Ontario Review Board
Re: Michael A. Lavergne
ORB File No: 8190
Hearing held on: Monday, August 18, 2025
Place of Hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. M. Labrosse
Members: Dr. W. Sutton
Dr. S. Lessard
Mr. P. Capelle
Mr. A. Bouvier
Parties Appearing: Accused: Michael A. Lavergne | Counsel: Mr. M. Davies Person in charge of hospital: | Representative: Dr. A. Sandhu Attorney-General of Ontario: | Counsel: Mr. J. Wright
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated September 19, 2025)
Introduction
[1]. On December 7, 2022, the accused, Michael Lavergne, was found not criminally responsible (“NCR”) on account of mental disorder, on charges of robbery and fail to comply with probation, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”). Mr. Lavergne is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated June 20th, 2024, which detains him at the secure forensic unit of the hospital with privileges up to and including to live in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
[2]. On August 18th, 2025, a panel of the Ontario Review Board (“the ORB” or “the Board”) convened a hearing at the ROMHC pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. The annual review hearing for Mr. Lavergne was held in person. The hospital was represented by Dr. Sandhu, the Attorney-General by Mr. Wright and Michael Lavergne by Mr. Michael Davies. A hospital report dated August 4th, 2025, was filed as Exhibit No. 1.
Preliminary Matters
[3]. Dr. Shyman, PGY-5 attended as an observer as did Ms. Levia Chan, psychotherapist and Heather Bruce, representative of Ottawa Salus. At the outset of the hearing, Mr. Davies asked to be appointed as counsel which the Board so ordered pursuant to s. 672.5(8) of the Criminal Code.
Without Prejudice Position of the Parties
[4]. Dr. Sandhu advised that the hospital’s position remains that of a detention disposition, the only change being a reduction of the reporting requirement to not less than every two weeks. The position was joined by both Mr. Wright, for the Attorney-General, and Mr. Davies for Mr. Lavergne. The hearing therefore proceeded by way of a joint position.
Current Diagnoses
[5]. Mr. Lavergne’s current diagnoses are:
Schizophrenia
Stimulant use disorder (methamphetamine/amphetamine subtype), in early remission
Opioid Use Disorder, in sustained remission
Cannabis Use Disorder, in early remission
Index Offences
[6]. The circumstances giving rise to the charges on the index offences is set out in the hospital and is summarized as follows:
“On or about the Wednesday, August 10th, 2022, at approximately 0939hrs, accused Michael LAVERGNE attended the Royal Bank located at 139 Rideau St. where he entered the bank and waited in line for his turn. As his turn came up, he attended wicket #5 where victim Zi CHEN was working as a bank teller.
The accused approached the victim, handed her a note and stating, "this is what I want". The note stated "this is not a robbery its a withdraw of 8,000 in $20's. that you get me now or you and your family die the most painful death that could ever exist. Look in my eyes and tell me I'm lie'n like you repugnant fucks MOVE NOW."
The accused was found to be breaching his conditions of probation by failing to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.”
Evidence at the Hearing
[7]. The Board admitted into evidence the Hospital Report dated August 4th, 2025, as Exhibit 1. That document provides a great deal of information concerning Mr. Lavergne’s personal history, mental health history as well as his course in hospital and in the community both prior to and subsequent to the index offences. As the Hospital Report was made an Exhibit, it is unnecessary to reproduce the information contained therein in these Reasons.
[8]. Dr. Sandhu testified on behalf of the hospital. Mr. Lavergne has not transitioned to living within a teaching apartment contained in the Grove Community residence. The intention is to demonstrate learned independent living skills. There he is subject to some phone check-ins and a curfew but not subject to 24-7 supervision as are other residents of that facility. A typical stay there is approximately one month. This represents fast progress given his November 1st, 2024, discharge date from hospital.
[9]. Dr. Sandhu advised that there was one known relapse of crystal-meth in March of 2025 as well as a positive urine drug screen for cocaine metabolites. A second test will therefore be ordered to confirm these results. Thereafter Dr. Sandhu will discuss the findings with Mr. Lavergne.
[10]. Mr. Lavergne has been independently taking his prescribed medications since June of 2025 as well as attending weekly SMART Recovery programming at the CMHA. He has demonstrated his ability to grocery-shop, cook, participate in art and reading, as well as associating well with his peers and staff. In early summer Mr. Lavergne experienced difficulties sleeping due to an early heat wave. He subsequently discussed this with staff and had his medications optimized.
[11]. The goal is for Mr. Lavergne to reside independently by the fall of 2025.
[12]. In responding to questions from Mr. Wright, Dr. Sandhu confirmed that his patient continues to represent a significant threat to public safety. This threat is associated with the potential for a relapse to substance use, and other potential stressors relating to difficulties in managing with change.
[13]. Dr. Sandhu also stated that his patient’s positive urine drug screens have not been associated with decompensation of mental state.
[14]. Mr. Davies suggested that substance use is the only potential live issue in blocking Mr. Lavergne’s transition to independent housing. Dr. Sandhu agreed.
[15]. Mr. Lavergne diligently attends all medication-related appointments and therapy appointments. The frequency of his sessions with Ms. Chan have decreased and will be discontinued in the future with the ongoing ability for him to reach out to her as needed.
[16]. Mr. Lavergne’s finances remains stable. He is supported by ODSP. He intends to supplement that income with employment in the future.
[17]. The detention disposition remains necessary because Mr. Lavergne’s housing is in transition and as mentioned earlier change remains a stressor for him. If next year goes well, Mr. Lavergne may be a candidate for a conditional discharge.
[18]. Responding to questions from the panel, Dr. Sandhu confirmed that there has been no known abuse of stimulants prescribed to address Mr. Lavergne’s ADHD symptoms.
[19]. The attention is that he be referred to Salus housing and a supplement which will be tied to his ability to maintain his apartment in good stead and the ongoing receipt of the subsidy. This is the only housing being explored.
[20]. No other evidence was presented.
Closing Observations
[21]. Dr. Sandhu advised that he first worked with Mr. Lavergne as a PGY-6 resident. This patient’s progress to date towards independent living and societal reintegration is encouraging.
[22]. Mr. Wright, on behalf of the Attorney-General, added only that Mr. Lavergne should be praised and encouraged and that the key to his ongoing progress is the maintenance of sobriety.
[23]. Mr. Davies maintained his support of the hospital’s position.
Analysis and Decision
(a) Significant Threat
[24]. Ongoing significant threat to the safety of the public cannot be speculative. It must entail a real risk of serious physical or psychological harm arising from conduct that is both serious and criminal in nature.
[25]. In determining whether Michael Lavergne continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public the Board has carefully analyzed the evidence as it relates to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Winko, 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625.
[26]. The Board unanimously finds that Michael Lavergne continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public. In arriving at its independent determination, the Board considered the joint position of the parties and accepted the uncontroverted evidence of Dr. Sandhu.
(b) Disposition
[27]. Flowing from the Board’s finding that Michael Lavergne continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public it must shape a Disposition for the year ahead. Its paramount consideration in doing so must be the safety of the public while also considering Michael Lavergne’s needs pursuant to s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
[28]. The necessary and appropriate disposition for Michael Lavergne provides him as much freedom as possible without subjecting the community to a real risk of dangerous behaviour.
Conclusion
[29]. Therefore, the Board unanimously determines that the necessary and appropriate Disposition required to manage the threat Michael Lavergne poses to the safety of the public while still meeting his needs, is a Detention Disposition.
[30]. In making this Disposition, the Board considered the joint position and submissions of the parties and the evidence of Dr. Sandhu and is satisfied that this determination is both necessary and appropriate. The Board reviewed the provisions of s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code and also considered the need to protect the public from dangerous persons, Mr. Lavergne’s mental condition, his reintegration into society and other needs.
DATED this 19th day of September 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. P. Capelle Legal Member
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board