ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
His Majesty the King
— AND —
Andre Lawrence
Before Justice A. R. Mackay
Heard on August 19, 20, 21, 22, 2025
Reasons for Judgment released orally on October 31, 2025
Written Reasons released on January 21, 2026
Hubert Gonzalez counsel for the Crown
Andrea VanderHeyden and Alison Shields…… counsel for the accused Andre Lawrence
MACKAY J.:
Introduction
1Mr. Lawrence plead guilty to three counts of robbery, count 1, 3 and 7. The robberies were committed over a concentrated period in early March 2022. The offences occurred across multiple jurisdictions, including Durham Region, Hamilton, and Peel Region. The Crown seeks to have Mr. Lawrence designated a Long-Term Offender. The Crown first submits that a sentence of 10 years incarceration should be imposed followed by a Long-Term Offender designation for 10 years.
2The following is a summary of the facts with respect to the robberies he plead to and robberies that were read in and acknowledged as being committed by Mr. Lawrence.
Durham Region – March 2–3, 2022
3Mr. Lawrence was observed operating a stolen Hyundai vehicle and was captured on surveillance approaching commercial premises while concealing a long object. At a Cash and Sell Mart, he used a car manual to prop open the door and entered after the last customer had left. He confronted staff, physically assaulted one employee with a cash register, and fled with approximately $100–$200. In a separate incident, he attempted to access a restricted employee area using a crowbar, causing an employee to lock herself in a washroom. He then fled the scene.
Hamilton – March 5, 2022
4Mr. Lawrence entered a CIBC bank wearing a black hoodie and balaclava. He vaulted the counter and demanded money from a clerk, ultimately seizing $200 in $50 bills and packages containing dye packs and $10 bills. The dye packs activated during his flight, and he discarded his backpack. DNA evidence recovered from discarded clothing linked him to the scene.
Peel Region – March 6, 2022
5In the early morning hours of March 6, 2022, Mr. Lawrence committed the following two robberies in the Peel Region:
6At a Circle K, he brandished a kitchen knife and demanded money from the clerk, fleeing with $60–$70.
7At a Mac Milk location, he again used a large kitchen knife to demand money and wedged the door open with a pop bottle, stealing under $100.
Kennedy Cash Stop – March 7, 2022
8Mr. Lawrence entered Kennedy Cash Stop after 1:00 PM, brandishing a metal pipe and demanding money. Although no physical assault occurred, he obtained $11,000 in currency, which was not recovered. An Apple Watch was recovered from the scene.
Pay Day Mart – March 8, 2022
9At the Pay Day Mart, Mr. Lawrence engaged staff in conversation under the pretense of selling gold. He suddenly then produced a crowbar, pried open a secure door, and demanded money. He fled with $15,000, which was not fully recovered.
Flight and Arrest – March 8–9, 2022
10On March 8, police observed Mr. Lawrence driving the stolen Hyundai linked to the Durham robberies. He fled at speeds reaching 140 km/h, including through a school zone, prompting police to abandon the pursuit for public safety. On March 9, 2022, he was located and arrested by Peel Police while operating the same vehicle. Two crowbars were found in his possession, and he was taken into custody without incident.
Circumstances of the Offender
11The background and criminal history of Mr. Lawrence are drawn from the psychiatric assessment prepared by Dr. Mark Pearce, Forensic Psychiatrist. His report was ordered pursuant to section 752.1 of the Criminal Code, which authorizes the court to direct an assessment of an offender for the purpose of determining whether an application for a dangerous or long-term offender designation should be made.
12Mr. Lawrence is 35 years old. He was born in Alberta on April 6, 1990. The family moved to Brampton when he was a toddler. He was primarily raised by his mother and later also by his stepfather. Tragically his stepfather was murdered in Jamaica about three years after he had been part of Mr. Lawrence’s life. His mother is his only source of support.
13Mr. Lawrence believes that he is going to receive between $70,000 and $80,000 as a result of a class action suit brought by inmates from the Maplehurst Detention Centre.1
14Mr. Lawrence advised that although he was suspended from school, he went to an alternative school to complete his high school. He has worked almost exclusively at temporary agencies. He usually worked in factories or doing construction work. When in the community he has been supported by government funds. As a result of a diagnosis for schizophrenia and depression he is on the Disability Support Program (ODSP). He has always lived with his mother.
15Mr. Lawrence believed he suffered from schizophrenia since the age of 16. However, he advised Dr. Pearce that he did not really agree with the diagnosis. While in custody he has been compliant in taking his medication. He did advise Dr. Pearce at a later interview that he takes three different kinds of medications, and he believed that they helped him make better decisions. Mr. Lawrence advised that he was struck by a police car which fractured his foot some time ago.
16Mr. Lawrence did not believe that he has misused alcohol or drugs. He first consumed alcohol when he was 20. However, he did attend AA meetings at Maplehurst because it passed the time. He first started smoking marijuana at the age of 16 and since the age of 25 he would consume it daily. He plans to continue to smoke marijuana when he is released but will reduce the amount he smokes. He does not believe he needs any drug counselling.
Criminal Record
17Mr. Lawrence has a lengthy and persistent criminal history spanning nearly two decades beginning in youth court and continuing into adulthood. Most of his charges are for non-violent offences. Dr. Pearce reviewed each entry commencing when the accused was 16 years old. For his first entry he served 45 days of pre-sentence custody. The charges were fairly serious for a first-time conviction. They included use of imitation firearm during the commission of an offence, possession of break in instruments fail to comply, theft over and theft under $5,000. Mr. Lawrence recollection of this offence was not good but he believed he had stolen a vehicle. In 2008 he was convicted of sexual assault involving a female receptionist at a physiotherapy clinic, where he attempted to lead her to a washroom and exposed himself. He was also convicted of assaulting a peace officer and carrying a concealed weapon.
18As an adult, Mr. Lawrence committed numerous break and enters, theft over and under $5,000, possession of stolen property and driving while disqualified. He has repeated failures to comply with probation and recognizance orders. His assaults include punching a loss prevention officer in 2010; assaulting a girlfriend in 2011 and threatening to “shank” her. In 2014 he was convicted of assaulting a peace officer at the Brampton courthouse during an escape attempt.
Voyeurism and sexual assaults
19Mr. Lawrence sexual offences include voyeurism in 2017 and 2020. These offences involved him surreptitiously filming women in public washrooms and in a store. In 2018 he sexually assaulted a female correctional officer by touching her groin area when she reached out to provide him with documentation. In 2020 the sexual assault occurred when Mr. Lawrence was attempting to film a woman under her skirt and in the process touched the victim’s bare thigh.
Robbery convictions
20In 2016, while Mr. Lawrence plead guilty to theft and assault, the facts supported a robbery. Mr. Lawrence entered a pharmacy with a hammer along with another accused. They stole $200 from the cash register and pushed the pharmacist. Mr. Lawrence was arrested the following day at another pharmacy where he had entered with his accomplice with faces concealed, hooded sweatshirts up and wearing gloves. Mr. Lawrence was charged with weapons dangerous as he was in possession of the hammer.
21In 2017 Mr. Lawrence plead to three robberies and three counts of disguise with intent while disguise. Facts with respect to a fourth robbery were read in. He was sentenced to 46 months in custody.
Evidence heard on the LTO Application
Dr. Mark Pearce – Forensic Psychiatrist
22Dr. Pearce was qualified on consent as an expert in risk assessment and risk management. He has completed over 120 assessments for long-term and dangerous offender applications, including appearances before the Court of Appeal.
23Dr. Pearce’s report and testimony provided a detailed psychiatric assessment of Mr. Lawrence, including diagnoses, risk assessments, and recommendations regarding suitability for a long-term supervision order. Dr. Pearce’s evidence also addressed Mr. Lawrence’s criminal history, institutional behaviour, and treatment needs. His assessment was based on clinical interviews, collateral information, and a review of relevant documentation, including police reports and court records. Ultimately Dr. Pearce determined that the Mr. Lawrence is a high risk to reoffend for sexual and violent offences.
24Dr. Pearce reviewed extensive collateral material to inform his assessment. This included Mr. Lawrence’s OTIS profile2, which documents his institutional history, psychiatric alerts, and behavioural observations while in custody. Dr. Pearce also examined institutional records, including misconduct reports, segregation placements, and psychiatric notes from various facilities. These records revealed a pattern of non-compliance with medication, episodes of psychosis, and sexually inappropriate behaviour, particularly when Mr. Lawrence was unmedicated.
25Mr. Lawrence’s behaviour in jail was marked by numerous institutional misconducts, including assaults, threats, property damage, and hoarding of medication. While Dr. Pearce acknowledged that institutional dynamics differ from community settings, he noted that Mr. Lawrence’s conduct in custody reflected poor impulse control, limited insight, and difficulty complying with rules and authority.
26Dr. Pearce reviewed psychiatric and social work reports completed pursuant to Form 483, which provided insight into Mr. Lawrence’s mental health status during previous hospitalizations. These reports consistently diagnosed schizophrenia and documented behavioural disturbances, including disorganized thinking, paranoia, and impulsivity. They also noted that Mr. Lawrence’s condition improved significantly when medicated.
27Mr. Lawrence’s performance on probation was also considered. Records indicated inconsistent engagement with supervision, missed appointments, and limited follow-through with treatment referrals.
Diagnoses
28Dr. Pearce concluded that Mr. Lawrence suffers from four primary psychiatric disorders: schizophrenia, a polysubstance use disorder, voyeuristic disorder, and antisocial personality disorder.
29With respect to schizophrenia, Dr. Pearce noted that Mr. Lawrence’s symptoms began in adolescence and have included disorganized thinking, paranoia, inappropriate affect, and poor hygiene. His illness contributes to disorganized thinking, poor insight, and impaired functioning, particularly when untreated. His condition has historically responded well to antipsychotic medication, but he has demonstrated a persistent pattern of non-compliance in the community, including diverting prescribed drugs. Dr. Pearce emphasized that untreated schizophrenia has been moderately linked to Mr. Lawrence’s offending behaviour, and that assertive treatment—particularly with long-acting injectable medication—could significantly reduce his risk.
30Mr. Lawrence also meets criteria for a polysubstance use disorder, primarily involving cannabis and alcohol. Although he minimized his use during interviews, Dr. Pearce found clear evidence of problematic consumption, including daily cannabis use and alcohol-related behavioural deterioration. Substance use has exacerbated his psychiatric symptoms and contributed to his criminal conduct. Dr. Pearce recommended targeted substance abuse treatment and regular monitoring, noting that Mr. Lawrence has never received formal intervention for these issues.
31Dr. Pearce also diagnosed Mr. Lawrence with voyeuristic disorder, a paraphilic condition characterized by sexual arousal from observing others in private settings without consent. Mr. Lawrence has multiple convictions for voyeurism and two convictions for sexual assault. He has acknowledged a longstanding sexual interest in such behaviour. Although he declined to discuss his sexual history in detail, Dr. Pearce found sufficient evidence to support the diagnosis and noted that psychological therapy and, if necessary, anti-libidinal medication may be required to manage this risk.
32Finally, Dr. Pearce found that Mr. Lawrence meets criteria for antisocial personality disorder, based on a persistent pattern of disregard for social norms, impulsivity, deceitfulness, and lack of remorse. Mr. Lawrence has a lengthy and varied criminal record, including offences committed while on probation, and has demonstrated limited empathy and poor insight into the impact of his actions. While personality disorders are generally resistant to treatment, Dr. Pearce noted that Mr. Lawrence’s antisocial traits appear less pronounced when he is medicated, and that long-term supervision and structured support may help mitigate this risk.
33Taken together, the collateral information supported Dr. Pearce’s diagnoses and reinforced his conclusion that Mr. Lawrence presents a high risk of violent and sexual recidivism, in the absence of structured supervision and psychiatric care. However, Dr. Pearce also found that there is a reasonable expectation of eventual control of that risk in the community, contingent upon sustained psychiatric treatment and intensive supervision under a long-term supervision order.
Limitations and qualifications of the assessment
34During cross-examination, Dr. Pearce acknowledged several limitations in his assessment and in the predictive value of the actuarial tools he used. The VRAG, Static-99R, and HCR-20, are based on group data and may overestimate risk in individuals with schizophrenia.
35He agreed that Mr. Lawrence is an unreliable historian, with inconsistencies in his accounts of employment, housing, substance use, and family relationships. Dr. Pearce also accepted that many of Mr. Lawrence’s convictions involved non-violent offences, and that some of the violent entries were relatively minor in terms of physical harm.
36Dr. Pearce conceded that Mr. Lawrence’s institutional misconducts, while numerous, were not criminal convictions and often occurred in a context where social dynamics differ from the community. He placed limited weight on these incidents in forming his opinion.
37Dr. Pearce further acknowledged that Mr. Lawrence has shown some signs of insight and engagement in recent years, including seeking support from CMHA, expressing interest in counselling, and completing anger management programming. Dr. Pearce agreed that Mr. Lawrence tends to do better in structured environments and that his schizophrenia responds well to medication. He confirmed that Mr. Lawrence has never been prescribed injectable antipsychotics, and that such treatment could improve compliance and reduce risk. Dr. Pearce acknowledged that the risk of reoffending could be substantially reduced if Mr. Lawrence were placed in a highly supervised setting, with enforced medication compliance, abstinence from substances, and access to counselling and structured supports.
Evidence from Correctional Services
38Ms. Karen Hart, a senior official with Ontario's probation and parole services, testified about the programming available in provincial institutions. She confirmed that while introductory and short-term programs exist, they are limited in scope and duration. More intensive rehabilitative programming is typically unavailable due to short sentence lengths and staffing constraints. She acknowledged that Mr. Lawrence, during his time in custody, would not have had access to sustained, meaningful counselling or therapy.
39Ms. Vonetta McGhie, a supervisor with Correctional Services Canada, testified about the structure and supervision available under a Long-Term Supervision Order. She described the comprehensive intake assessments, the availability of psychiatric services, and the strict monitoring protocols in place at federal community correctional centres (CCC). Individuals under an LTSO are subject to regular reporting, medication compliance checks, and mandatory participation in programming tailored to their needs. Ms. McGhie confirmed that Mr. Lawrence would be placed in a structured environment with access to counselling, substance abuse treatment, and psychiatric care—resources he has not previously received in a sustained or supervised manner. Ms. McGhie also advised that should LTO do well in the CCC, they are given more freedom and independence. Those who do exceptionally well are moved to residences where they are subject to less restrictions.
Position of the Parties
40The Crown seeks a custodial sentence of ten years followed by a Long-Term Supervision Order (LTSO) pursuant to s. 753.1 of the Criminal Code, relying on subsection (1) which requires proof that the offender poses a substantial risk of reoffending and that there is a reasonable possibility of eventual control in the community. The Crown does not rely on subsection (2), which presumes substantial risk where there is a pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour or sexual offending. The Crown submits that the offender’s extensive criminal record, including multiple robberies involving weapons or threats, sexual offences, and institutional misconduct, demonstrates a substantial risk of future violent or sexual offending. Expert evidence from Dr. Pearce supports this position, with actuarial tools placing the offender in high-risk categories for both violence and sexual recidivism. The Crown emphasizes the offender’s limited insight, poor compliance with medication, and inability to self-regulate without supervision.
41The defence disputes the substantial risk threshold, arguing that the actuarial tools are not determinative, the pattern of offending lacks sufficient similarity and severity, and that the offender’s mental health and systemic disadvantages mitigate his moral blameworthiness.
42The defence proposes a six-year sentence, reduced by enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody and harsh conditions, and submits that if an LTSO is imposed, it should be for a shorter duration and not the maximum 10 year order. Both parties acknowledge that the offender has been in custody for over three years with minimal access to programming, and that any supervision in the community must be structured and intensive to be effective.
Sentencing Principles
43The Supreme Court of Canada has consistently emphasized that sentencing is a highly individualized process, requiring judges to balance multiple objectives while considering the unique circumstances of both the offence and the offender: R v. Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13, at para. 38.
44This principle reinforces that sentencing is not a mechanical application of rules but a nuanced and contextual analysis. Judges must weigh the objectives set out in section 718 of the Criminal Code, including denunciation, deterrence, rehabilitation, reparation, and public protection, while ensuring that the sentence is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the offender’s degree of responsibility.
45In the context of robbery, denunciation and deterrence are particularly important given the inherent violence and psychological harm associated with the offence. Robberies of convenience stores and the like will attract heavy sentences4. However, rehabilitation must also be considered, especially where mental health and addiction issues are present.
Case Law
46The parties provided the following cases to assist the court in determining a fit sentence: The decisions span several years and contain different facts and very different accused.
47R. v. Dirie, 2011 ONSC 7203 involved a robbery of a grocery store where the accused was masked and made threats. Mr. Dirie was just 18 with no prior record. He received a 4.5 year jail sentence which was reduced by time served.
48In R. v. Eby, 2015 ONSC 5517, the accused committed a robbery at a convenience store and used physical force and threats. The offender had a significant record and was Indigenous. A sentence of 3 years was imposed.
49In R. v. Murchison, 2013 ONSC 1746, the offender committed two robberies, including threats with a baton. He received a joint sentence of 5 years, with a lengthy record and limited support.
50In R. v. Grujic, [2009] O.J. No. 3328, the trial court imposed a four-year sentence for a single count of robbery involving threats and a lack of remorse. The court did not factor in pre-trial custody. The Ontario Court of Appeal later endorsed that sentence in R. v. Grujic, 2012 ONCA 146 and found that it was open to the sentencing judge to chose not to enhance pretrial credit.
51In R. v. Tanis, 2015 ONSC 5026, the offender committed five robberies over 17 days, each involving imitation weapons. He received a 7-year sentence after trial, with a minor record and mental health issues.
52In R. v. Musclow 2013 ONCJ 447, the accused committed six bank robberies while armed with an imitation firearm. He received an 8-year sentence. The offender had a shorter record but suffered from substance abuse and antisocial personality disorder.
53These cases demonstrate a range of sentencing outcomes based on factors such as the degree of violence, use of weapons, psychological harm to victims, criminal history, and mitigating circumstances including mental health, youthful offender and Indigenous status.
54In Mr. Lawrence’s case, while weapons were used and threats made, there were no physical injuries. On one occasion he pushed an employee and struck another with a cash register while trying to flee. While no victim impact statements were provided, there can be little doubt that his victims would have suffered some psychological impact. Mr. Lawrence’s record is lengthy and includes prior robberies, but the level of violence in those prior convictions, is not at the highest end of the spectrum seen in the case law. His mental health challenges and lack of access to treatment during custody are significant mitigating factors. I also take into account that he is a young black male who did not come from a privileged background and that he had been navigating life with schizophrenia since the age of 16 years old.
55In my view, three and half years at Maplehurst Detention Centre, given the terrible conditions at this institution, has more than satisfied the main objectives of denunciation and deterrence for his robbery offences, given his serious mental health issues. Such time could only be described as purely punitive. I must also consider the principles of proportionality, restraint and rehabilitation. Guided by all of these important principles and objectives, I find that a sentence of 7 years and 2 months is appropriate, particularly in circumstances where Mr. Lawrence will be under very restrictive conditions under a LTSO for several years.
Pre-trial Credit
56Mr. Lawrence spent over three years or 1332 days in pre-trial custody, an inordinately lengthy period of time. Most of this time was spent at Maplehurst Detention Centre. He also had stays at Toronto South and at the Lindsay Jail. During this time, he struggled with mental illness and received no significant treatment. The conditions at Maplehurst are well documented and regularly scrutinized by this court. I frequently review affidavits detailing the institutions operations and have on several occasions this year, examined the substantial number of lockdowns. In this case, I received institutional records confirming the extensive lockdowns Mr. Lawrence endured, along with the triple bunking in cells made for only two beds.
57The Crown did not dispute the application of Summers5 and Marshall6 credit and agreed that Mr. Lawrence was entitled to 1998 days of credit. However, the Crown maintained that a significant custodial sentence remained appropriate given the seriousness of the offences and Mr. Lawrences criminal history.
58The Court of Appeal in R. v. Marshall7 reaffirmed that pretrial incarceration conditions are a mitigating factor to be taken into account with the other mitigating and aggravating factors in arriving at an appropriate sentence. Having considered the submissions of both parties, the evidence of Doctor Pearce, the institutional records, and the applicable sentencing principles, I find that Mr. Lawrence is entitled to an additional credit of eight months, bringing his total credit to 2,241.5 days or approximately 6.6 years. Being guided by the sentencing objectives and principles, and in light of the decision I am making regarding the LTO designation, I find that a 7-year and 2-month sentence is appropriate. I therefore impose a further custodial sentence of 6 months.
Analysis and Reasons for LTO Designation
59Robbery that is committed through threats of violence qualifies as a serious personal injury offence under s. 752 even if no actual weapon was shown and no physical force was used.8 There are two statutory pathways to a Long-Term Offender designation under s. 753.1 of the Criminal Code once a court finds that a two year sentence or more may be imposed. The first, route to a LTSO under s. 753.1(2(b) (i) requires the Crown to establish that the offender poses a substantial risk of reoffending and that there is a reasonable possibility of eventual control in the community.
60The second route, under s. 753.1(2)(b)(ii), creates a presumption of substantial risk where there is a pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour or sexual offending. In this case, the Crown proceeded under subsection (i)) and did not rely on the statutory presumption. I am satisfied, based on the evidence of Dr. Pearce and Mr. Lawrence’s criminal history, that the Crown has met its burden under this subsection9
61Recently , the Supreme Court in R v. Quedraoga, has emphasized that the Crown must establish a “substantial risk” of future violent or sexual offending, meaning a realistic and significant likelihood of such conduct, rather than a risk that is imminent or certain.10 In R. v. D.D., 2006 QCCA 1323, the Court explained that psychiatric and actuarial evidence, while important, is not determinative; the judge must consider the offender’s entire history, institutional behaviour, mental health, and pattern of past conduct. The decision also confirms that mental illness may mitigate moral blameworthiness but may simultaneously elevate risk where it contributes to impulsivity, disinhibition, or poor insight. This framework informs the assessment of whether the offender poses a substantial risk and whether there is a reasonable possibility of eventual control in the community.
62Courts have held that “substantial risk” in s. 753.1 requires a high threshold, capturing only those offenders who present a real, significant, and serious likelihood of future harm, typically involving death, injury, or severe psychological damage. The risk must be meaningfully above a mere possibility of reoffending, consistent with Parliament’s intent to target a small, well‑defined group whose future conduct poses a danger to public safety. The term “substantial” must be interpreted as “considerable, significant, and strong”. The analysis must remain harm‑focused, forward‑looking, and consistent with the Charter requirement that intrusive long‑term supervision be reserved for those whose future risk cannot be managed under ordinary sentencing structures11.
63Mr. Lawrence presents a high risk of violent and sexual reoffending, however, there is a reasonable possibility of eventual control in the community if appropriate supports are in place. He has never been subject to a federal sentence or a long-term supervision order. His schizophrenia has been shown to respond well to medication, and he tends to do better in structured environments. However, his history of non-compliance, hoarding of medication, and lack of insight into his offending behaviour underscore the need for sustained supervision. Notably, Mr. Lawrence committed the index offences within a short period following his release from custody for several robberies, demonstrating a rapid return to high-risk conduct. I am therefore satisfied that a Long-Term Supervision Order is necessary to manage his risk and protect the public.
The Appropriate Length of the LTO Designation
64I turn now to the length of the Long-Term Supervision Order. The parties differ on the length of the LTO. In determining the appropriate length of the Long‑Term Supervision Order, the Court must assess the nature and degree of Mr. Lawrence’s risk, the availability and likely effectiveness of the treatment and rehabilitative programming he requires, and the level and duration of supervision necessary to provide the structure and support essential to safely reintegrate him into the community. The term of an LTSO must be calibrated to the offender’s specific risk profile and rehabilitative needs; it is not a mechanical exercise12. In Mr. Lawrence’s case, the evidence demonstrates that meaningful risk reduction depends upon strict supervision, enforced medication compliance, abstinence from substances, and sustained access to counselling and structured supports. A supervision period must therefore be set at a length sufficient to ensure that these controls can be effectively implemented and maintained as he transitions from custody into the community.
65While Mr. Lawrence has an extensive and lengthy criminal record, the degree of violence or harm typically seen in LTO cases is not present here. Mr. Lawrence suffers from multiple mental health issues, coupled with a substance use disorder. I also consider the contextual factors described in R. v. Morris, including the role of systemic anti-Black racism in shaping Mr. Lawrence’s life circumstances13 . While a Morris report was not requested, it is clear when reviewing his PSR that this is the case. Mr. Lawrence has already served a lengthy period of incarceration in an institution where the living conditions were oppressive, with little to no therapy or counselling. Having regard to his criminal record, the expert evidence, the degree of risk, and the mitigating impact of his mental health, I have determined that a 7-year LTSO is appropriate.
66The evidence of Ms. Hart from Probation and Parole and Ms. McGhie from Corrections Canada supports the conclusion that Mr. Lawrence did not receive substantial counselling or therapeutic intervention during his prior custodial terms. In addition, Ms. Hart made it clear that the LTSO framework offers a meaningful opportunity for rehabilitation under close supervision.
67Dr. Pearce testified that under controlled conditions, Mr. Lawrence’s risk of future offending is reduced. I am also aware that should Mr. Lawrence reoffend while under the 7-year LTO, the Crown retains the option of seeking an extension of the LTO or pursuing a Dangerous Offender designation. In addition, should Mr. Lawrence breach a condition of his LTO, his LTSO can be suspended, and he will be apprehended, brought back to an institution for up to 90 days. After hearing evidence from Ms. Ms. McGhie, I am satisfied that he will be prohibited from using non-prescribed drugs and he will also be required to take the medication he needs to manage his schizophrenia. Mr. Lawrence will be accountable each day, until he shows significant progress. He will be subject to strict and continuous supervision, with very limited opportunity to fail to comply.
68Mr. Lawrence has not yet had the benefit of extensive counselling and therapy while being strictly supervised. I do not believe it is in society’s interest to impose a sentence that will be crushing. Rather, I intend to give Mr. Lawrence an opportunity to work on his rehabilitation and his mental health so that he may one day be a healthy, contributing member of our society.
69In arriving at a 7-year and 2-month sentence, followed by a 7-year LTSO, I considered the expert and institutional evidence, the submissions of the parties and the sentencing principles. I have in my view, carefully balanced the sentencing objectives, the unique circumstances of Mr. Lawrence and the need to protect the public while promoting rehabilitation. The imposition of a Long-Term Supervision Order ensures that Mr. Lawrence will be subject to intensive oversight and support. I am satisfied that the combination of the sentence and LTSO will offer the best prospect for reducing his risk of reoffending and supporting his reintegration.
Released: January 21, 2026
Signed: Justice A.R. Mackay
Footnotes
- The civil suit is in relation to an operation carried out by guards between December 22 and 24, 2023 on behalf of inmates in Unit 8 of the Maplehurst Correctional Complex. The inmates claim they were subjected to unlawful strip-searches, and various forms of physical abuse.
- Offender Tracking Information System (OTIS) is the electronic database used by Ontario’s Ministry of the Solicitor General to manage and monitor individuals in provincial adult correctional institutions.
- Assessment orders used to direct a psychiatric or psychological evaluation of an accused’s mental conditions; grounded in the Criminal Code, under Part XX.1: Mental Disorder
- R v. Lewis, 2009 ONCA 792, para. 3
- R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26
- R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344
- Ibid, at para. 52
- R. v. Steele, 2014 SCC 61
- R. v. Ouedraoga 2025 ONCA 566 para. 30
- Ibid, at para. 30; R v. Boutillier, 2017 SCC 64, at para. 75; R. v. Little, 2007 ONCA 548; R v. A.N. 2002 O.J. No. 5026
- R v. Nikolovski v. A.N. 2002 O.J. No. 5026, para paras 191
- R. v. Millie, 2022, 2022 SKQB 139, 2022 SKQB139, at para. 53; R. v. Clarke, 2024 ONSC 436, at para. 33
- R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680, at para. 91: “Sentencing judges must consider the impact of systemic racism and discrimination on the offender’s life and circumstances, including how these factors may have contributed to the commission of the offence.”