Thursday, July 30, 2026

The committee met at 0902 in room 151.

Official source

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon)

Good morning, everyone. It’s a beautiful day out there, and we will get you out there as fast as we can, but welcome to our wonderful, friendliest—as we say, the friendliest committee here as Queen’s Park, the Standing Committee on Government Agencies. We’ll now come to order. As always, all comments by members and witnesses should go through the Chair.

Official source

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon)

We’ll start with the adoption of subcommittee reports. We have a subcommittee report dated Thursday, July 23, 2026. Can I please have a motion? MPP Smith.

Official source

Ms. Laura Smith

I move adoption of the subcommittee report on intended appointments dated Thursday, July 23, 2026, on the order-in-council certificate dated July 17, 2026.

Official source

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon)

Any discussion? MPP Gates.

Official source

MPP Wayne Gates

I guess it’s a little bit from last week, because I raised it last week, about us only having five people, and 12 people turned down coming to the committee. This week again we only have five people, although one is applying for two jobs. But when I look at this number of certificates, we had 17 certificates, the last time we sat, which was two or three weeks ago. Now we’ve had 31 opportunities for certificates, and we end up having only, really, five out of that 31 coming to this committee. When I dug in deeper, I noticed that 10 of those 31 are PC donors that gave $19,200—in that area. So I’m just wondering—maybe it would be a good idea to explain how the process works for people still turning us down to come to this committee. Did people say they’re not available? Out of the 31, I would think we could get six people and not have to interview the same person twice. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Maybe somebody could explain the process. I think it would work out well for me.

Official source

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon)

If you notice—and I think this is at the back, too—the list of selection choices by all of you here—Ms. Ashton, who is going to present to us twice today, was selected twice.

Official source

MPP Wayne Gates

Selected twice by—

Official source

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon)

It’s the third party.

Official source

MPP Wayne Gates

So the third party selected her to come twice?

Official source

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon)

Yes, because she’s applying for two different committees.

Official source

MPP Wayne Gates

No, I understand that. I guess what I’m trying to get to is that we had 31 people who we could have drawn from, and we end up interviewing—even though we’re interviewing the same person twice—we end up with five out of the 31. The reason why I’m asking this is because it always seems to happen when we’re not sitting that a lot of the certificates—no disrespect to my colleagues—are PC donors who are donating a fair amount of money to the PC Party, and we don’t get a chance to ask any questions to them. I just think that, if the committee is going to function properly and we have only six opportunities out of 31, we should interview six people. That’s my thing, because the individual that was chosen by the third party—and I’ll have to have that discussion with them—is for a tribunal. They are different, but it’s basically very similar jobs, I guess I’ll say to be fair to it—very similar jobs. I just think that, if we’re only getting so many opportunities here, and out of 31, we end up with five again, I have a problem with that. I want the committee to function properly. I want to have the opportunity to interview people and do my job. That’s what it’s about. I appreciate the time.

Official source

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon)

Thank you very much. Are the members ready to vote? MPP Smyth.

Official source

MPP Stephanie Smyth

I just wanted to add to what my colleague was saying that we asked for seven of the intended appointees to attend. You see the number that we have. But in particular, I’m pretty disturbed by the fact that one who we asked to appear before this committee, Blair McCreadie, being appointed to the LCBO—given his history as the former president of the Ontario PC Party, his long record of donations to the party and its candidates, and the fact that he received a King’s Counsel designation after this government revived the patronage practice, it’s entirely reasonable that the committee members should have a chance to ask him questions. Only with this government do you get a job interview, you’re asked to attend the interview, you refuse to attend the interview, but you still get the job. That is unacceptable.

Official source

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon)

Thank you very much. Are the members ready to vote? All those in favour? Opposed? That carries.

Official source

Review of intended appointment, selected by government party: Natasha Pappin, intended appointee as member, Ontario Review Board.

Official source

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon)

We will now go on to our review of the intended appointees. We have some who are in person and then some who are online. We have two in person and four online. We have Natasha Pappin, our first intended appointee, who is nominated as a member of the Ontario Review Board. She will be appearing virtually, as I mentioned. Welcome, Natasha. We’re happy to have you here.

Official source

Ms. Natasha Pappin

Thank you for having me.

Official source

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon)

Thank you for your willingness to serve on a board to help Ontario be a better province than it is. You have time to share your story and your background with us, and then each party will ask you questions. They have 10 minutes each. The amount of time you take to do your presentation will be deducted from the government side, and they are fine with that, so don’t worry. The floor is yours. Welcome.

Official source

Ms. Natasha Pappin

Thank you so much for having me. I do appreciate the opportunity to appear virtually, as I am appearing from Ottawa. I am very much interested in a position with the Ontario Review Board, and so I’m happy to discuss that further with you this morning. Originally, I’m from the Maritimes. I attended university and I completed my undergraduate degree at the University of New Brunswick. I majored in psychology and sociology there. I then moved to Ontario and completed my law degree here in Ottawa at the University of Ottawa. I was called to the bar in Ontario in 2008. Upon completing my articles, it was kind of a natural gravitation for me to begin practising family law. I’ve always been interested in litigation, and I was living and working in a small community that had a strong need for family lawyers. As a result of that, I was very quickly thrown in, and I gained significant litigation, negotiation and general, overall practice experience. Early in my career, I was recruited to join the local duty counsel roster. This is implemented by Legal Aid Ontario. As duty counsel, I was appearing in both Family Court and in criminal court on a regular basis. I would assist unrepresented individuals. In Family Court, it’s usually at the initial stages of the file; in criminal court, it’s usually at the bail stage, and then again at the plea and sentencing stage if a party remains unrepresented and does not proceed to trial. Common to both roles is the need to be able to quickly analyze the file, to know the law, to apply the law to the facts, to follow the court process and to advocate for the unrepresented individual. I later moved on to adding in some per diem crown attorney work. Doing this, I was prosecuting offences under the Highway Traffic Act and I was acting for the crown at bail court and at sentencing hearings. This gave me an opportunity to see a criminal file from the opposite side, and at that point I was pursuing the interests of the public. As my career progressed, my family practice expanded to the point where I was practising family law exclusively. My files now range from less-complex matters that can be resolved through negotiation, sometimes mediation, to higher-conflict files that require the oversight of the court. More recently, I’ve joined the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, so I now also represent children in family law cases, which is a very different perspective and one that I think has certainly improved how I practise family law, from the perspective of the parent. My experience has been broad, and it has given me, often, the opportunity to understand both sides of a file. It has highlighted for me the need to be able to consider and to balance the interests of all parties involved in a case. I have a strong respect for the court and for the legal system, and a commitment towards fostering a respectful and inclusive environment that recognizes the rights of all parties under the law. I think my experience is such that it would be useful with the position that I’m applying for on the Ontario Review Board. I have extensive experience with legal writing; that’s the bulk of the family law practice: It’s writing and preparing documents and briefs and factums. That really brings the need to know the law, apply the law to the facts and be able to succinctly write that. I’m happy to answer any questions that you might have.

Official source

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon)

Thank you very much for that. We will go to the government side: six minutes, 10 seconds, MPP Smith.

Official source

Ms. Laura Smith

I want to thank you for coming in today, albeit from Ottawa. We appreciate the effort. You talked a lot about your experience—extensive experience—both public and private, working with the OCL. I actually have quite a bit of experience in that area, and I understand the work that you did. Could you talk about how these qualifications would lead to a better and more responsive adjudicator for this role?

Official source

Ms. Natasha Pappin

I think in all roles that I have undertaken, the need to be a compassionate individual is important, so I bring that to the table. I’m happy to be a strong advocate, but I also am able to recognize that the people that I’m assisting are people, and they are often going through the hardest stages of their lives. That requires you to treat that very delicately, while also being able to manage a file effectively and to recognize that my role is to be their lawyer—not necessarily to blindly follow their instructions, but to guide them, and to guide them in the law and to guide them on likely outcomes in their case and to be able to effectively advocate for the best outcome that they can potentially achieve.

Official source

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon)

MPP Sarrazin.

Official source

Mr. Stéphane Sarrazin

Thank you for the presentation. I guess greetings from eastern Ontario—even though I’m in Toronto right now—I represent a riding a little bit east of Ottawa. I would like to ask you the following question: Can you share an example of a situation during one of your previous roles where you had to balance and consider a number of priorities to actually reach decisions?

Official source

Ms. Natasha Pappin

So, in my role, I’m not necessarily reaching decisions. I am taking a position on a file and advocating for the client and pushing their interests forward. I suppose reaching decisions on a file in both family and criminal would be very, very similar. You assess the file, you assess the facts, you assess the evidence, you understand the law and you advise your client with respect to the likely outcome of their file at every stage of the proceedings. So in terms of making a decision, I suppose it would be the outcome after applying the law to the facts that you would advise the client of. But at all times, the client is the one making the decision. The client is the one instructing me. My job is really to advise along the way and help the client come to the decision that would likely lead them to their best outcome.

Official source

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon)

MPP Sabawy.

Official source

Mr. Sheref Sabawy

Thank you very much, Ms. Natasha—it’s a very impressive, wide range of experience and expertise in different areas. As you know, the specific board’s objective is public safety. How do you plan to contribute to the board’s objective in ensuring public safety?

Official source

Ms. Natasha Pappin

My job is to receive the evidence that is provided, and I understand that can come from a broad range of sources—so medical reports, testimony, the information about the prior incidents that brought the accused into the system in the first place—and to then apply the law to the facts that are presented. And so, I guess the expertise that I bring is the ability to know and understand the law, to be able to review previous case law, to take from that case law key elements and then to use that to inform a decision that accords with the directives set out in the legislation.

Official source

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon)

MPP Dowie.

Official source

Mr. Andrew Dowie

Chair, how much time is left?

Official source

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon)

Good question: one minute, 31 seconds.

Official source

Mr. Andrew Dowie

Thank you. Ms. Pappin, thank you so much for being here. My question for you is, how you would describe the qualifications that you bring to the role and how they address the challenges that Ontarians face with this area of service?

Official source

Ms. Natasha Pappin

My qualifications really focus on litigation, so I have a strong litigation background. I have a background in criminal law as well as family law, so both of those roles have made me very familiar with reviewing evidence and being able to apply the law to the facts and evidence that I’m presented with.

Official source

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon)

One-minute warning.

Official source

Ms. Natasha Pappin

In terms of how that is going to come forward with respect to the challenges being faced by the board, I think, one of the challenges that the board would face and should face is scrutiny of all their decisions. And so, being able to bring to the table and to the panel my history and experience of applying the law to the facts, I think, will help direct the conversation, will help focus the conversation so that we’re all remembering what our job is, which is to apply the tests and apply the law in the circumstances of that particular case.

Official source

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon)

Over to the official opposition: MPP Gates, you have the floor.

Official source

MPP Wayne Gates

Thanks for coming here. Pappin is not a very common name. Are you any relation to a hockey player that played with the Chicago Blackhawks for a number of years?

Official source

Ms. Natasha Pappin

So, I’m not; it’s my married name. I think that there is some distant history on my husband’s side of the family to that individual, yes.

Official source

MPP Wayne Gates

I kind of chuckled when I saw the name; it’s not that familiar. The other thing—staying with hockey—I see you’re a U18 convenor. Are you still doing that?

Official source

Ms. Natasha Pappin

I am, yes.

Official source

MPP Wayne Gates

So you certainly know how to mediate, then, with parents, with scheduling.

Official source

Ms. Natasha Pappin

That’s correct. I am the U18 hockey convenor. I’ve been the hockey convenor since my son was in U11, so I followed him through each age category. In more recent years, I’ve assumed the role of vice-president of support services, which comes with the risk and safety profile. So I have a lot of experience mediating disputes that arise, and that can come from parents, that can be between players, or complaints in general. I am the complaints department, so I do have a lot of experience navigating that.

Official source

MPP Wayne Gates

The complaints department—that’s interesting, in minor hockey. I see you’ve done a lot of family law.

Official source

Ms. Natasha Pappin

I have.

Official source

MPP Wayne Gates

I’m very interested in family law, and I’m going to ask you a question. In family law, you were talking about—you’re going to look at the review board. Do you believe that the mediation process is working? And do you believe that joint physical custody is one way to get rid of that conflict in family law?

Official source

Ms. Natasha Pappin

Those are very different questions. With respect to the mediation process, I do support the mediation process. I think it has a role, and I think that there are files that can be very effectively managed through mediation. I think that many of my family files in particular—and I’m sure other lawyers would speak similarly—have an element of emotion to them that can be supported in mediation in a way that it can’t be in the courtroom. The courtroom has a strict application of the rules, the law, and there’s not really a lot of room to move within that application, whereas mediation allows the people to be heard, it allows them to talk about very specific concerns. For me, I see the most benefit when parenting issues are mediated, because a parent can have a very specific concern that the court is not necessarily going to be in a position to have the jurisdiction to govern. But when that is explored thoroughly in mediation, everyone can understand where that concern is coming from. We can think outside the box. We can come up with a solution that keeps everyone happy—or everyone can also be unhappy as a result of mediation, but we’ve reached common ground, we can understand where the concern is coming from and we can look for solutions. With respect to joint physical custody of the children, I think that the research is very clear that if it is appropriate and in the best interests of the children, it is important for them to have strong relationships with both parents. The paramount consideration in Family Court is the best interest of the children. Do I think that joint 50-50—which we call parenting time now—is necessarily always in the best interests of the children? I don’t. I see a lot of high-conflict files, and I think that there are very significant circumstances that would mean that is not in the best interests of the children. I think that that has to have the opportunity to be explored.

Official source

MPP Wayne Gates

I appreciate your answer. Do you have experience working with people with complex mental health issues, especially in a legal setting?

Official source

Ms. Natasha Pappin

Family law and criminal law often overlap, and—certainly not mental health considerations like we would be dealing with at the Ontario Review Board level, but a lot of the individuals who I both represent and oppose come to the table with mental health challenges that need to be navigated. They present additional challenges for family files, certainly. But also, when you understand what’s at play, it can allow you to, again, think of solutions. That’s sometimes where mediation can be very helpful, because some of these struggles, particularly anxiety, can cause someone to really struggle to get to a resolution in their file, whereas if they have the opportunity to talk that through with someone who can very easily manage the conversation, they get the chance to be heard and that really goes a long way.

Official source

MPP Wayne Gates

Given the authority granted to the Ontario Review Board, what steps would you take to ensure that every person appearing before you has the confidence that their case is being decided independently and impartially?

Official source

Ms. Natasha Pappin

I’m a very good listener—

Official source

MPP Wayne Gates

You’re a good talker, too—just saying.

Official source

Ms. Natasha Pappin

I’m not sure what to make of that. I am a very good listener—I think I bring that to the table. One of the things that I find is an important aspect of my role as a family lawyer is understanding the story. So you’ll have an individual call you, and they want information, they want advice. My first step is, “We have to have a meeting. I need to know the background.” It’s not relevant why the marriage or relationship ended, but to understand why it ended can really help you understand the next step that is going to be needed in a family file. So I guess my strength is to hear: hear the background; hear what’s bringing this individual before me at any given time. I think that that will speak for itself in how these people who are coming before the board do feel that they are being heard and have the chance to be heard and adjudicated fairly.

Official source

MPP Wayne Gates

How would you handle a situation where two medical experts disagree on a patient’s condition or mental state?

Official source

Ms. Natasha Pappin

In family law, we often have competing experts. I guess, in my particular experience, I’m generally favouring one of those experts. But on the board, it would be my job to apply the law. And if one of those experts, if their position is not in accordance with the law—I think the important thing is, we have to know, does this individual present a significant risk, and can that risk be mitigated? That’s the information that we always have to go back and look at. And if that risk is a potential in the future—if six pre-conditions happen—then I think that that is something that we have to then refocus on and come back to the drawing board in terms of, “Is that a risk that can be medicated?” and “How do we manage that in the least onerous way to the accused?”

Official source

MPP Wayne Gates

Have you ever belonged to a political party?

Official source

Ms. Natasha Pappin

I have not.

Official source

MPP Wayne Gates

Have you ever donated to a political party?

Official source

Ms. Natasha Pappin

I have not.

Official source

MPP Wayne Gates

What role should expert testimony play in making a determination about someone’s fitness to stand trial or be criminally responsible?

Official source

Ms. Natasha Pappin

I think the experts play a strong role. These are the individuals who are educated and experienced in coming to these determinations. But I think that that’s one factor. And just like in every other aspect of the law, it’s one factor that gets considered. You have to look at the picture as a whole.

Official source

MPP Wayne Gates

First, I want to thank you for doing duty law. I think that plays an important part of our court system where, as you know, usually people that come for duty don’t have the money to get a lawyer. They need some advice; they need it quickly. So I want to thank you for doing that. There are not a lot of lawyers that do that. It’s greatly appreciated, I know, by people that sometimes can’t afford a lawyer—I mean, I don’t know about lawyers in Toronto, but even in Niagara now, they’re like $500 an hour—and sometimes they need advice. I just wanted to say I’m really glad that you decided, during your career, to do that. It’s a role that’s needed to be played in our society, and so just thanks for doing that.

Official source

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon)

Forty-three seconds.

Official source

MPP Wayne Gates

What is one thing the Ontario Review Board can do better to serve the public?

Official source

Ms. Natasha Pappin

I think that the Ontario Review Board does very important work. I’m not sure that it’s something that the review board would do, but I think, in general, increased resources would go a long way towards serving the public. The ability to meet the needs of everyone are often restricted by resources and availability of community supports. Having more opportunities that are open to use for these individuals and to help implement the conditions that the board would want to impose would go a long way towards opening more doors in terms of decisions—

Official source

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon)

Thank you very much. Over to the third party: MPP Smyth.

Official source

MPP Stephanie Smyth

Thank you, Natasha, for being here today. We really appreciate you making the time. I just wanted to follow up on a question that my colleague asked you. According to the Ontario Review Board’s website, the number of accused subject to the jurisdiction of the board has been increasing at a rate of about 10% per year. So you’re talking to accessibility, right? And that issue you see as a problem. Now, we know that the government struggled with getting French-language accessibility in other boards. Do you speak French, and are you committed to improving any French-language skills to help in any kind of backlog that we see with this board?

Official source

Ms. Natasha Pappin

In my very young years—elementary school—I did attend a French school, so I do have dated experience speaking French. French comprehension is stronger than my French communication. It’s something I would certainly be willing to develop if that would help fill a need, but it’s been a long time.

Official source

MPP Stephanie Smyth

Those rudimentary skills—you can sometimes understand, but speaking is different. But it’s nice to hear that you’d be committed to working on that if that were needed. I guess I wanted to start with the scope of the review board. It operates under a really specific statutory mandate, and that is balancing public safety with the treatment and reintegration of individuals found not criminally responsible or unfit to stand trial. So how do you see what we respect as a great, extensive family law and duty counsel background really informing the decisions that you would be making on this board?

Official source

Ms. Natasha Pappin

In all aspects of practising law, you go back to the drawing board. You go to the legislation; you follow the legislation; you review previous decisions and see how the legislation has been applied, and that’s how you’re directed to make legal decisions. That’s kind of the same way I would be operating, certainly, as the legal member on the panel: going back to the drawing board and refocusing and remembering that this is the mandate, and we have to focus on what we have been directed to do via the legislation and via the courts and remember to apply that legislation and that previous case law.

Official source

MPP Stephanie Smyth

Zeroing in on the public safety aspect: A big responsibility of yours would be assessing the public safety risk during the hearings. Again, with your experience as duty counsel and roster lawyer with Legal Aid, what key indicators or structural issues would you see that you would rely on in evaluating just whether an individual is ready for community supervision or a conditional discharge?

Official source

Ms. Natasha Pappin

I think this would be a lot like bail court. When you go to bail court, typically it’s as a duty counsel lawyer, in my experience, and duty counsel is often the first legal representation of an individual who comes into custody. The job is to assess whether this individual can be released into the community. And that release has to be on the less onerous release conditions that can be implemented and ensure that the accused is going to comply with the law, and the safety of the public will be maintained. So I think that that experience has been important in my life and it’s important for me to go back to those basics. Often, we see very violent offences and offenders that come before the board. The instinct of the public would be that they should not be released into society, and there can be fear brought about. But when we look at what our job is, the job is to assess, and we’re going to have expert evidence in terms of whether this individual is ready. And then the job is to assess—if they are ready to be released and not going to be subject to a further detention order—what conditions we can put in place. How can we mitigate risk? And those conditions—obviously, they can’t be a blanket “every condition under the sun.” It has to be very specific to this individual and it has to be applicable to the risk. And I think that my experience in bail court, on both sides, would prepare me for making those determinations.

Official source

MPP Stephanie Smyth

Right. There are some really high stakes and emotional dynamics when you’re looking at and advocating for some vulnerable people. And you’ve done that in the past, obviously, in your work, but you have to in this case also be evaluating really complex psychiatric and medical evidence that’s presented during these proceedings. So do you feel that you’ve had enough experience to help you navigate through these kinds of decisions that can get a lot of attention, that are pretty complex and do have the high stakes?

Official source

Ms. Natasha Pappin

I do. I think that I do have this experience. As a very junior lawyer, I was appearing in bail court, and I’ve had the opportunity to assist on very complex matters even at that stage. You’re advocating for the accused, but you do still balance a number of competing interests. So, even as representation for the accused, I have the accused’s family—sometimes what they want doesn’t actually align with what should happen for an accused. I’ve been in bail court where I’ve had an accused’s family member not think that their person should be released, and they think it’s the job of the court to help, to support, to provide treatment—any of those things—and that doesn’t align with what’s in the interests of the accused. When you look at the circumstances—and sometimes it takes a little bit more investigation, but remember that I’m in a situation there where I’m advocating for the accused. So it takes a little bit more investigation and a little bit more hard work and sometimes a few more court appearances while we work to put together a plan that can rely on, perhaps, other community supports. I think what’s important is being able to, obviously, review the medical evidence and to hear what is being told to us, but then also to start to think about how these risks can be mitigated and what community supports are available—and are those supports enough? I think when you look at it from that perspective, my experience doing that is significant, and it will help me balance this position as well.

Official source

MPP Stephanie Smyth

Right. Thank you for that answer. You are going to be doing this on a part-time basis. We talked about the workload with the ORB; they’ve got 2,000 proceedings a year at least anyway, and it seems to be increasing. If I’m right, you’re going to maintain your independent legal practice through this. So how do you think you’re going to be able to manage your schedule with the demands? There’s a lot at stake with the work that you’re going to be doing on the board, and then you’ve got your other work as well. So how do you feel about the demands on your schedule and the ability to have the right prep time required for the complex hearings at the board?

Official source

Ms. Natasha Pappin

I’ve been a sole practitioner almost throughout my entire career. What I enjoy and appreciate about that is the flexibility it gives me. When I say I’m a sole practitioner—I don’t have staff. I am entirely on my own. I do all of my own documents, all of my own administration.

Official source

MPP Stephanie Smyth

Wow.

Official source

Ms. Natasha Pappin

Doing that allows me to govern my practice. I take the files that I want to take. But what I’ve learned since departing from criminal law and becoming more heavily focused on family law is that I miss doing something different. I liked the diversity in my practice. In the past, I’ve managed certainly a family file load—I maintain private files—while doing duty counsel. I maintain private files while prosecuting for the crown. Right now, I’m doing OCL and maintaining my own private files. So balancing roles is something that I’m very familiar with doing.

Official source

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon)

One minute.

Official source

Ms. Natasha Pappin

The flexibility of my practice allows me to scale back as I need to, so that’s something that I’m very thankful that I’ve had the fortunate opportunity to structure my practice this way.

Official source

MPP Stephanie Smyth

Okay. Terrific, Natasha. Thank you so much for answering my questions. I appreciate it.

Official source

Ms. Natasha Pappin

Thank you.

Official source

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon)

Thank you very much, Natasha, for your time today. If you actually have some free time and you want to stay online, we do have a bunch more people to interview, and then we will be making our decisions—or you can just go about your day and you will find out later on.

Official source

Ms. Natasha Pappin

Okay. Thank you.

Official source

Review of intended appointment, selected by government party and official opposition party: Patrick Murphy, intended appointee as member, Ontario Review Board.

Official source

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon)

Now, we will go look at the second intended appointee, who is here in person. That is Patrick Murphy, if you would like to come to the front after you get some delicious Toronto tap water.

Official source

MPP Wayne Gates

Best water in the province.

Official source

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon)

Delicious, clean, safe. Welcome, Patrick.

Official source

Mr. Patrick Murphy

Thank you very much.

Official source

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon)

Patrick Murphy is nominated as member of the Ontario Review Board, and we are happy to have him here in person. That’s always a treat. Patrick, I’ll give you the lay of the land. You will have the floor to share your story and tell us about yourself and your experience. Then, each side will have 10 minutes of questioning, but whatever time you take for your presentation will be removed from the government side’s time, and they are fine with that—look at their happy faces; very happy with that. The floor is yours. Welcome.

Official source

Mr. Patrick Murphy

Good morning, everyone. As you know, my name is Patrick Murphy. I’m a lawyer at Donnelly and Murphy in Goderich, although I currently live in Thornbury. I practised for 30 years in Goderich. I lived on a farm just outside of Goderich. I semi-retired six years ago—just before the pandemic—and moved to Thornbury, where I now live. I still work part-time at Donnelly and Murphy. My practice is restricted now to estate administration, litigation and guardianship applications. My history has been dealing with a lot of mental health issues. I studied at the University of Toronto and Queen’s University. I’m a certified mediator, and I was designated a specialist in civil litigation by the Law Society of Ontario. I’ve been honoured to sit on the Consent and Capacity Board for a number of years as a legal member, but my interest in mental health law predated that by virtue of my work in estates, guardianship applications and things of that nature—there were a lot of mental health and capacity issues. I’ve been fortunate to sit as a deputy judge at Small Claims Court. I was appointed by the local senior regional justice and confirmed by the Attorney General. A number of years ago, I was fortunate enough to sit on the Ontario Review Board. That’s about two decades ago, and I always wanted to get back to the board, but practice is busy. So when I semi-retired, I looked for an opportunity to get back onto the ORB, and in January, the Ontario Bar Association—they send out monthly emails to their members identifying appointments to the judiciary and to government that may be of interest to their members, and in January the Ontario Review Board was looking for legal members, so I applied. I have a lot of adjudicative experience, both sitting on the Consent and Capacity Board and as a deputy judge at Small Claims Court. Although my time on the ORB was a number of years ago, I’m still familiar with the mandate and the process. At the time, I was aware and completed written reasons in all of the matters that were before me, which was a big difference from the Consent and Capacity Board, where reasons are required only on request of the parties. So time management was critical, and now I have a lot more of that and I’m looking forward to having an opportunity to come back to sit on the Ontario Review Board. I want to thank you all for seeing me this morning.

Official source

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon)

Thank you very much for sharing that, Patrick. I feel like we’re going to have to chat afterwards, because I grew up in Collingwood, right next door to you. We’ll hand it over to the government side now, and they have six minutes and 57 seconds. Who would like to start off? MPP Bailey, you have the floor.

Official source

Mr. Robert Bailey

Thank you for coming in today—very interesting presentation, between your CV and your spoken presentation. Because of your great background in adjudication and the legal system, what do you think you will bring to the role that will add even greater significance to the board?

Official source

Mr. Patrick Murphy

I think probably the most important aspect of being an adjudicator is an ability to listen. We all have busy lives—we’re all reading papers; we’re making presentations—and as advocates, we’re advocating for a party. But the adjudicator is in a special role of listening to the evidence. With respect to the board, the evidence is presented on behalf of the crown by way of a psychiatrist. The accused can testify. They have counsel. And so the ability to distill the information that you receive and then to listen to the new information—I think my experience as a member of the Consent and Capacity Board and as a deputy judge, in addition to being a mediator—I’ve spent the last 10 years of my practice mediating cases. The ability to listen, I think, has been the most important part of that job, and I think I can bring that to the board.

Official source

The Chair (Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon)

MPP Sabawy.

Official source

Mr. Sheref Sabawy

Thank you very much, Mr. Murphy. It’s very impressive to hear that long history of contributions and involvement in different aspects of the judicial system and law application. I’ll stick to the same question I asked the member who presented before: How do you plan to contribute to the board objective in ensuring public safety, which is, as I have said, this main objective of any case that will get to you? Especially since you served in that committee before—you have an idea about that.

Official source

Mr. Patrick Murphy

Yes. That’s a good question. The mandate is protection of the public over all; that’s the paramount mandate. And as a member of a panel, I won’t be making these decisions by myself. I’ll be a member of either a three- or five-member panel. There’s going to be a recommendation made by the crown attorney as to whether there should be a detention order, a conditional discharge or an absolute discharge. With respect to the conditional discharge, there will be recommendations regarding conditions. So the panel member’s job is to review those, listen to the evidence and satisfy ourselves that the public can be protected by way of the recommendations. That’s our job. I’ve done that before. It’s very similar in the Consent and Capacity Board, because there are tests under the Mental Health Act for involuntary status. While “protection of the public” is not one of them, “harm to others” is, and so we take that as “protection of the public,” and we make decisions based on that. We do it by listening to the evidence and making a decision as a group. I think I can do that. I’ve done it before. I’m currently doing it on the Consent and Capacity Board.

Official source

Mr. Sheref Sabawy

This will follow my first question as well: How well aware are you of mental health care and mental health law in Ontario?

Official source

Mr. Patrick Murphy

I’m fairly familiar with it. I’ve been sitting on the Consent and Capacity Board since 2013—sorry, 2016; 2013 was the end of my previous appointment. So I’ve been on the CCB for 17 years. We deal with the Mental Health Act, the Health Care Consent Act, Substitute Decisions Act and a number of other ancillary pieces of legislation. So I’m very familiar with it. With respect to the Ontario Review Board: We’re governed by part XX of the Criminal Code. When matters come before us, there is an NCR finding already. Capacity comes into the context only in the sense that we’re told whether an accused is capable or incapable with respect to medication, property, personal care—that sort of thing. We don’t review those decisions. Our job is to do the reviews and listen to recommendations by the crown, listen to arguments from the defence and make a decision in the protection of the public.

Official source

Mr. Sheref Sabawy

Perfect. I’ll just move to the second half of that, which is: How updated are you with the latest developments in health care and the delivery of care in this sector?

Official source