A new court order has been issued appointing an amicus curiae in the case of a serial arsonist who was declared a dangerous offender. The tragic case of Patrick Frank Warren is now in its ninth year as an Ontario superior court judge grapples with a profound dilemma at the heart of Canada’s penal system. And the end is nowhere in sight.

1. Introduction

On January 24, 2022, Justice R.M. Pomerance of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice at Windsor, Ontario, released the ruling in R. v. Warren appointing Paul Champ, Barrister and Solicitor, to serve as amicus curiae in the dangerous offender proceeding. The order stated that Mr. Champ would “offer expert advice and assistance to the court on the law governing conditions of detention in the federal correctional system, and the application of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.” (here) On August 17, 2026, Justice M.V. Carroccia, who replaced Justice Pomerance following her appointment to the Ontario Court of Appeal, issued a new order appointing Mr. Champ “to offer expert advice and assistance to the court to address the nature and scope of the supervisory jurisdiction to be exercised by the Court over the administration of Patrick Warren’s sentence.” (here)

2. Overview

The two rulings appointing Mr. Champ as amicus bookend the ruling of Justice Pomerance issued on May 15, 2024, where she held that “confinement in the penitentiary would give rise to an anticipatory breach of Mr. Warren’s Charter rights.” (here) Justice Pomerance went on to find it was appropriate to remedy the breach by directing that Mr. Warren be placed in a hospital and by requiring the responsible hospital authority to report back to the court to confirm compliance with constitutional imperatives. The unusual orders present an opportunity to view the appointment of the amicus curiae against the backdrop of Mr. Warren’s tragic childhood – described by Justice Pomerance as one of “unspeakable horror” that left “an indelible mark on his psyche, his intellect, his personality, and his ability to cope with everyday life.”

3. Background

On February 12, 2017, the police in Windsor, Ontario, were called to assist fire fighters at the rear of 46 Chatham Street. Video footage from the scene showed Mr. Warren enter an alley and walk toward a garbage shed at the back of the property. He left the shed and retrieved a cardboard box from a dumpster. He took the box to the shed. Smoke was coming from the shed when he left. He later confessed to the police when arrested and so began a seven year saga leading to a conviction for arson by Justice Gregory Verbeem and the ruling by Justice Pomerance finding him to be a dangerous offender under s. 753 of the Criminal Code. (here)

Further described by Justice Pomerance as having led a “profoundly tragic life”, Mr. Warren was subjected to “unspeakable sexual, physical and emotional abuse” by his father and other family members. He tried to kill himself at the age of five. He eventually became a “Crown ward” and was moved through a litany of foster homes and group homes. He began acting out by running away, verbalizing threats, harming himself and attempting suicide. He also began setting fires. “Mr. Warren is an individual with highly specialized and complex needs,” said Justice Pomerance. “He suffers from severe cognitive disabilities, and other limitations that make it difficult to treat him within the federal correctional system.”

Justice Pomerance concluded she could not release Mr. Warren without compromising the safety of the community. He had been convicted of 32 prior criminal offences including five arson related crimes. Two previous arson convictions resulted in penitentiary sentences. However, the imposition of an indeterminate sentence would risk that he will serve his sentence with “virtually no meaningful human contact, no suitable treatment or programming, and seclusion from others for his own protection.” The application of the dangerous offender regime thus raised “important constitutional issues” whether Mr. Warran would be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment under s. 12 of the Charter and what would be a just remedy under s. 24(1) aimed at addressing his specialized needs.

4. Amicus Curiae

An amicus curiae (friend of the court) is not appointed by a court to take on the role of defence counsel. (here and here) In this case, Mr. Warren had a lawyer and the order appointing Mr. Champ provided he would “offer expert advice […] to the court on the law governing conditions of detention in the federal correctional system” and the application of the Charter in that context. The evidence before the court prior to the dangerous offender hearing was that the federal correctional system had few, if any, programs tailored to address Mr. Warren’s cognitive limitations. The constitutional issue was whether those conditions violated Mr. Warren’s rights under ss. 7, 12 or 15 of the Charter.

Subsequently, in the decision on the dangerous offender application, Justice Pomerance held that Mr. Warren was unlikely to receive treatment, programs or meaningful opportunities for rehabilitation in a federal penitentiary which would likely violate s. 12 of the Charter. Justice Pomerance found that he was most likely to receive the assistance he requires in a psychiatric hospital. Thus, the remedy granted under s. 24(1) of the Charter for the “anticipatory breach” of his s. 12 rights was to order Correctional Service Canada to transfer Mr. Warren to a provincial hospital within 120 days of the order. In addition, Justice Pomerance imposed a judicial supervision order.

Two issues came before Justice Carroccia who replaced Justice Pomerance following her appointment to the Ontario Court of Appeal. First, what was the status of Mr. Camp as amicus in future proceedings? Second, what was the scope of the court’s supervisory role based on the order of Justice Pomerance? A question arose, on the first issue, whether Justice Pomerance’s order appointing Mr. Camp as amicus was spent. Although Justice Carroccia thought Justice Pomerance contemplated Mr. Camp’s continued involvement, he concluded a new order could be made.

In respect of the second issue, Mr. Warren had been transferred to L’Institut National de Pschiatrie Légal Phillippe-Pinel, a psychiatric hospital. However, on April 16, 2026, the court was advised that Pinel would transfer him back to CSC. As of August 17, 2026, the date of Justice Carroccia’s ruling, if Mr. Warren is returned to CSC, then the violation of his s. 12 rights would continue. Justice Carroccia observed that “[t]he nature of the supervision order contemplated by Justice Pomerance is yet to be determined.” Consideration of that issue would appear to be next in this unrelenting quest for justice.

5. Conclusion

In the decision on the dangerous offender application, Justice Pomerance said fire was a means of communication for Mr. Warren. He sets fires when he is looking for help, having flashbacks about the abuse he suffered as a child, and when experiencing frustration, sadness or anger. When he was young, he once told a companion, “Fire is my friend.” Justice Pomerance concluded she could not release Mr. Warren without compromising the safety of the community. Yet, the imposition of an indeterminate sentence raised the prospect he would serve the sentence in protective custody without suitable treatment. “Therein lies the vexing dilemma at the heart of this case,” she said.