Court of Appeal for Ontario
Date: 2025-11-07 Docket: COA-23-CR-0337
Judges: Trotter, Zarnett and Rahman JJ.A.
Between
His Majesty the King Respondent
and
Joachim Lessard Appellant
Counsel
Meaghan McMahon, for the appellant
Dena Bonnet, for the respondent
Heard: in writing
On appeal from the order entered by Justice Jonathan Brunet of the Ontario Court of Justice on February 24, 2017.
Reasons for Decision
[1]
Background
On January 26, 2017, the appellant was charged with resisting a peace officer, threatening death, breach of probation, and two counts of assaulting a peace officer.
2The appellant appeared in bail court and indicated his intention to plead guilty. His case was traversed to plea court. However, the presiding judge had concerns about the appellant's mental health. The matter was adjourned to the next day, when he was remanded in custody for a 30-day psychiatric assessment.
3On February 24, 2017, after the assessment was completed, the appellant appeared in court. The author of the assessment report, Dr. Joel Watts, was of the opinion that, as a result of untreated schizophrenia, the appellant did not know that his actions were wrong when he committed the offences on January 25, 2017. Dr. Watts supported a defence of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder ("NCRMD"): Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 16.
4At the same appearance, defence counsel and the Crown jointly submitted the appellant be found NCRMD. The trial judge acceded to this request and made that finding. The appellant has remained under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board since that time – for almost nine years.
[5]
Analysis
The appellant appeals the NCRMD verdict based on serious procedural flaws at the hearing, namely: (1) the appellant was not arraigned; (2) no plea was taken; (3) no elections were made on four of the five charges; (4) none of the underlying facts were read into the record; (5) no viva voce evidence was heard; (6) the appellant was not asked if he understood what was about to happen – indeed, he was not addressed or asked to speak at all at the hearing.
6The Crown agrees that, as a result of these serious shortcomings, the NCRMD verdict should be set aside.
7This court has consistently held that, because of the serious consequences of being found NCRMD"procedural fairness must be jealously guarded and strictly enforced in this context": R. v. Ivins, 2024 ONCA 408, at para. 7; R. v. Laming, 2022 ONCA 370, 413 C.C.C. (3d) 409, at para. 42; and R. v. Nahmabin, 2024 ONCA 534, at para. 10. Clearly, that did not happen in this case. The NCRMD verdict must be set aside.
[8]
Disposition
The appeal is allowed, the NCRMD verdict is set aside, and a new trial is ordered.
"Gary Trotter J.A."
"B. Zarnett J.A."
"M. Rahman J.A."