Background
Peter Scott Knighton has been subject to the Ontario Review Board’s jurisdiction since 1987 under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code. As of 2021, the Board’s disposition orders permitted him to live in supervised community settings rather than institutional care. However, despite ongoing efforts by St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton, no suitable community housing placement has been found due to his specific support needs.
The Ontario Review Board, in October 2025, agreed to expand the geographic scope for potential placements from the St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton catchment area to all of Southern Ontario. However, it rejected Knighton’s request for an independent housing assessment, finding such an order premature and expressing doubt about its jurisdiction to grant it.
Knighton appealed, arguing the Board erred in declining the assessment request.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Board’s decision to deny the independent assessment. The court agreed that the request was premature given that the Board had just materially expanded the geographic scope of permissible placements, and the hospital’s own efforts were ongoing. The Board had reasoned that ordering an assessment before those expanded efforts could bear fruit was unwarranted.
However, the appellate court provided important guidance for the Board’s next steps. If housing has not been secured by the appellant’s next review hearing on October 6, 2026, the Court held that the Board must engage its “inquisitorial mandate” and require further evidence—whether expert or otherwise—to address the persistent obstacles to finding community housing. This leaves open the possibility that an independent assessment or similar intervention may be appropriate if community placement efforts remain unsuccessful.
Key Takeaways
- The Ontario Review Board may reject requests for independent assessments as premature when it has just taken substantial steps (such as expanding geographic scope) that have not yet been exhausted.
- An appellate court will defer to a review board’s interim disposition decisions, but courts retain authority to redirect the board’s approach if deadlines approach without results.
- The Board’s “inquisitorial mandate” requires it to proactively gather evidence and reassess its own orders when circumstances suggest prior measures have failed to achieve safe community placement.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the Ontario Review Board’s procedural discretion in managing long-term jurisdictional cases involving individuals requiring community-based care. It establishes that while the Board need not immediately commission independent assessments, it cannot indefinitely defer difficult housing problems; the court’s supervision ensures eventual accountability if practical obstacles persist unchecked.
For individuals under the Board’s jurisdiction and their counsel, the decision signals that appellate relief for assessment orders is unlikely until administrative remedies (such as expanded scope) have demonstrably failed. However, it also reinforces that the Board itself has an affirmative obligation to reassess and innovate if standard placement efforts do not succeed within a reasonable timeframe.