 2018, from Ms. Boyle to her friend, Marybeth, Ms. Boyle writes Mr. Hatcher “talks to his dead grandfather who assures Colin there will be no repercussions from the police if he kills anyone in his family, because grandpa has already ‘worked it out with the police.’”