ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
MAURICE LEFEBVRE
Before Justice J.R. Lalande
Heard on December 5, 2025
Supplementary Reasons for Judgment released on March 3, 2026
Counsel: N. Nolan, A. White, counsel for the Crown M. Davies, counsel for the accused
Lalande J.:
Overview
1On December 5, 2025, I granted the Crown’s application under section 672.33(1.1) of the Criminal Code for an extension of time to hold an inquiry under section 672.33(1) referred to as a prima facie hearing. I provided brief oral reasons at the conclusion of the arguments. These are my supplementary written reasons on the application for an extension of time which I promised to provide at the time of the hearing.
2Mr. Lefebvre was found unfit to stand trial with respect to a series of sexual assault allegations on September 29, 2022. The Criminal Code instructs that prima facie hearings are to be conducted at two-year intervals with respect to accused persons who are found unfit to stand trial. The purpose of the hearing is to determine whether sufficient evidence can be adduced at that time to put the accused on trial.
3Mr. Lefebvre’s prima facie hearing was to have been held by September 29, 2024. Instead, it occurred on December 5, 2025, following the Crown’s application for an extension of time. The result, which was undisputed, was a determination that the Crown had sufficient evidence to be adduced to put the accused on trial.
4In these reasons, I review the delay in reaching the hearing and consider it in the context of an application under section 672.33(1.1) and the prevailing authorities.
Background
5Mr. Lefebvre is now 80 years old. He has been suffering from dementia since his mid-60s. At the time of the allegations in 2021, he was residing in a long-term care facility. He is accused of sexually assaulting various female residents in that facility. Since being found unfit, he resides in a male-only locked dementia unit and continues to display sexually inappropriate behaviour towards the female staff.
6According to the most recent information from the Ontario Review Board, Mr. Lefebvre is in the advanced stages of dementia. He is permanently unfit to stand trial and considered to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public (Ontario Review Board Report, January 10, 2025).
7With respect to the delay in scheduling the prima facie inquiry, there are two distinct periods. The first arises after Mr. Lefebvre was found unfit in September 2022. At that time, there was an error in the endorsement on the information, which listed both “NCR” (Not Criminally Responsible) and “Unfit” as the disposition. This led Ms. Morneau, an administrator from the Crown’s office, to mistakenly classify the disposition as NCR when completing the New Accused Information Sheet (NAIS) for the Ontario Review Board. That classification matters because an NCR disposition does not trigger the tickler system for scheduling a prima facie hearing, whereas an unfit disposition does.
8Ms. Morneau identified the error at the time she processed the disposition in the fall of 2022. She sought instructions from the Review Board and submitted a corrected NAIS form in accordance with that advice. Both forms are part of the record. However, the corrected form does not appear to have been processed by the administration at the Review Board. As a result, the two-year deadline passed without a prima facie hearing.
9The oversight was discovered in February 2025, approximately five months after the statutory deadline, when the matter was before the Review Board. Mr. Davies, counsel for Mr. Lefebvre, raised the issue with Crown counsel at the Review Board. Crown counsel then alerted the local Crown’s office in Cornwall.
10The second period of delay occurred between February and December of 2025. During that time, the Crown assembled the necessary materials for the 672.33 application, which were filed in July. The matter then came before me in August, but the record was incomplete and no application for an extension of time was filed in accordance with section 672.33(1.1). I adjourned to September 26, 2025 to allow that to occur. An adjournment was requested on that date to November 10, 2025, which led to the hearing on December 5, 2025.
Discussion
11The test for an extension of time is whether it is necessary for the proper administration of justice (Section 672.33(1.1)). The available authorities suggest that the power to extend the time for a hearing is discretionary and should consider various factors including prejudice to the accused, the length of the delay, the public interest in a case on the merits and the seriousness of the allegations (Faraz, [2006] OJ No 5612 at para 10, Karimian-Kakolaki 2016 ONCJ 336 at para 26).
12Here, it is uncontroversial that the offences are serious and that there is a strong public interest in seeing cases of this nature tried on their merits. The real issue is with respect to the prejudice towards the accused and the length of the delay.
13Having reviewed the Crown’s materials, I am satisfied that the initial period of delay, while regrettable, is understandable. Ms. Morneau, who has extensive experience with respect to these matters, identified the error on the information and acted promptly to correct it. Any further administrative consequences appear to have occurred due to oversight at the Review Board. In my view, Ms. Morneau’s efforts were more than reasonable in the circumstances and the interests of justice clearly support granting an extension for this segment of time.
14With respect to the ten-month delay between February and December of 2025, I expressed some hesitation at the time of the application. To explain, I accept Mr. White’s statement that the matter was of some importance to the Crown. I also accept his argument that, while the matter was delayed, any practical impact on Mr. Lefebvre was limited. Given the unfortunate state of his health, Mr. Lefebvre is, in effect, destined to be in a long-term care facility, such as the Glen Stor Dun Lodge, for his remaining years. As a result, the delay – which occurred while he was a resident at that Lodge - likely did not have any significant impact.
15As Mr. Davies noted, however, the sole basis for detaining Mr. Lefebvre, a presumptively innocent person, for three years, is the strength of the Crown’s case. From that perspective, verifying that the Crown still has a case to try within prescribed timelines is of utmost importance.
16I agree with this submission. The criminal justice system maintains jurisdictional control over an accused found unfit to stand trial because that person is subject to criminal accusation and pending proceedings (Demers, 2004 SCC 46). To maintain that jurisdiction, the Crown must show that it has a case to prove. Unnecessary delays or a lackadaisical approach in discharging that obligation risks the potential of significant over-reach by the criminal justice system resulting in the unjustified deprivation of an accused’s liberty.
17In this case, while the Crown was able to marshal an impressive set of materials in support of its applications, the length of the delay from February to December 2025 was unnecessarily prolonged. Given the importance of the role of the prima facie hearing as well as the importance of this case to the Crown, the matter should have been listed and heard much sooner. Going forward, this case and others like it in this jurisdiction continue to be dealt with in accordance with the statutory timelines. Where those deadlines are not met due to oversight or otherwise, the Crown is expected to accord priority to the matter and have it brought before a judge promptly for consideration of an application for an extension of time.
18On balance, despite the unwarranted delay that accrued within the segment of time between February to December 2025, I am satisfied that it is in the best interests of justice to extend the time for the inquiry.
Released: March 3 2026
Signed: Justice J.R. Lalande