Despite concerns from the psychiatrist in charge, James Beau Jeffery was awarded an absolute discharge by the Ontario Review Board on May 28, 2021.

Mr. Jeffery had been under the supervision of Providence Care since 2013, when he was determined not criminally responsible for the 2011 stabbing death of his mother, Elaine Jeffery. At trial, both the defence psychiatrist and Crown psychologist testified Mr. Jeffery should not be held criminally responsible.

Crown Psychologist Dr. Derek Pallandi said during examination that Mr. Jeffery was, at the time of Elaine Jeffery’s death, a diagnosed but untreated paranoid schizophrenic in a psychotic state when he stabbed his mother.

Disturbing Insight

Mr. Jeffery’s two week trial by judge at Picton’s Superior Courthouse was a gruelling affair. Crown Attorney Jodi Whyte laid out evidence illustrating Mr. Jeffery’s attempts at evading police officers investigating his mother’s disappearance. Forensic evidence collected from the home indicated Mr. Jeffery tried to conceal his crime, using bleach to clean the kitchen where the murder had taken place.

But videotaped evidence played at trial also provided insight into Mr. Jeffery’s compromised mental state.

Whilst in custody, Mr. Jeffery provided OPP investigators with a plain view into a mind filled with paranoid and bizarre beliefs of harm, uncontrollable thoughts, and hallucinations of being under orders. Mr. Jeffery told officers he had telekinetic abilities and could battle other “fast movers” from Toronto and other far off places

Mr. Pallandi stated categorically that the 27-year-old was unfit to be tried for his actions. There has never been a case in Canadian law where both crown and defence psychiatrists deemed someone not criminally responsible for their actions and yet the case continues to judgement.

Justice Robert Scott ruled Beau Jeffery had a “major” mental illness that rendered him incapable of knowing what he did was morally wrong when he killed his mother.

Making Strides

In his ruling, Justice Scott turned Mr. Jeffery over to the custody of Providence Care in Kingston and the auspices of the Ontario Review Board. In his determination. Justice Scott said Mr. Jeffery was “an obvious danger to the community because he refuses to take his medication.”

Through a court order, Mr. Jeffery was administered medication while receiving psychiatric treatment at Providence Care. The Review Board met annually to discuss Mr. Jeffery’s progress. By the time of his annual hearing in April 2018, and consistent compliance with an injectable antipsychotic medication, the ORB was told by the Providence treatment team that Mr. Jeffery’s mental state was stable.

He made important gains with community privileges.

Mr. Jeffery moved into his own apartment across the road from Providence’s outpatient office in November 2019 and was enjoying his own living space. He continued to work closely with community team members including an Intensive Forensic Rehabilitation Therapist and an Outpatient Case Manager.

He found employment at a Kingston restaurant and was well regarded by his co-workers. Many developmental progression milestones were acknowledged and treatment boxes were checked by his psychiatric care team. But as well as he was getting along with co-workers, the team noted difficulties in Mr. Jeffery’s interpersonal relationships. This part of his treatment was still “a work in progress.”

Aftercare

“He is eager to exit the forensic system, and the question is, who will provide the aftercare?” Dr. Michael Chan wrote in his 2021 Summary of Risk. “It takes him a long time to get comfortable with caregivers and we have known him for several years now. An abrupt transition and superficial caregiving contact would not be optimal for him. It is my opinion that he still represents a significant risk to the safety of the public and we are not recommending any changes to his current disposition.”

Dr. Chan explained to the ORB that without continuing psychotherapy treatment, Mr. Jeffery would find himself at some point in a relationship conflict and then would do something drastic, such as stop working or walk away from a relationship. He would then suffer a deterioration which could “cascade into a risky situation.”

Despite Dr. Chan’s position against an absolute discharge by the ORB, the Board said in its May 28, 2021 judgement that “there is no evidence upon which the Board can conclude positively that Mr. Jeffery constitutes a significant threat to the safety of the public. He has demonstrated over the past several years an ability to cope appropriately with stress. He is apparently willing, eager, and very cooperative with any psychiatric supports that are available to him. There is little concern that he would discontinue his work in progress. The hospital would ensure that they would bridge his support until such time that appropriate supports could be arranged in the community.”

What Happened?

It’s unclear what has happened in Mr. Jeffery’s life since his absolute discharge, but one thing is obvious. He is firmly back on the radar of law enforcement. A pair of incidents at the Belleville Public Library led Mr. Jeffery to plead guilty in Belleville court. In one case, Mr. Jeffery threw a member of the public to the ground. In addition to a custodial sentence of 125 days (all but three of them served in pretrial custody), Justice John Bonn imposed a restraining order forbidding Mr. Jeffrey from being within 50 metres of the library.

At the same time, Belleville Police made the rare choice to identify him as a public safety risk.

Gavin McKenzie serves as General Counsel to the ORB and cannot speak directly to specific cases, but noted that when a person is absolutely discharged by the Board, jurisdiction over the accused ceases.

That’s unless and until Ontario’s Court of Appeal overturns the Board’s decision.

“If an accused who has been absolutely discharged experiences mental health symptoms that raise concerns about risk to public safety, that risk must be managed outside of the ORB system,” Mr. McKenzie said in an email. “This may include the civil mental health system where the Mental Health Act allows for apprehension and involuntary detention in hospital or through the criminal justice system.”