Ontario Review Board
Re: Damian Langman
ORB File No: 7415
Hearing held on: Thursday, August 28, 2025
Place of hearing: Brockville Mental Health Centre
Pursuant to: Section 672.82(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. P. Capelle
Members: Ms. T. Mann Dr. R. Kunjukrishnan Dr. W. Loza Ms. B. Naegele
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Damian Langman Amicus Curiae : Mr. M. Davies
Person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. A. Alabi
Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. C. Breault
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated October 8, 2025)
Introduction
On August 31, 2018, the accused, Damian Langman, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of utter threats to cause death or bodily harm and failure to comply with probation (x4), contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (Criminal Code). Mr. Langman is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated February 6th, 2025, which detains him at the Brockville Mental Health Centre on terms and conditions up to and including to live in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
By letter dated July 2nd, 2025, Mr. Michael Davies, Amicus Curiae for Mr. Langman, notified the Ontario Review Board of a material change in circumstances, necessitating an early hearing.
On August 28, 2025, a panel of the Ontario Review Board convened at the Brockville Mental Health Centre, hereinafter referred to as the hospital or “BMHC”, to conduct an early hearing for Mr. Langman who attended the hearing unrepresented. The following documents were entered as Exhibits:
Hospital Report dated August 15th, 2025,
Nine-page document entered by Mr. Langman entitled “Blueprint”,
Rule 13 Notice dated July 17th, 2025.
Preliminary Matter
- Mr. Davies advised that he was appearing as Amicus rather than as counsel for Mr. Langman as indicated on the hearing schedule. That change was noted and the hearing proceeded accordingly.
Without Prejudice Position of the Parties
- This was an early annual hearing requested by Mr. Langman to have the Board consider his request to be transferred to the Providence Care Hospital in Kingston, Ontario (Providence Care). Both Dr. Alabi, on behalf of the hospital, and Ms. Breault, on behalf of the Attorney-General, took no position regarding the request.
Current Diagnoses
Schizophrenia
Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, Combined presentation
Amphetamine-type substance abuse disorder
Cannabis use disorder
Antisocial Personality disorder
Index Offences
- The allegations giving rise to the charges on the index offences is summarized in last year’s Reasons for Disposition as follows:
“On Thursday August 2, 2018, Damian Langman attended the Salvation Army on George St. in the City of Ottawa. That afternoon, he was observed on the property while trying to verbally communicate with Taylor McCormick. Salvation Army security staff then detained him. They were aware he had conditions to not be on the property, and to not communicate with Taylor McCormick.
At the time, Mr. Langman was bound by a probation order for criminal harassment requiring he keep the peace and be of good behavior. Further, he was not to contact or communicate in any way, directly or indirectly, by any physical, electronic, or other means with Taylor McCormick. The order further prohibited him from being within 100 meters of her place of residence, work, or school. He was also prohibited from attending at the Salvation Army address, 171 George St, Ottawa.
Before the incident, Mr. Langman had been warned, with a report submitted on April 21. On May 10, he was charged with criminal harassment. Subsequently, he was found breaching conditions on four separate occasions: May 20, July 5, July 15, and August 2, 2018. Every incident involved the same victim.
At about 3:00 pm on August 2, 2018, Constable Sinclair arrived at 171 George St. Mr. Langman matched the description of the male being detained by Shield Security officers. Mr. Langman continued to gesture and shout in the direction of the victim as police arrived on scene. He was arrested for breach of probation and read his rights.
A police officer attended 171 George St to speak with the victim. She provided a statement, explaining how Mr. Langman had recently been trying to communicate with her, both by phone and in person. He had left two voicemail messages with her. Officers then transported Mr. Langman to police cells for a bail hearing.”
Evidence at the Hearing
The Board admitted into evidence the Hospital Report dated August 15th, 2025, as Exhibit 1. That document provides a great deal of information concerning Mr. Langman’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.
Dr. Alabi stated that his patient continues to represent a significant risk to public safety as per the rationale set out in the Hospital Report.
Doctor Alabi advised that Mr. Langman was dissatisfied with the outcome of his January 2025 annual hearing. This coincided with Dr. Alabi taking over as Mr. Langman’s treating psychiatrist. Mr. Langman stopped his prescribed psychotropic medications with a resulting deterioration of his mental state. There were multiple incidents of aggressive and oppositional behaviour.
In April 2025, Mr. Langman restarted his psychotropic medications and slowly restabilized. He was then transferred from the hospital’s most secure unit to B-3 South and accorded the entitlement to work on hospital grounds. Mr. Langman currently has Level 6 privileges which include indirectly supervised community privileges. He is restricted to certain portions of the hospital grounds and permitted to visit the Oxford Street store which is off hospital grounds.
Some hospital programming has been identified as appropriate for Mr. Langman. However, due to the current treatment impasse, he does not wish to participate in any of these. It was suggested that it may be helpful to restart counselling with a psychologist to address Mr. Langman’s anger. Dr. Alabi agreed that this would be helpful, however Mr. Langman is currently unwilling to re-engage.
There are currently no plans in place to discharge Mr. Langman into the community. That timeline is dependent on his willingness to engage with the treatment plan on an ongoing basis. Mr. Langman has achieved some level of progress since April. Therefore, hopefully within the next year, he can gain access to the wider community. Looking at how Mr. Langman has presented this past reporting year, it would be difficult to envision him as suitable as an outpatient at this time. Dr. Alabi added that it is not necessarily easier for a patient to transfer between forensic hospitals as an outpatient rather than as an inpatient.
Responding to questions from Ms. Breault, Dr. Alabi agreed that Mr. Langman decompensates quite quickly. Although oral medications were re-started in April, Mr. Langman still requires significant supervision as medication delivery via intramuscular injection is traumatic for him.
Mr. Langman is not physically restrained when receiving his intramuscular injections. However, when he sees a needle, he does not want the injection. Dr. Alabi opined that Mr. Langman’s lack of insight is what drives this reaction. Dr. Albi is not aware of physical means having to be used to force medication upon Mr. Langman since January of 2025. Dr. Alabi added that although medication is not forced on Mr. Langman, he was deemed treatment incapable in September 2024 and will eventually accept the injection. Additionally, Mr. Langman receives oral psychotropic medications.
Mr. Davies referenced paragraph 22 of last year’s Reasons for Disposition wherein it is noted that Mr. Langman asked to be transferred. Dr. Alabi advised that this is the same position his patient is taking now. Dr. Alabi agreed that Mr. Langman wishes to be transferred because of the poor care he feels he is receiving at the BMHC. Mr. Langman feels he is not making progress which he also considers a treatment impasse. He has expressed a sustained desire to transfer to Providence Care in Kingston which he perceives as a fresh start. Dr. Alabi agreed with a panel member’s suggestion that if Mr. Langman does not want to engage at the BMHC his progress will be stunted and further agreed that a treatment impasse exists. The doctor adding that due to Mr. Langman’s diagnoses and personality structure he continues to experience psychotic symptoms as he starts and stops his psychotropic medications.
A panel member inquired how, if Mr. Langman is convinced that he is stagnating at the BMHC, how progress at this hospital can be achieved. Dr. Alabi conceded that this was challenging as Mr. Langman does not want to stay at the BMHC. However, management strategies are likely to be similar at another medium secure forensic hospital such as Providence Care. Dr. Alabi was unaware if Providence Care has a transfer waitlist Whether he goes to Providence Care or somewhere else, he will have to engage to progress.
Another panel member inquired why Mr. Langman perceives that if a treatment impasse exists at BMHC things will change if he is transferred to Providence Care. Dr. Alabi responded that Mr. Langman wants a medication-free assessment upon his arrival to Providence Care. Dr. Alabi noted that Mr. Langman had also asked for a medication-free assessment when he took over his care in January of 2025. Dr. Alabi has asked Mr. Langman to consider periods when he was off his medications and how he struggled. According to Dr. Alabi, when Mr. Langman is not compliant with his psychotropic medications, he becomes increasingly oppositional, fixated, entitled and exhibits paranoid thinking. There have been at least four treating psychiatrists assigned to Mr. Langman during his tenure at the ROMHC and the BMHC. Mr. Langman also refused to engage with his last most responsible psychiatrist. Dr. Alabi attributes this propensity to a lack of progress and requests not being met for a medication-free assessment. Dr. Alabi stated that he would not consider a medication-free assessment due to how Mr. Langman presented when observed absent the taking of psychotropic medications in January of 2025.
Mr. Davies inquired if Mr. Langman had raised other issues over and above a medication-free trial. Dr. Alabi responded that Mr. Langman also has a fixed, longstanding negative opinion of the BMHC and its doctors.
Reference was made to page 69 of the Hospital Report which speaks to a recent confinement. Dr. Alabi was asked if there had been any confinements or seclusions since Mr. Langman’s last hearing. The Doctor responded that there was a two-day confinement after Mr. Langman refused his depot medications as described at page 68 at the Hospital Report.
Mr. Davies advised that Mr. Langman wished to testify and put several questions to him. First and foremost, Mr. Langman wants to be transferred to Providence Care because of the current treatment impasse at the BMHC. Mr. Langman advised that he resided in the community for two years in a bad group home in Ottawa (Hampton Lodge) prior to his readmission.
Mr. Langman testified that In August of 2024, his liberties were violated when he was secluded at the BMHC for a lengthy period, adding that this was an arbitrary detention.
Mr. Langman stated that his aggression has only been verbal. He believes that the only reason he is considered a significant risk is because I won’t agree to everything, they are shoving down my throat.
Mr. Langman believes that Providence Care will provide him with a fresh environment because everyone knows him at the BMHC and as a result hold negative pre-conceived notion about him. He added that he does not want any personnel from the ROMHC or the BMHC caring for him.
Ms. Breault prefaced her question to Mr. Langman by noting that Providence Care will receive a copy of the BMHC Hospital Report, adding that she understood that he was transferred to Brockville because of substance issues at Hampton Lodge and wanting to be closer to his parents. Mr. Langman responded that his parents do not want to have anything to do with him.
Mr. Langman was asked how he might cope if transferred to Providence Care and then learned that his treating psychiatrist may have had a previous connection with the ROMHC or the BMHC. Mr. Langman responded he was prepared to deal with that possibility, adding that he wanted to be in a bigger city with more opportunities than Brockville provides. Mr. Langman added that he is prepared to go to Providence Care even if that hospital refuses him a medication-free assessment because he wants a fresh start. If he is not transferred to Providence Care, the existing treatment impasse with continue. Mr. Langman advised that he was told by Dr. Gray that he would be getting a new doctor in October and absent a medication-free assessment at the BMHC, he will continue to refuse to engage.
Mr. Langman perceives that he is being gaslighted at the BMHC. He added that he knows pharmaceuticals and street drugs and understands what they do. He wants self-determination.
Mr. Langman stated that he has not tried to refute anything contained in the Hospital Report as it is not worthy of his time, “I know this will all come out in the wash so I can calm down and all will be dealt with.”
A panel member inquired when Mr. Langman believes he feels best. He responded that he was not doing well with hard street drugs. Cannabis helped him get off street drugs but he would not return to the use of cannabis. The BMHC believes he is a significant threat because of his PTSD. He added that his words are harmless, that he has never harmed or threatened anyone. The issue is that he keeps opposing them (BMHC).
Mr. Langman would agree to being assessed by another doctor from another hospital. He added that he would be surprised if that doctor supported his current treatment plan. “If they actually listen and tell the truth I guarantee they will say that I am not sick. If they are honest and ethical and competent. I am not delusional and not manic. I don’t think an independent psychiatrist would agree with the treatment I have received.” After it was suggested than an independent assessment would likely involve 2-3 interview sessions Mr. Langman stated that this was unsatisfactory as he thought an outside assessment would involve weekly meetings over the course of a year.
No other evidence was presented.
Closing Observations
Dr. Alabi had nothing to add. Ms. Breault stated Mr. Langman perceives the purpose of the transfer request to be found not sick. She added that this likelihood is negligible. Ms. Breault submitted that Mr. Langman should agree to take proper treatment. If transferred and doesn’t get what he wants at Providence Care, there will be another transfer request. As a result, he should be encouraged to try to cooperate with Dr. Alabi and continue to take his psychotropic medications as prescribed.
Mr. Davies submitted that Mr. Langman wants a transfer due to a treatment impasse with the ROMHC/BMHC. He does not like the way he was treated by the ROMHC and referenced a seclusion he experienced in August of 2024 when testifying. Mr. Davies referred the Board to paragraph 55 of last year’s Reasons for Disposition which allude to a failure of the BMHC to notify the Board of a restriction of liberties.
“55. With respect to Mr. Langman being placed in seclusion in August 2024, it appears from the evidence that the increase in the restrictions on Mr. Langman’s liberty exceeded 7 days. It was incumbent on the Hospital to provide notice to the Board of this increase on the restrictions to his liberty pursuant to s. 672.56(2) of the Criminal Code.”
- Mr. Langman seems to be stuck and wants a fresh start. He was moved, not on his own accord from the ROMHC to the BMHC. There is nothing to suggest that his stated reasons for a transfer are abusive.
Analysis and Decision
(a) Significant Threat
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.
In determining whether Damian Langman 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.
The Board unanimously finds that Damian Langman continues to pose a significant risk to the safety of the public. In arriving at this determination, the Board carefully considered Mr. Langman’s testimony that his aggression has only been verbal. Dr. Alabi’s testimony regarding multiple incidents of aggressive and oppositional behaviour is consistent with the opinion contained within the Conceptualization of Risk heading at page 92 of the Hospital Report which concludes that Mr. Langman currently poses a threat of criminal psychological harm, rather than physical harm, which is criminal in nature. The excerpt is reproduced below for ease of reference:
At this time, Mr. Langman falls in the MODERATE/HIGH risk range for both violent and general recidivism in the community without parameters in place. Based on the current assessment and historical records, I believe that if Mr. Langman were to be placed in the community, that treatment and supervision compliance, substance use, and mental decompensation would be his main concerns. His recidivism would likely follow the pattern of past behaviors, including a return to substances, medication non-adherence, and a resurgence of psychotic symptoms leading to grandiosity, interpersonal conflict, religious preoccupation, and possible erotomanic delusions. It should be noted that if he were to reoffend in the community, it is likely that his offenses would be low stakes in terms of the severity of violence. That is to say that Mr. Langman does not have a history of assault or physical violence against others, but of criminal harassment resulting in psychological harm to the victims. Violence, as defined by the HCR 20 V3, includes the threat of potential harm, physical or psychological, to a victim. The latter is what would be most likely to occur, in all likelihood, should Mr. Langman reoffend.
- There are ongoing, albeit low score, Aggressive Incident Scale (AIS) occurrences, of verbal aggression reported from December 2024 through to late July of 2025 as referenced at page 73 of the Hospital Report. As these types of incidents continue to occur within the controlled environment of a forensic psychiatric hospital this Panel rejects Mr. Langman’s contention that the only reason he is considered a significant risk to public safety is because he won’t readily agree to take the medications prescribed for him by the hospital. The panel observed several incidents of Mr. Langman loudly contradicting Dr. Alabi during the hearing which is consistent with descriptions of his behaviour as reported in the hospital report.
(b) Disposition
Flowing from the Board’s finding that Damian Langman 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 Mr. Langman’s needs pursuant to s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
The necessary and appropriate disposition for Mr. Langman provides him as much freedom as possible without subjecting the community to a real risk of dangerous behaviour.
In considering Mr. Langman’s needs, this Panel of the Board was attentive to his desire for a fresh start in light of a perceived ongoing treatment impasse at the BMHC and his years of involvement with staff at the closely affiliated ROMHC and BMHC. The impasse was also recognized by Dr. Alabi during his testimony. As stated at paragraph 40 of Gonzalez (Re) 2017 ONCA 102 “While the accused's attitude might assist in explaining why a treatment impasse exists, it does not justify the Review Board's refusal to recognize the treatment impasse, throwing up its hands and complacently leaving any future progress up to the accused.” We note that the Hospital as well as the Attorney General initially took no position regarding the transfer request although Ms. Brault argued against it during her closing submissions.
Mr. Langman is determined to break what he sees as a longstanding treatment impasse via a transfer to another medium secure forensic psychiatric hospital. His hospital of choice for a transfer is Providence Care, apparently because it is in a larger city, with more to offer than Brockville. He is keen to be transferred because of the treatment impasse and poor care he feels he is receiving at the BMHC. Mr. Langman wants the transfer even if Providence Care refuses to provide him with a medication-free assessment.
The panel is aware of and considered Paragraph 29 of the aforementioned Gonzalez (Re) decision which directs:
29..an accused's stubborn refusal to engage with the treatment team can also constitute a treatment impasse.
- Clearly a treatment impasse exists and Mr. Langman is therefore ordered transferred to Providence Care. The Panel is hopeful that once transferred he will actively engage in treatment and begin a progression towards community reintegration.
Conclusion
The Board unanimously determines that the necessary and appropriate Disposition required to manage the threat Damian Langman poses to the safety of the public while still meeting his needs, is a Detention Disposition coupled with a transfer to Providence Care.
In making this Disposition, the Board considered the joint position and submissions of the parties and the evidence of Dr. Alabi 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. Langman’s mental condition, his reintegration into society and other needs.
DATED this 8th day of October, 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. P. Capelle Legal Member
__________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board