R. v. Adriatico, 2026 ONSC 4079

CITATION: R. v. Adriatico, 2026 ONSC 4079

COURT FILE NO.: CR-24-50000547-0000

DATE: 20260722

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

• and -

Victorio Adriatico

James Frost and Sandra Duffey, for the Crown

Alonzo Abbey, for Mr. Adriatico

HEARD: June 8, 9, 10 and 12 2026

M. FORESTELL J.

reasons for JUDGMENT

Overview and Issues

1Victorio Adriatico is charged with the first-degree murder of Enrique Vinluan and aggravated assault of Ana Liza Vinluan. He pleaded not guilty to the charges. Mr. Adriatico then admitted, by way of an Agreed Statement of Fact, that on October 5, 2023, he caused the death of Mr. Vinluan by repeatedly stabbing him. He also admitted that he slashed Ana Liza Vinluan in the hand and wrist with a knife when Ms. Vinluan tried to intervene in the attack on her husband.

2There are two issues in dispute in this case: (1) whether Mr. Adriatico is not criminally responsible for the offences on account of a mental disorder; and (2) whether the murder of Mr. Adriatico was planned and deliberate.

Evidence

Background of Mr. Adriatico

3Mr. Adriatico is an 80-year-old man with no prior criminal record. Mr. Adriatico was 77 years old at the time of the offences.

4Mr. Adriatico was born in the Philippines and had eight siblings. He completed high school in the Philippines and then completed a vocational course for radio technicians. He came to Canada at age 61 after being sponsored by his son. After coming to Canada, he worked in a supermarket as a janitor and in a factory until he retired at age 70. Mr. Adriatico was raised as a Catholic and religion was an important part of his life.

5Mr. Adriatico has never had a substance use problem. Before his arrest on these charges, he had never been diagnosed with any mental illness.

6Mr. Adriatico and his wife had been married for at least 50 years by the time of the offences. He reported to Dr. Iosif, that he had been married for almost 60 years but also said that they married when he was 26 years old. To Dr. Wang, he reported that he could not remember when he married his wife but estimated that he was around 26 years old. Mr. Adriatico and his wife have four children, ranging in age from 46 to 52. Mr. Adriatico erroneously told Dr. Wang that his youngest child was in their 30’s.

Evidence of the Events of October 5, 2023

7The victim, Mr. Vinluan, was the manager of the apartment building where Mr. Adriatico lived with his wife. Mr. Vinluan lived in the building with his wife, who was the victim of the aggravated assault in this case, and with their 17-year-old son. The Vinluan family had lived in the building for about one year before these offences.

8On October 5, 2023, Mr. Adriatico and his wife returned to the building at around 11:08 a.m., after having spent the night at their son’s house and shopping for groceries. When they returned, Mr. Vinluan was in the lobby of the building. Mr. Vinluan held open the door for Mr. Adriatico and his wife. Mr. Adriatico initially turned away from Mr. Vinluan and went to check for mail. The couple then approached the doorway. Mr. Adriatico again turned away from Mr. Vinluan but then turned back, went through the door, drew a knife and began stabbing Mr. Vinluan. Mr. Vinluan ran from Mr. Adriatico down a hallway. Mr. Adriatico pursued him. Mr. Vinluan then ran back through the lobby towards his unit, holding his left arm and leaving a trail of blood. Mr. Adriatico pursued Mr. Vinluan, following the blood trail.

9Mr. Adriatico continued his attack on Mr. Vinluan in Mr. Vinluan’s home. Ana Liza Vinluan, Mr. Vinluan’s wife, tried to stop Mr. Adriatico by striking him with a portable vacuum. Mr. Adriatico was saying, “this guy is bad” and “he’s laughing at me”. He slashed Ms. Vinluan’s arm with the knife, causing a significant wound that later required surgical intervention and caused nerve damage.

10After Ms. Vinluan was wounded, Mr. Vinluan’s son, Dan Vinluan, intervened to stop the attack. Mr. Adriatico said to him, “you are not my enemy, this guy is my enemy”. Dan Vinluan punched Mr. Adriatico several times. Mr. Vinluan was then able to take the knife from Mr. Adriatico. He gave the knife to his son, Dan, who placed it out of the reach of Mr. Adriatico. Mr. Adriatico produced a second knife and continued his attack on Mr. Vinluan. Dan Vinluan again intervened, and was able to put Mr. Adriatico in a chokehold. His father shouted, “Don’t kill him.” Dan Vinluan moved Mr. Adriatico away from his father and released him. Mr. Adriatico stopped his attack at this point. Mr. Vinluan had by this time stopped moving.

11Following the attack, Mr. Adriatico sat in a chair in the living room of the Vinluan apartment. He repeatedly said, “he’s a bad guy, he’s laughing at me” and “he was cheating on, with my wife, my wife is old already”. Mr. Adriatico tried to leave the apartment unit before police arrived, but Dan Vinluan stopped him, threatening to hurt him if he tried to leave.

12At 11:23:30 a.m., police arrived and entered the unit. Mr. Adriatico was seated, with the knife still in his hand. The officer commanded Mr. Adriatico to drop the knife and he did so. He was placed under arrest.

13At the police station on October 6, 2023, Mr. Adriatico spoke to the police with the assistance of a police officer who spoke Tagalog. During the interview, Mr. Adriatico told the detective that he believed that his wife was having an affair with Mr. Vinluan. It is agreed that this belief was false.

14Mr. Adriatico, in the interview, said that he told his wife to stop but she did not listen. He told police that Mr. Vinluan was insulting him, taunting him and laughing at him. He said, “it’s too much. I am unable to stop…the mockery is too much”. He said that both he and Mr. Vinluan came from the Philippines. He said, “he is a traitor, hence I sentenced him.”

15When asked if he had planned the attack on Mr. Vinluan, Mr. Adriatico said, “it was sudden…because he humiliates me so much”.

16When asked why he carried knives, Mr. Adriatico said that he carried them for self-defence. Det. Grieve asked from whom he needed protection and Mr. Adriatico said, “from the likes of that person”. He confirmed that he had begun carrying knives because of his beliefs about Mr. Vinluan. He made sheaths out of duct tape in which to carry the knives. He had been carrying the knives for about six months and he did not tell his wife and son.

17When asked a second time if he planned to stab Mr. Vinluan, Mr. Adriatico said, “if he does it again”. Det. Grieve then reminded Mr. Adriatico that Mr. Vinluan was dead and that he was under arrest for first-degree murder. Mr. Adriatico said, “he has done me wrong, that is why he has to pay. I know I have to pay for what I did. If I have to go to jail.” Det Grieve asked, “Did you want to kill him?” and Mr. Adriatico replied, “My anger was too much.” Later he said, “I could not stop myself. I had no other choice.”

18Det. Grieve asked Mr. Adriatico a third time if he had planned to kill Mr. Vinluan. Mr. Adriatico said, “No. What was on my mind is, if he does not stop, I will retaliate.” He also said that he began thinking about ‘sentencing’ Mr. Vinluan about three months earlier.

Psychiatric Evidence

19Mr. Adriatico was assessed by two forensic psychiatrists, Dr. Alina Iosif and Dr. Andrew Wang. Both were qualified to give expert opinion evidence in the area of forensic psychiatry, including the assessment of criminal responsibility.

20Both psychiatrists agreed that Mr. Adriatico, at the time of the offences, suffered from a major mental illness, namely Delusional Disorder. Delusional Disorder is a psychotic disorder characterized by one or more delusions with a duration of at least one month. Delusions are fixed false beliefs. Apart from the delusion or delusions, functioning is not markedly impaired, and behaviour is not obviously bizarre.

21Both psychiatrists agreed that Mr. Adriatico’s delusional belief was that Mr. Vinluan and Mr. Adriatico’s wife were having an affair. Mr. Adriatico also believed that Mr. Vinluan was laughing at him, mocking him, taunting him, and following him. Dr. Iosif described the delusional disorder as “mixed type” because it involved a jealous delusion and persecutory delusion. Dr. Wang described the delusion as being the “jealous type” because he viewed the beliefs of Mr. Adriatico — that Mr. Vinluan was laughing at him, taunting him and mocking him — as related to the jealous delusion.

22Both Dr. Iosif and Dr. Wang raised concerns that Mr. Adriatico might be experiencing some degree of cognitive impairment. The reasons for their concern were that Mr. Adriatico’s personality was reported to have changed about one year before the offence; he forgot the ages of his children in the interview with Dr. Wang; and he reported to Dr. Iosif that before the offence, he was living with his son and his son’s wife and children, and this was not correct — he lived with his wife before the offence. Neither psychiatrist conducted the cognitive testing that would be necessary to determine whether Mr. Adriatico was cognitively impaired. Many of the tests are in English only and all require attendance in person. As Dr. Iosif explained, the delusions experienced by Mr. Adriatico could be caused by a neurocognitive disorder or by a Delusional Disorder. The symptoms remain the same regardless of the cause, and it is the symptoms that are relevant to the issue of criminal responsibility.

23Mr. Adriatico’s account of his attack on Mr. Vinluan and of his motivation and thought process was largely consistent in his interviews with both Dr. Iosif and Dr. Wang. It was also largely consistent with his account to the police the day after the offences.

24Dr. Iosif interviewed Mr. Adriatico by videoconference twice, on December 4th and 11th, 2024. Mr. Adriatico described his belief that his wife was having sexual relations with the victim, Mr. Vinluan. He said that Mr. Vinluan was laughing at him and smiling “an alligator smile”. Mr. Adriatico said that he had a “bad feeling” and lost interest in his own life. He just wanted to monitor his wife. He followed his wife when she went out and he stopped going to places he used to frequent because he stayed home to watch his wife.

25In the first interview, when Dr. Iosif asked Mr. Adriatico why he decided to stab the victim, he said the victim was “pissing me off because when we arrive, he would open the door and would give an alligator smile and wherever we go he would follow”.

26In the December 11, 2024 interview, Mr. Adriatico provided more detail about the events leading up to the stabbing and about his thoughts and motivation. Mr. Adriatico and his wife spent the night at their son’s house. In the morning, they went to the supermarket. Mr. Adriatico was carrying a knife. His wife was unaware that he had the knife. When asked why he carried a knife, he told Dr. Iosif “for self-defence for when we return to the apartment, my opponent is there. I’m not scared of the superintendent, it’s just a matter of being always prepared.”

27When they entered the building and Mr. Vinluan held the door, Mr. Adriatico reported that he felt annoyed and he felt the victim held the door deliberately to annoy him. Mr. Adriatico described stabbing Mr. Vinluan. He said Mr. Vinluan ran away and then turned back to run towards Mr. Adriatico. Mr. Adriatico believed that Mr. Vinluan was turning to fight him, and so he stabbed Mr. Vinluan again. Mr. Vinluan then ran to his apartment and Mr. Adriatico followed. Mr. Adriatico described following the blood trail to find Mr. Vinluan. Mr. Adriatico said, “I wanted to stab him again because of my anger but his son punched me.”

28Mr. Adriatico told Dr. Iosif that he expected to be arrested and to go to jail.

29Dr. Iosif asked Mr. Adriatico if he thought that a man who covets another man’s wife should die. Mr. Adriatico replied, “I didn’t think that way before, only with this man’s behaviour…it’s not right. He should go because I wouldn’t do that to him or his wife...my wife is old, he’s morally wrong and he deserves to die.”

30Dr. Iosif asked if he thought about killing his wife. Mr. Adriatico said, “actually when I stabbed the victim I was also thinking of stabbing my wife but when I looked at my wife, it came to me that I don’t want my kids to lose their mother.”

31Dr. Iosif asked Mr. Adriatico if the victim had ever threatened or intimidated him. Mr. Adriatico described the victim once jumping close to him in an effort to intimidate him.

32When asked why he chose to stab the victim when he did, Mr. Adriatico said the opportunity presented itself when the victim had no way to fight back.

33Mr. Adriatico did not remember wounding Ms. Vinluan.

34Dr. Iosif asked Mr. Adriatico why he carried two knives, and he said that was “just in case there are two people I am fighting… what if [the victim] and his son are there?”

35When interviewed by Dr. Iosif, Mr. Adriatico’s wife and son described Mr. Adriatico’s personality as changing in the one to two years before the offences in that he became suspicious and controlling. Mr. Adriatico had installed a lock on the front door of the apartment that locked by key from the inside. He kept the key so that his wife could not leave the apartment without him. He repeatedly accused his wife of infidelity.

36Ms. Adriatico described her husband occasionally becoming confused about where he was. Also, he seemed unable to use tools that were previously familiar to him; he would forget names; and he would forget to turn off the stove. His mood fluctuated quickly. He would seem fine and suddenly become angry and accuse his wife of having an affair.

37Mr. Adriatico’s son said that he had to intervene about twice a week when his father became angry and accused his wife of having an affair.

38Since his incarceration, Mr. Adriatico has occasionally told his son to be careful because people were trying to find him. Prior to the offences, Mr. Adriatico installed a lock on the side gate at his son’s house.

39Dr. Iosif asked Mr. Adriatico if he would have done the same thing if the police and his son were present and he said that he probably would not have done it. He said, “If they were there, I would have respected the police.”

40In his interview with Dr. Wang, Mr. Adriatico repeated his belief that his wife and Mr. Vinluan had been having an affair. He repeated that he thought Mr. Vinluan was laughing at him and mocking him. He said that he considered killing his wife, but he still cared for her. He said he also considered killing himself to avoid going to jail but lacked the courage.

41Mr. Adriatico said that he would not have attacked Mr. Vinluan without the knives because Mr. Vinluan was younger and stronger.

42Mr. Adriatico said that he stabbed Mr. Vinluan because “it” became too much for him and he could not handle it anymore. He said that the incident happened suddenly. He confirmed that he was carrying two knives and had been carrying them for about six months. With respect to the victim, Mr. Adriatico told Dr. Wang, “He has done me wrong. That’s why he has to pay.” He also said, “I could not stop it. I had no other choice.” Mr. Adriatico told Dr. Wang that he had been thinking about retaliating against Mr. Vinluan for about three months.

43Mr. Adriatico acknowledged that killing was bad and “a sin”. However, he continued to believe that he had done the right thing in killing Mr. Vinluan.

44He told Dr. Wang that he would have done the same thing if someone else was present, but he would not have stabbed the victim if the police had been present out of respect for the police.

45In her report, Dr. Iosif stated that in her opinion, Mr. Adriatico appeared incapable of rationally evaluating his conduct at the time of the attack. He lacked the capacity to rationally decide whether his actions were right or wrong and to make a rational choice about whether to do act or not. In her testimony she elaborated, saying that Mr. Adriatico’s repeated interactions with Mr. Vinluan in the context of his delusional beliefs caused him to reach a breaking point.

46Dr. Iosif explained that for months, Mr. Adriatico had been misinterpreting Mr. Vinluan’s actions, gestures and expressions as being taunting and humiliating. His anger over these perceived provocations had no outlet. He could not be reoriented because the source of his anger was not reality based. He reacted as a result of the intense level of emotion generated from his delusions which had reached a pinnacle. His capacity for rational thought was lost at that moment, when he exploded with anger and stabbed Mr. Vinluan. He lost the capacity to assess his conduct against societal standards.

47Dr. Iosif agreed, under cross-examination, that Mr. Adriatico had a plan to retaliate against Mr. Vinluan before October 5, 2023, and was carrying knives for that reason. She testified that in a traditional instance of intense emotion caused by provocation, the duration of the state of being deprived of the capacity to consider the wrongness of one’s actions would be very brief, usually a matter of seconds. She agreed that it would be unusual to be in such a state for as long as seven minutes, which was the duration of the attack by Mr. Adriatico.

48Dr. Iosif agreed that during the attack, Mr. Adriatico was able to decide not to hurt Mr. Vinluan’s son because Mr. Vinluan’s son had done nothing wrong and this was a logical thought process. In deciding not to hurt Mr. Vinluan’s son, Mr. Adriatico showed a capacity to measure the moral wrongfulness of hurting the son. Dr. Iosif’s opinion was that Mr. Adriatico lacked the capacity to evaluate the moral wrongfulness of his actions with respect only to Mr. Vinluan. His delusions were focused on Mr. Vinluan, but he was able to think about others in a rational way. Once he lost control as a result of the perceived provocation, Mr. Adriatico could not stop.

49Mr. Adriatico, in the opinion of Dr. Iosif, retained a general understanding of why things are wrongful, but he was not capable of applying that understanding to his own circumstances at the time of his interaction with Mr. Vinluan.

50Dr. Wang also opined that Mr. Adriatico had a general understanding of the wrongfulness of harming another person, but it appeared that he may not have been able to apply that understanding in this specific instance in a rational manner. His mental disorder likely robbed him of his rational perception and the ability to engage in rational choice about whether his acts were right or wrong. Dr. Wang testified that he found the case very challenging. He pointed to the different statements of Mr. Adriatico with respect to his reason for arming himself (self-defence or revenge) and with respect to the trigger for the attack (sudden and overwhelming emotion or seeing an opportunity for revenge).

51In his examination-in-chief, Dr. Wang described his conclusion about Mr. Adriatico’s criminal responsibility as “50-50”. In cross-examination he adopted the contents of a communication with the Crown before the trial in which he wrote:

In my conclusion [referring to his written report] I opt to say may have a defence rather than likely has a defence because I thought that the conclusion was very much hovering around the 50 -50 mark. While I can’t give a specific probability my opinion is that it is still above the 50 percent probability that he does have a defence of NCR available to him.

Legal Principles- Criminal Responsibility

52To be found not criminally responsible, Mr. Adriatico must establish on a balance of probabilities that, at the time of the unlawful act, he had a mental disorder and that the mental disorder rendered him incapable either of appreciating the nature and quality of the conduct in question, or of knowing that the conduct was wrong (Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46, s. 16).

53There is no question that Mr. Adriatico had a mental disorder at the time that he killed Mr. Vinluan and wounded Ms. Vinluan. Both Dr. Iosif and Dr. Wang testified that Mr. Adriatico has a Delusional Disorder. This is a major mental illness. That illness was present at the time of the offences. The two experts differed only on the label to be applied to the type of Delusional Disorder.

54Mr. Adriatico does not argue that his mental illness made him incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of his acts. The evidence supports an inference that he was aware of the physical character and physical consequences of his actions: he knew that he was stabbing Mr. Vinluan and that doing so was likely to cause Mr. Vinluan serious harm or death.

55It is Mr. Adriatico’s capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his acts that is in issue in this case.

56The concept of ‘wrongfulness’ includes legal and moral wrongfulness. In most cases the legal standard and moral standard will be the same. However, they do not always coincide. (See: R. v. Schwartz, , [1977] 1 S.C.R. 673 per Dickson J. in dissent; R. v. Chaulk, , [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1303, at para. 101)

57Mr. Adriatico was clearly capable of appreciating the legal wrongfulness of his actions. He expected to be arrested and jailed for his conduct. He knew it was legally wrong.

58Mr. Adriatico submits that his mental illness made him incapable of appreciating the moral wrongfulness of his actions.

59Incapacity to know that an act is morally wrong has been held to mean an incapacity to understand that the act is wrong according to the ordinary moral standards of reasonable members of society. (See: Chaulk, at para. 101.)

60The accused person must not only appreciate in a general way the wrongfulness of an act according to the standards of society, but they must be capable of applying that knowledge to their own circumstances. (See: R. v. Oommen, , [1994] 2 S.C.R. 507.)

61The Court in Oommen, explained, at para 26:

The crux of the inquiry is whether the accused lacks the capacity to rationally decide whether the act is right or wrong and hence to make a rational choice about whether to do it or not. The inability to make a rational choice may result from a variety of mental disfunctions; … these include at a minimum the states to which the psychiatrists testified in this case — delusions which make the accused perceive an act which is wrong as right or justifiable, and a disordered condition of the mind which deprives the accused of the ability to rationally evaluate what he is doing.

62For an accused person to be found not criminally responsible, it is not enough to show that the delusional illness motivated the accused to commit the acts. In R. v. Ratti, , [1991] 1 S.C.R. 68 (S.C.C.), at p. 113, the Supreme Court, citing its earlier decision in R. v. Chaulk, , [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1303 (S.C.C.), explained that “It is not sufficient to decide that the appellant's act was a result of his delusion. Even if the act was motivated by the delusion, the appellant will be convicted if he was capable of knowing, in spite of such delusion, that the act in the particular circumstances would have been morally condemned by reasonable members of society.”

63In Oommen, McLachlin J. (as she then was) carefully distinguished between an incapacity to appreciate wrongfulness and a failure to exercise the will to refrain from acting. The inability to control an impulse to act, that is driven by a mental disorder does not necessarily exempt a person from criminal responsibility. It may, however, be “part of the mental mix which prevents a person from rationally evaluating the wrongfulness of his act” (Oommen, at para. 31).

64In the dissenting reasons in R. v. Bharwani, 2025 SCC 26, at para. 220, Karakatsanis J. and Martin J. wrote that “…when an accused meets the high burden of proving that their delusions went beyond motivation and made them feel compelled or forced to do an act, it follows that they were deprived of their ability to bring their ‘mind to bear on what [they are] doing’. That accused’s background knowledge of moral wrongfulness is an insufficient basis for criminal liability”.

65In other words, a compulsion to act that deprives an accused of the ability to rationally evaluate the wrongfulness of the action is required to entitle an accused person to an NCR defence. Delusional motivation will not suffice.

66Both Crown and defence called expert opinion evidence in this case. Expert opinion evidence from forensic psychiatrists generally plays a central role in the determination of criminal responsibility. In R. v. Worrie, 2022 ONCA 471 at para. 102, Pepall J.A. summarized the principles to be applied to the assessment of expert opinion evidence in the context of a defence of NCR. The probative value is assessed in the same manner as any other testimony. I am not bound by the expert opinions, but I must have a rational foundation to reject the opinion. It may be unreasonable to reject the expert evidence if it is uncontradicted and not seriously challenged. However, there may be a rational basis to reject expert opinion evidence where there is a flaw in the reasoning, a frailty in the foundation for the opinion or a conflict in the inferences to be drawn from the other evidence.

Application of the Principles

67It is clear from the evidence that Mr. Adriatico had a mental disorder at the time of the offences. It is also apparent, that Mr. Adriatico was motivated to kill Mr. Vinluan because of that mental disorder. As discussed above, delusion-based motivation is not sufficient to support a defence of not criminally responsible but delusion-based compulsion may support an NCR finding if the compulsion deprived the accused of the capacity to assess the wrongfulness of the conduct.

68I agree with both psychiatrists who assessed Mr. Adriatico, that this is a difficult and complex case. The specific delusion of Mr. Adriatico is not a bizarre delusion. The belief of Mr. Adriatico is not one that would raise a specific legal defence if it were true. However, the specific delusional belief of Mr. Adriatico is not required to amount to a defence in law. (Oommen, at para. 520.)

69I find that Mr. Adriatico understood that attacking and killing a person would be seen by reasonable members of society to be wrong. He was a religious man. He understood that killing was illegal. He stated in his interviews that he would not likely have attacked the victim if a police officer were present. I find that Mr. Adriatico understood, in a general way, that attacking a person with a knife was wrong. His delusions did not impact on his overall prosocial value system.

70However, I find that Mr. Adriatico, at the time of the attack on Mr. Vinluan, and the incidental wounding of Ms. Vinluan, was unable to apply his understanding of the general wrongfulness of harming another person to his circumstances.

71In reaching this conclusion, I have carefully considered the report and testimony of Dr. Iosif. I accept her opinion. Dr. Iosif was careful and thoughtful in her testimony. She was challenged on her conclusion that Mr. Adriatico, at the time of the attack, could not exercise rational choice. It was pointed out that Mr. Adriatico was able to refrain from killing his wife. Mr. Adriatico was similarly able to decide that he should not hurt Mr. Vinluan’s son because Mr. Vinluan’s son had not wronged him. Dr. Iosif conceded that this showed some ability to assess the moral wrongfulness of his actions at the time of the offences. Dr. Iosif’s opinion was that Mr. Adriatico was incapable of applying his general understanding of moral wrongfulness specifically to Mr. Vinluan. Mr. Adriatico’s obsession and preoccupation with the perceived taunting by Mr. Vinluan overwhelmed his ability to rationally think about the wrongfulness of killing Mr. Vinluan.

72Dr. Wang’s opinion, also supports the conclusion that Mr Adriatico, at the time of the offences, was incapable of applying his general understanding of the wrongfulness of killing a person to his specific circumstances in a rational manner. I find no rational basis to reject the opinions of the two expert psychiatrists in this case.

73I accept the opinions of Dr. Wang and of Dr. Iosif, that Mr. Adriatico’s delusional disorder likely robbed him of the ability to engage in rational choice with respect to the victim. Mr. Adriatico’s ability to assess the wrongfulness of hurting Mr. Vinluan’s son or the consequences of killing his wife does not change my conclusion. Mr. Adriatico’s delusion was focused on Mr. Vinluan. Mr. Adriatico’s wife was part of the delusion but it was only Mr. Vinluan who Mr. Adriatico believed was mocking and taunting him.

74Considering all of the evidence, I am satisfied that Mr. Adriatico has met his onus and has proven on a balance of probabilities that he was not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. I therefore find him to be not criminally responsible on both counts.

Legal Principles- Planning and Deliberation

75While it makes no difference to the NCR verdict in this case, I will address the issue of whether Mr. Adriatico’s killing of Mr. Vinluan was a planned and deliberate, first-degree murder.

76Planning and deliberation are separate, and both must be proven by the Crown beyond a reasonable doubt. Both must precede the commencement of the murder.

77A ‘plan’ must be previously formulated by the accused person. A plan is something that has been carefully thought out and the nature and consequences of the implementation have been considered and weighed. The plan may be very simple. ‘A ‘plan’ may be conditional on certain circumstances existing before the plan is implemented (R. v. Morin, 2021 ONCA 307).

78‘Deliberate’ means more than intentional. It means carefully thought out, not hasty or rash. The accused person must have taken the time to weigh the costs and benefits of the act (R. v. Jacquard, , [1997] 1 S.C.R. 314; R. v. Reynolds (1978), , 22 O.R. (2d) 353; R. v. Ally, 2022 ONCA 558).

79Persons with mental illnesses, even mental illnesses that support a verdict of not criminally responsible, may be capable of planning and deliberating. Mental illness can however in some circumstances raise a doubt on the elements of planning and deliberation.

Application of the Principles

80As I have already outlined, Mr. Adriatico began carrying knives months before the killing. He thought about killing Mr. Vinluan. He told the psychiatrists that he took the opportunity to do so on the day of the killing. Mr. Adriatico pursued Mr. Vinluan after the initial attack and wounding. This evidence is supportive of the inference that the attack was the implementation of a plan.

81However, the evidence also discloses that Mr. Adriatico was overwhelmed by emotion in the moments before he attacked Mr. Vinluan. He said that he did it suddenly, because of his anger. Mr. Adriatico’s Delusional Disorder robbed him of the capacity to exercise rational choice at the time of the killing. Therefore, although he had engaged in a degree of planning and deliberation prior to the killing, considering all of the evidence, I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that at the time of the offence, he was implementing a plan nor that his actions were deliberate.

Conclusion

82I therefore find Mr. Adriatico not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder of the second-degree murder of Enrique Vinluan and the aggravated assault of Ana Liz Vinluan.

Disposition

83Mr. Adriatico will be remanded to the Ontario Review Board for an initial disposition hearing pursuant to s.672.47, no later than 45 days from today.

84I further order that an assessment be conducted under s.672.11(d) to determine the appropriate disposition to be made and that the report be provided directly to the Ontario Review Board.

85The Ontario Review Board will hold a hearing and make a disposition with respect to Mr. Adriatico. The Ontario Review Board is a specialized tribunal, chaired by a retired judge of this court. Its members include judges, lawyers, psychiatrists, psychologists, and members of the public.

86The hearings of the Ontario Review Board are open to the public. The victims will have an opportunity to present Victim Impact Statements at the Ontario Review Board hearing.

87The disposition of the Ontario Review Board will be made after hearing evidence including evidence related to the risk posed by Mr. Adriatico. The Board must take into account, as its paramount consideration, the safety of the public. It must also consider the mental condition of the accused, the reintegration of the accused into society and the other needs of the accused. It is the Ontario Review Board that will determine the hospital in which Mr. Adriatico will be detained and what privileges, if any, he will have. Pursuant to the Criminal Code, s. 672.54, Mr. Adriatico cannot be released unconditionally unless the Board concludes that he is no longer a significant threat to the safety of the public.

M. Forestell J.