COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Miller, Paciocco and George JJ.A.
IN THE MATTER OF: Kevin Luangchaleun
AN APPEAL UNDER PART XX.1 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, R.S.C. 1985, c. C‑46
Kevin Luangchaleun, acting in person
Erin Dann, appearing as amicus curiae
Kevin Chan, for the respondent Attorney General of Ontario
Jessica Szabo, for the respondent Person in Charge, Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences
Heard: June 18, 2026
On appeal against the disposition of the Ontario Review Board, dated October 6, 2025, with reasons dated November 13, 2025.
REASONS FOR DECISION
1The appellant, Mr. Luangchaleun, was found not criminally responsible (NCR) in 2009 on charges of assault with a weapon and criminal harassment. He had formed obsessive and delusional thoughts about a former co-worker at a restaurant. When a manager refused to let him see her, Mr. Luangchaleun threatened him with a butcher knife.
2Mr. Luangchaleun’s current diagnoses are schizophrenia and substance use disorders (alcohol, cocaine, cannabis, MDMA). At his 2024 annual hearing, the Ontario Review Board removed a prohibition against alcohol use.
3Since the index offence, Mr. Luangchaleun has been subject to a detention order under the jurisdiction of the Board, with privileges up to and including community living. At one point, in 2014, he was granted a conditional discharge, but his substance abuse and discontinuation of medication resulted in psychological decompensation that required readmission to hospital and a change to his disposition. He has been discharged from hospital a number of times to live in housing approved by the hospital, Ontario Shores, but his chronic substance use has made him a poor fit with the available community living options, which do not typically permit alcohol on premises. Most recently, he secured placement in community housing that tolerated and monitored alcohol use, but forfeited it and chose to return to Ontario Shores because he was unwilling to follow the residence’s alcohol use rules.
4At his 2025 annual review, the Board accepted the recommendation of Ontario Shores, with which counsel for Mr. Luangchaleun concurred, that there be no change to the disposition from the previous year.
Issues on appeal
5On appeal, Mr. Luangchaleun, assisted by Ms. Dann as amicus, advanced the argument that: (1) the reasons were insufficient in failing to explain why detention was necessary, and (2) the Board erred in not exercising its inquisitorial powers to probe the appropriateness of the concession by Mr. Luangchaleun’s counsel.
Analysis
6For the reasons given below, we do not agree that the Board erred.
7The Board’s jurisdiction over NCR accused is premised on a finding that the offender poses a significant threat to the safety of the public, which is statutorily defined as “a risk of serious physical or psychological harm to members of the public…resulting from conduct that is criminal in nature but not necessarily violent”: Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46, s. 672.5401.
8At his 2025 annual review, Mr. Luangchaleun, represented by counsel, conceded that he continued to pose a significant threat of serious harm. Because of that concession, the Board’s analysis of that question is less detailed than what one would otherwise expect, and less detailed than what the Board had provided in its reasons in previous years. The Board, essentially, summarized the evidence presented at the hearing and recorded its conclusion that the hospital report and the oral evidence established that “[s]ignificant threat is clearly present”. The Board noted that although Mr. Luangchaleun was fully compliant with medication and was not manifesting overt psychotic symptoms, residual symptoms remained. Additionally, although he indicated a desire to abstain from substances, he declined to participate in hospital programming that would assist with that goal. He had tested positive for cocaine use on 21 occasions and often presented intoxicated from alcohol.
9The Board’s reasons were sufficient when read in context of the evidence that was before it and the submissions that were made. The Board’s chain of reasoning was readily apparent. The hospital report indicated that Mr. Luangchaleun was unable to recognize the link between his substance use and the risk of psychiatric destabilization it posed. The evidence of the treating psychiatrist given at the hearing was that there was a clear link between substance use and decompensation of his mental illness, and that the appellant had a history of aggression when psychotic. Furthermore, despite the appellant’s compliance with his medication, the treatment team’s opinion was that without supervision from the Board, Mr. Luangchaleun would be highly likely to discontinue medication and increase his use of cocaine and alcohol, which would lead to a recurrence of his psychotic symptoms and present a serious risk of harm to others through criminal offending.
10These findings of the Board were reasonable on the record before it and there is no basis for this court to intervene.
11With respect to the argument that the Board ought to have exercised its inquisitorial powers to make further inquiries into whether Mr. Luangchaleun continued to pose a significant threat, we do not agree that the Board was required to take any further steps. The position of Ontario Shores was supported by evidence and the appellant did not contest it. The Board did not simply take the hospital at its word, but considered the evidence, summarized that evidence in its reasons, and concluded that it clearly supported the appellant’s continued detention.
12Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
13It is appropriate, nevertheless, to address a serious concern that Mr. Luangchaleun raised before us about the trajectory of his care. The index offence occurred 15 years ago and has not been repeated. Although there have been instances of episodic violence, these have often been years apart and Mr. Luangchaleun has responded well to medication. The impediment to Mr. Lunangchaleun’s path out of the forensic mental health system seems to be his substance use, formerly cocaine and now primarily alcohol. It appears that his excessive alcohol use is what pushes the risk to the public created by an otherwise manageable psychiatric illness past acceptable levels.
14As Mr. Luangchaleun explained to us, his alcohol use makes him ineligible for much, if not all, community living options. Group homes and other community living options typically prohibit alcohol consumption and on-site storage of alcohol, for the protection of other residents. Accordingly, Mr. Luangchaleun faces two options: living on his own, which the Board has not supported to date, and living at Ontario Shores, which seems to be a more restrictive environment than what is clinically required. Mr. Luangchaleun points out that living at the hospital greatly impairs his ability to find employment and maintain friendships. He has grown isolated. From this, he argues in favour of an absolute discharge, so he can manage his own living arrangements. Unfortunately, as the Board has determined, that is not a realistic option.
15Ontario Shores acknowledged Mr. Luangchaleun’s concerns but explained that all the hospital can do for Mr. Luangchaleun in this regard is to counsel him to abstain from alcohol and to provide supportive programming to that end. Participation in this programming is entirely up to him, and he has repeatedly chosen not to participate. The hospital cannot compel his course of action. Notwithstanding his submissions before us, he has organized his life around alcohol consumption. He does not appear to fully accept the relationship between his alcohol use and psychosis or is otherwise unwilling or unable to modify his behaviour to achieve his desired living arrangements. The Board clearly grappled with the complexity of Mr. Luangchaleun’s situation in its 2024 reasons and removed the alcohol prohibition in part because Mr. Luangchaleun had been accepted into a community housing program that tolerated and monitored alcohol use. The belief at that time was that Mr. Luangchaleun’s monitored alcohol use would not create an unacceptable risk of harm to the public. That arrangement did not last. Mr. Luangchaleun was unwilling to accept any constraints whatsoever on his alcohol consumption, and chose instead to return to Ontario Shores, where he remains. The problem is one of Mr. Luangchaleun’s making. His treatment team is very much alive to the problem and has done its best to accommodate him. But his alcohol use is a barrier to forward progress. Because of his mental disorder, the pattern of alcohol consumption which he enjoys puts others at significant risk of serious harm. Accordingly, the Board has to put significant restrictions on his liberty. Mr. Luangchaleun has a choice to make. If he desires more liberty, he has to change his alcohol consumption patterns. If he instead desires to keep consuming alcohol on his own terms, he has to accept significant restrictions on his liberty. It is his choice to make, but he has to accept the consequences of his decisions.
DISPOSITION
16The appeal is dismissed.
“B.W. Miller J.A.”
“David M. Paciocco J.A.”
“J. George J.A.”