R. v. Halladay-Runions, 2026 ONSC 339

CITATION: R. v. Halladay-Runions, 2026 ONSC 339

COURT FILE NO.: CR-20-498-00AP

DATE: 20260116

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

SUMMARY CONVICTION APPEALS

(East Region)

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

Respondent

– and –

JOSHUA HALLADAY-RUNIONS

Appellant

Keith Schultz, for the Crown

Meaghan McMahon, for the appellant

HEARD: 16 January 2026, at Brockville

REASONS FOR DECISION

MEW J.

1This appeal results from the well-intentioned, but flawed, actions of counsel and the court back in May 2020, at the height of the pandemic, to resolve charges against the appellant of being unlawfully in a dwelling house, resisting a peace officer, and breach of probation.

2The appellant had been arrested on 15 April 2020. Two days earlier, at 6:30 a.m. on 13 April, a female had woken up to discover an unknown male sleeping in her bed. She screamed at the man, yelling at him to leave, and attempted to find her cell phone. The man mumbled incoherently and left. On 15 April, the same woman contacted police to report that an unknown male was knocking on her door. She was concerned this was the same man from two days earlier. When police arrived on scene, she showed police a photograph that she had been provided with by her landlord, in which she identified the man who had been sleeping in her bed on 13 April. Police recognised the male in the photo as the appellant, Mr. Halladay-Runions.

3The appellant was located later that evening. When he was advised that he was under arrest. he responded, “No, I’m not”. Mr. Halladay-Runions was again advised that he was under arrest and asked to place his hands behind his back. When officers tried to put handcuffs on him, he tensed up, pulled away from the officers, and repeated that he was not under arrest. Additional officers arrived on scene. After a brief struggle, Mr. Halladay-Runions was placed in handcuffs. He continued to struggle with police while he was searched incident to arrest. Officers noted that Mr. Halladay-Runions smelled of urine, was disoriented, and muttered incoherently.

4At the time of his arrest, the appellant was subject to two probation orders, both of which included a condition to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

5Following his arrest he was held in custody. On 22 April, the Ontario Court of Justice ordered that he undergo a 30-day in-custody assessment for both fitness and criminal responsibility. That assessment was undertaken by Dr. Anthony Adiele, who wrote a report dated 18 May 2020 detailing his opinion.

6In summary, Dr. Adiele’s opinion was that at the time of the alleged offences, the appellant was suffering from a mental disorder which was schizophreniform in nature. His tentative diagnosis was of Unspecified Schizophrenia Spectrum and Other Psychotic Disorder. He concluded that when he had gone into the woman’s house, Mr. Halladay-Runions was likely acting based on a command hallucination as well as a false belief that it was his duty to check up on strangers in the night. He had also believed that he was doing the right thing. While the appellant was likely to have appreciated the nature of what he was doing at the time (i.e. walking to a house, trying the door handle, opening the door and entering the house), it was also likely that his mental disorder had rendered him incapable of appreciating the quality of his actions or their wrongfulness (both legally and morally). Accordingly, Dr. Adiele thought it likely that Mr. Halladay-Runions could avail himself of the defence of Not Criminally Responsible (“NCR”) to the charges against him.

7On 25 May 2020, Mr. Halladay-Runions’ matter returned to the Ontario Court of Justice via a virtual appearance. Prior to his appearance, Crown counsel advised the court that the plan was to have Mr. Halladay-Runions arraigned and to have him plead “not guilty on account of being NCR”. The Crown would then read in the facts, counsel would file Dr. Adiele’s report as an exhibit, and counsel would jointly invite the court to find Mr. Halladay-Runions not criminally responsible and refer the matter to the Ontario Review Board.

8The court indicated its approval of the proposed procedure, and asked defence counsel (not counsel on this appeal) to assist her client with entering a plea “so that he doesn’t just say guilty or not guilty”.

9After joining the virtual hearing by telephone, the judge explained to the appellant the procedure that would be followed and obtained his confirmation that he would allow his counsel to enter his plea for him. Mr. Halladay-Runions was arraigned on the three counts. His counsel then entered the following plea on his behalf: “Client pleads not criminally responsible by way of mental disorder”. The court confirmed with Mr. Halladay-Runions that he was pleading “not criminally responsible on this matter”. The appellant responded, “Yes, Your Honour”.

10The facts supporting the charges were then read into the record, and Dr. Adiele’s report was filed. The trial judge then gave her decision, providing the following reasons:

I can indicate then, based on the facts that have been read in and the actus

reus which has been acknowledged, and I agree with the Crown that those

facts are quite bizarre and there’s no motive; there’s no indication that there

was any offence committed against any of the individuals that he

[indiscernible...ZOOM interference on channel is distorted] any violence

inflicted. Simply very bizarre and unusual facts. That, compared – combined

with the genetic history for mental illness, as well as the diagnoses and more

specifically, as I’ve pointed out, the schizophrenia and the crystal

methamphetamine concern, I am satisfied that although the actus reus has

been established, at the time of the offence he was suffering from a mental

disorder [indiscernible...ZOOM interference on channel is distorted] to be

exempt from criminal responsibility by virtue of Section 16(1) of the Criminal

Code. As such, under Section 672.34, I enter a verdict of not criminally

responsible on account of mental disorder.

11Mr. Halladay-Runions’ matter was referred to the Ontario Review Board for his initial disposition hearing. Since then he has been detained at the Brockville Mental Health Centre, albeit with various privileges, which have, according to the most recently released annual disposition review hearing, extended to 7-day travel passes, the opportunity to attend a residential addictions treatment facility, and the opportunity to live in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge: see Runions-Halladay (Re), 2025 21208 (ON RB).

12The appellant raises two issues on appeal. First, he entered an invalid plea that is not permitted by the Criminal Code. Second, the trial judge failed to provide reasons supporting a finding that Mr. Halladay-Runions met either branch of the not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCRMD”) test set out in s. 16 of the Criminal Code.

13The appellant asks this court to allow his appeal, to quash the NCR verdict, and to order a new trial.

14The Crown concedes that: (a) the appellant’s plea of “not criminally responsible by way of mental disorder” was not a lawful plea enumerated by the Criminal Code; and (b) the trial judge erred by failing to provide reasons supporting a positive finding on the second branch of the NCRMD test (i.e. that the appellant was either incapable of appreciating the nature or quality of his actions or knowing that they were morally wrong).

15Given the Crown’s concessions and my review of the very helpful factums provided by counsel, I agree that the appropriate disposition is to allow the appeal, and to order a new trial. I have nevertheless elected to provide some brief reasons to follow for having done so, given the unusual circumstances of this case.

16As the appellant’s factum observes, for individuals charged with offences that would otherwise attract brief jail or community sentences, the NCR verdict can bring about disproportionate consequences. The appellant’s circumstance provide a clear example of just that.

17In R. v. Ivins, 2024 ONCA 408, the Court of Appeal stated, at paras. 6 and 7:

[A trial judge’s] reasons for finding an accused person NCRMD must go beyond merely agreeing to a joint proposal. At a minimum, a trial judge is required to articulate the test under s. 16 of the Criminal Code and explain why the evidence before the court justified the NCRMD verdict: R. v. Laming, 2022 ONCA 370, 413 C.C.C. (3d) 409, at paras. 63-64; R. v. Capano, 2014 ONCA 599, 314 C.C.C. (3d) 135, at paras. 45-52. The appellant was entitled to know in more detail why he was found NCRMD.

[W]e wish to emphasize, once again, that, given the potential consequences of being found NCRMD – including detention in secure hospital settings that involve serious deprivations of liberty, and the possibility of lifelong supervision under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code – procedural fairness must be jealously guarded and strictly enforced in this context.

18A plea of “not criminally responsible by way of mental disorder” is not a valid plea. Although being found not criminally responsible is an available verdict in a criminal trial, it is neither a permitted plea under s. 606 of the Criminal Code, nor a special plea, as set out s. 607.

19In R. v. Anderson, 2021 ONCA 333, at para. 49, the Court of Appeal explained that:

This exemption from criminal responsibility on account of mental disorder does not require entry of a designated or different plea. Said in a different way, there is no special plea of “not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder”. Section 606(1) of the Criminal Code describes the pleas available to an accused who is called upon to plead. Those pleas are the general pleas of guilty or not guilty, or the special pleas authorized by Part XX.

20Section 16 of the Criminal Code provides two ways in which an accused can be found not criminally responsible by reason of a mental disorder: the accused must have been suffering from a “mental disorder” that: (a) rendered the accused incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of their act or omission; or (b) rendered the accused incapable of knowing that their act or omission was wrong.

21In the appellant’s case, the trial judge did not provide reasons supporting a finding of NCRMD under either branch of s. 16. Although she made comments that Mr. Halladay-Runions was suffering from schizophrenia and a serious crystal methamphetamine addiction, the reasons do not disclose the required analysis of the appellant’s capacity to understand what he was doing at the time of the offences, or his capacity to know that what he was doing was wrong.

22In R. v. Nahmabin, 2024 ONCA 534, at para. 10, the Court of Appeal served a reminder that even in cases where the Crown and the defence are in agreement, there must be a proper plea to the arraignment, and an explanation of why the facts accepted by the court support an NCR finding:

There can be no shortcuts in a process that could result in such serious consequences to the accused. There must be a proper plea to the arraignment on the charges. Where there is agreement on the factual underpinnings of the offences, the court must nevertheless make findings with respect to the actus reus of the offences. The court cannot simply rely on a consent to a NCRMD finding but must reference s. 16 of the Criminal Code and explain why the evidence before the court justifies the NCRMD verdict.

23The failure to provide the appellant with the appropriate procedural safeguards has resulted in a serious and regrettable miscarriage of justice that has seen the appellant deprived of his liberty for nearly six years.

24I agree with the following passage from the appellant’s factum:

While the parties and the court may have been well-meaning, the Appellant’s legal rights were completely ignored. As Justice Trotter described in the case of [R. v. Kankis, 2012 ONSC 378, at para. 39]:

I have no doubt that everyone involved in this case was interested in doing what they thought was “best” or “right” for Ms. Kankis. But, in the process, her legal rights were factored completely out of the equation and the proceedings became fundamentally unfair. This can only be rectified by having the issue properly determined at a new trial.

25For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed and a new trial ordered.

26Finally, and as a practical matter, counsel for the Crown advised the court that upon the appellant entering into a 12-month peace bond, with appropriate conditions, the charges against the appellant would be withdrawn. That disposition was approved by me. Mr. Halladay-Runions has now signed the peace bond and the charges have therefore been marked withdrawn.

27I am grateful to counsel for their efforts to right the wrong that beset the appellant and to do so in a pragmatic and collaborative way.

Mew J.

Released: 16 January 2026

CITATION: R. v. Halladay-Runions, 2026 ONSC 339

COURT FILE NO.: CR-20-498-00AP

DATE: 20260116

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

SUMMARY CONVICTION APPEALS

(East Region)