Re: Andre J. Gagnon
ORB File No: 7460
Hearing held on: Friday, October 10, 2025
Place of hearing: North Bay Regional Health Centre
Pursuant to: Sections 672.81(1) & 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code
Before: Alternate Chairperson: Ms. M. Labrosse Members: Dr. P. Prendergast (by Zoom) Dr. G. Nexhipi Hon. E. Kruzick Ms. D. Smith
Parties Appearing: Accused: Andre J. Gagnon Counsel: Ms. J. Hansell The Person in charge of Hospital: Representative: Ms. J. Doyon Counsel: Mr. P. Trenker (by Zoom) Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. M. Mazurski
REASONS FOR DECISION & DISPOSITION
(Dated November 13, 2025)
Introduction
On December 3, 2018, Andre J. Gagnon was found not criminally responsible (“NCR”) on account of mental disorder on charges of assault with a weapon (x2) and uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm (x2), all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code” or “Code”).
Mr. Gagnon is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB” or “Board”), dated September 11, 2024, detaining him at the Forensic Programs of the North Bay Regional Health Care – North Bay (“the hospital” or “NBRHC”) with discretionary privileges up to and including the ability to reside in the community within 250 kilometers of the hospital in accommodations approved by the person in charge.
On August 21, 2025, Mr. Gagnon’s annual hearing was adjourned to today’s date, October 10, 2025, for both the annual and a restriction of liberties (ROL) hearings. The Board therefore proceeded with, (1) the annual hearing, pursuant to s.672.81(1) of Criminal Code, to review Mr. Gagnon’s disposition and, (2) pursuant to s. 672.81(2.1) of the Code, the ROL to determine if Mr. Gagnon’s liberties were significantly restricted and, if so, whether the restrictions were necessary and appropriate and the least onerous and least restrictive in the circumstances.
Mr. Gagnon attended the hearing represented by his counsel, Ms. Hansell. His mother, Ms. Ginette Gagnon, was also present.
Initial Positions
At the outset of the proceedings, the parties were canvassed as to their respective, without prejudice, positions on the two issues.
Mr. Trenker, on behalf of the hospital, submitted that, (1) Mr. Gagnon continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a continuation of the current detention order. (2) On the ROL, the position of the hospital was that a Campbell letter, Campbell (Re), 2018 ONCA 140, should likely have been sent by the hospital. The position of the hospital is that there were no significant restrictions on Mr. Gagnon’s liberties. If there were, the position of the hospital was that the restrictions were necessary and the least onerous and least restrictive in the circumstances.
Ms. Mazurski, on behalf of the Ministry of the Attorney General, agreed with the hospital’s position on both issues.
Ms. Hansell, on behalf of Mr. Gagnon took the position that (1) Mr. Gagnon does not pose a threat to the safety of the public and that the appropriate and necessary disposition is an Absolute Discharge. (2) With respect to the ROL, Ms. Hansell stated that Mr. Gagnon’s liberties were significantly restricted on January 28, 2025, and on July 14, 2025, continuing to the date of the hearing. On behalf of Mr. Gagnon, it was submitted that a Campbell letter should have been sent by the hospital and that the restrictions on both dates were significant, not necessary, and not least onerous and least restrictive in the circumstances.
Findings
- For the reasons that follow, the panel finds that: (1) Mr. Gagnon continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a continuation of the current Detention Disposition, and (2) that the restrictions of Mr. Gagnon’s liberties on January 15, and July 15, 2025 in the circumstances of this case, were not significant and were necessary and the least onerous and least restrictive.
The Index Offences
- The index offences are summarized in the Hospital Report, essentially as follows:
“In the afternoon of October 7, 2018, Mr. Gagnon was walking on the McKenzie King Bridge in downtown Ottawa. Numerous witnesses saw him pushing people he passed on the sidewalk, yelling at and threatening to kill them. He approached a couple walking together, Ms. D and Mr. W. Ms. D was pushing her baby in a stroller. He got close to her, and Mr. W told him to go away. Mr. Gagnon asked her if she wanted to “suck his dick” and grabbed his groin area. He called her a whore and threatened to kill her, and Mr. W. Mr. Gagnon then lunged at her. Mr. W defended Ms. D and her baby. He punched Mr. Gagnon, injuring Mr. Gagnon’s face, and his own hand. He and Mr. Gagnon landed on the ground, fighting each other. At one point, Mr. Gagnon tried to stomp on Mr. W’s head. A third man pulled Mr. Gagnon off Mr. W. Mr. Gagnon then pulled out a pair of scissors concealed on his person and used them to stab Ms. G in the chest; her skin was not penetrated due to her thick sweater. Mr. W pushed Mr. Gagnon to stop him from stabbing her again. Mr. Gagnon then began to stab Mr. W, striking him once in the back of his neck, causing a stab wound. Mr. Gagnon fled the scene. Witnesses had observed the attack. One of them pursued Mr. Gagnon to ensure he was arrested. Another witness took photos of Mr. Gagnon as he fled, and she flagged down police officers and showed them the direction he had taken. Mr. Gagnon was located and arrested without incident. At the police station, he stated that he was punched in the face and took revenge.”
Background Information
Mr. Gagnon is a 32-year-old man who was born in Ottawa. At the age of 3 he moved with his mother to North Bay when his father decided to go to Haiti to run a business there.
Mr. Gagnon completed high school and commenced attending Laurentian College in Sudbury but withdrew in first year.
At about the age of 12, Mr. Gagnon began using cannabis claiming it helped to calm him down and think straight. During his teenage years he began using other substances, including intravenous heroin, methamphetamines, and cocaine.
Encouraged by his mother, Mr. Gagnon came into the mental health system in 2011, at the age of 18. His family physician prescribed a low dose of an antipsychotic, Seroquel. After two weeks Mr. Gagnon stopped taking the medication because it made him lightheaded and impaired his ability to think.
In 2012 Mr. Gagnon came to the emergency department of the NBRHC when he was noted as speaking about bizarre ideas and experiencing auditory hallucinations including speaking with angels. He was not admitted under the Mental Health Act (“MHA”) but was prescribed antipsychotic medication and advised to follow up with his family doctor.
In September 2012 Mr. Gagnon was admitted involuntarily to the Health Sciences North Hospital in Sudbury under a Form 1 of the MHA when he was delusional and laughing and smiling inappropriately. Mr. Gagnon’s heavy use of cannabis was suspected as contributing to his psychotic symptoms.
Thereafter he had several admissions to the hospital because of decompensation in his mental health when he used substances and did not take his medication. He would stabilize with antipsychotic medication and return to the community. He then had the support of the Assertive Community Treatment (“ACT”) team that administered an injectable medication.
Mr. Gagnon continued to use cannabis daily and continued to experience auditory hallucinations and persecutory religious delusions. He believed that the medication administered by ACT was making him sick.
Following the NCR finding, Mr. Gagnon was admitted to the Brockville Mental Health Centre where he resided until his transfer to North Bay in September 2021. The transfer was at his request to be closer to family.
Current Diagnoses
- Mr. Gagnon’s current diagnoses are set out in the Hospital Report as follows:
Schizophrenia
Cannabis Use Disorder, Moderate, in a controlled environment
Evidence
The Hospital Report, dated July 31, 2025, and the addendum, dated September 24, 2025, were made exhibits at this hearing. The Board also heard the testimony of Dr. Le, Mr. Gagnon’s psychiatrist since July 24, 2025. She co-authored the Hospital Reports and adopted their contents. The Hospital Reports will therefore be referred to, but briefly.
During this reporting year, Mr. Gagnon has been medically stable. He refuses to undergo blood work as he self-identifies as being Rastafarian.
At the beginning of this reporting period, Mr. Gagnon was progressing well with his recovery. He was highly engaged in groups and ward activities. He utilized his indirectly supervised community privileges appropriately and the treatment team began discharge planning for his transition into the community.
The treatment team concluded that Mr. Gagnon was motivated to progress through the forensic system. On January 7, 2025, Mr. Gagnon was transferred to Osprey Lodge, a transition unit within the forensic program, as part of the process. Mr. Gagnon expressed that he felt ready to move to Osprey Lodge and then to proceed to the Maplewood residence on the hospital grounds.
On January 15, 2025, while on indirectly supervised community privileges, Mr. Gagnon did not return to the hospital. A code yellow (missing person) was issued. He left at 9:00 a.m. but did not return by the 1:00 p.m. deadline. Mr. Gagnon later disclosed that while in the community he had purchased cannabis and then went hiking on the Laurier Woods trail. Later that evening Mr. Gagnon was located by the police in the woods. He was alone and cold. Dr. Le testified that, being out in the January cold, Mr. Gagnon put his own life at risk.
When he was found, Mr. Gagnon admitted to the police that he used cannabis that day and that he uses cannabis “any chance he gets.” Dr. Le reported that he had used quite a lot of cannabis and verbalized more delusional ideas as a result. A urine sample taken from Mr. Gagnon indicated a significant level of cannabinoids, measuring over 200.0 ug/L.
Prior to Mr. Gagnon’s unescorted leave of absence (“ULOA”), Mr. Gagnon was granted privileges in the community. These commenced in or about mid-November 2024, three times a week for a duration of 4 hours. On November 28, 2024, Mr. Gagnon’s privileges were indirectly supervised because the hospital team wanted to see if Mr. Gagnon was ready to be in the community.
On January 15, 2025, Mr. Gagnon was informed by the hospital team that because he violated his community privileges by not returning as required and by his use of substances that his privileges would be changed. Mr. Gagnon lost all privileges and only had access to the supervised courtyard. As a result of the ULOA, proceeding cautiously, the treatment team gradually began reinstating Mr. Gagnon’s privileges.
On January 28, 2025, he was transferred to Heron Lodge, a forensic rehabilitation unit, where he adjusted well so that privileges were gradually increased.
On July 14, 2025, Mr. Gagnon was again given community privileges. He was granted privileges to be in the community from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday each week to volunteer at the St. John’s Anglican Church Open Arm Café. That same day he relapsed. Mr. Gagnon’s urine sample disclosed a significant level of cannabinoids.
When confronted about the July 14, 2025, substance use, Mr. Gagnon became defensive and told Dr. Le that he could not live without his use of cannabis and that he felt he was not being treated fairly suggesting that maybe he needed a transfer. Mr. Gagnon expressed frustrations with his current situation. Besides not being able to smoke cannabis he expressed that he was not content with the general rules of the hospital.
On July 15, 2025, Mr. Gagnon’s privileges were returned to the lowest level. His privileges included working in the hospital Snack Shack while supervised and to attend therapy groups. On July 29, 2025, Mr. Gagnon was granted supervised hospital and grounds privileges in a 4:1 group setting or with his approved person, his mother.
On September 10, 2025, Mr. Gagnon’s privileges were increased to supervised in the community of North Bay with an approved person. On September 12, 2025, it increased to 4:1 supervised in the North Bay community.
Dr. Le testified that Mr. Gagnon takes no responsibility for the index offences. He takes the position that he was attacked first and does not accept the accounts of multiple witnesses to the events of that day. Dr. Le opined that Mr. Gagnon cannot be persuaded that his level of risk was high due to a compilation of drug use and his mental illness.
On September 22, 2025, Mr. Gagnon told Dr. Le that he wanted an Absolute Discharge because he wanted a job as a canteen supervisor. When asked about his living arrangements he stated that his mother informed him he could not live with her. He wanted to live at Osprey Lodge and wanted the ORB to remove the condition that he abstain from alcohol and cannabis.
Dr. Le testified that while Mr. Gagnon understands that his use of legal and illegal substances is a problem, his insight into the consequences of substance use on his mental health is somewhat limited. Dr. Le testified that Mr. Gagnon’s use of cannabis poses a risk to his mental health resulting in a threat to the safety of the public. With use of cannabis Mr. Gagnon’s schizophrenia, his level of paranoia and hearing voices, worsen.
Mr. Gagnon’s mother was his substitute decision maker (“SDM”). On September 8, 2025, at Mr. Gagnon’s request and with his mother’s support, Dr. Le deemed Mr. Gagnon was capable of making his own decisions regarding treatment.
Dr. Le testified that the hospital team has a high level of trust in Mr. Gagnon’s mother. She has consistently supported him and is a designated approved person.
In response to a question from counsel for the Attorney General, Dr. Le stated that Mr. Gagnon’s community privileges are documented by the nursing staff. Mr. Gagnon expressed that his main reason for wanting to be in the community was to work on his employment resume and to get a job. Mr. Gagnon has also expressed that he wants to transition to Maplewood supervised housing staffed by the hospital team.
In response to a question from counsel for the Attorney General with respect to the January 2025 ULOA, Dr. Le stated that the police were called by the hospital team. After Mr. Gagnon was located in the woods, he was first taken to the hospital’s Emergency Department where he was treated for frostbite.
Counsel for the Attorney General asked Dr. Le about the impact of Mr. Gagnon’s history of substance use on his mental health. Dr. Le stated that Mr. Gagnon has used substances beyond cannabis like methamphetamine which clearly worsen his psychosis and his paranoia.
When counsel for the Attorney General asked Dr. Le about Mr. Gagnon’s mother’s role, Dr. Le stated that his mother acknowledges Mr. Gagnon’s mental illness and substance use disorder.
Mr. Gagnon’s counsel asked about her client’s various residences at the hospital. Dr. Le stated that Mr. Gagnon has resided in three different units all being secure and with different levels of supervision. The hospital team was proceeding to transition Mr. Gagnon at the time of his ULOA.
In response to a question from Mr. Gagnon’s counsel, Dr. Le confirmed that Mr. Gagnon had community privileges at the time of the ULOA. Dr. Le also stated that Mr. Gagnon was able to go into the community with his mother, who is an approved person, at any time.
When counsel for Mr. Gagnon asked about the index offences, Dr. Le confirmed that Mr. Gagnon was using cannabis and crystal meth on that day. In Dr. Le’s exchanges with Mr. Gagnon, he maintained that the charges were not accurate and that he does not assume any responsibility for what occurred.
In response to Mr. Gagnon’s counsel, Dr. Le confirmed that Mr. Gagnon has made some inroads into this insight and that, at Mr. Gagnon’s request, and in discussions with his mother, Dr. Le deemed him his own decision maker with respect to treatment.
When Dr. Le was questioned by Mr. Gagnon’s counsel about his cannabis use Dr. Le stated that Mr. Gagnon wants to use cannabis however, he does not appreciate the impact substances have on his mental illness and his paranoia. Dr. Le confirmed that Mr. Gagnon claims that cannabis is not harmful to his mental health. Mr. Gagnon does not accept that cannabis destabilizes him. Mr. Gagnon holds the view that, even though the events are documented, he fails to accept that he suffered major relapses because of his cannabis use.
When Mr. Gagnon’s counsel put to Dr. Le that he has not engaged in incidences of violence since the index offence, Dr. Le stated that with his detention in the hospital Mr. Gagnon is supervised in a controlled environment. Dr. Le opined that if he is granted an Absolute Discharge the hospital has no control over his activity. The hospital team does not support such a disposition. Similarly, Dr. Le opined she could not support a Conditional Discharge given Mr. Gagnon’s need for a high level of supervision including the need to approve his accommodation and return to hospital quickly should he relapse to substance us which he has done many times, and this could only be facilitated by a Detention Disposition.
When Dr. Le was asked about the possibility of Mr. Gagnon having a travel pass to visit his father who lives in Gatineau, Quebec, Dr. Le stated that it would not be something she or the hospital team could recommend. His father is not part of Mr. Gagnon’s family support. Mr. Gagnon’s mother, who lives in Sturgeon Falls, is actively supportive and regularly takes Mr. Gagnon into the community.
When Dr. Le was asked about the allegation that Mr. Gagnon is micro-dosing cannabis, Dr. Le stated that Mr. Gagnon has told the hospital staff that he is micro-dosing cannabis because the quantity is not detected in urine screening for substance use.
In response to a question from the Board Dr. Le confirmed that Mr. Gagnon’s father is not an approved person.
When asked by a Board member about Mr. Gagnon’s risk to the safety of the public, Dr. Le opined that, if Mr. Gagnon was granted an Absolute Discharge, the MHA could not suffice to bring Mr. Gagnon back into the hospital. Dr. Le stated that when Mr. Gagnon returned to the hospital in January of this year, he was diagnosed with overt psychotic symptoms related to his drug use.
In response to a Board member’s question Dr. Le responded that she could not be sure that if Mr. Gagnon was in the community that he would comply with treatment or adhere to the medication that his serious mental illness requires.
In response to questions from the Board, Dr. Le opined that an Absolute Discharge as sought by Mr. Gagnon was not realistic given the need to protect public safety and Mr. Gagnon’s need for extensive support and the structure of the monitored environment of the hospital’s forensic program.
No other evidence was called.
Submissions of Counsel
After hearing the evidence, counsel on behalf of the hospital maintained the position expressed at the outset of the hearing with respect to both the annual hearing and the ROL. It was submitted that the evidence supports the fact that Mr. Gagnon is a significant threat to the safety of the public. If Mr. Gagnon was back in the community, counsel for the hospital stated that with Mr. Gagnon’s history he would likely revert to use of substances which would result in his decompensation and pose a threat to public safety.
With respect to the ROL counsel for the hospital submitted that given the facts of this case, that a Campbell letter may not have been required but perhaps should have been sent in the circumstances of this case. Because Mr. Gagnon was subject to a Detention Disposition, counsel for the hospital submitted that there were no significant restrictions to Mr. Gagnon’s liberties in either January or July 2025. If there were such restrictions, in the circumstances of this case, the restrictions were not significant. If the Board finds the restrictions to be significant, it is submitted by the hospital that the restrictions were necessary and the least onerous and least restrictive in the circumstances.
Counsel for the Attorney General concurred with the position of the hospital on the issues of significant threat and on the Detention Disposition. With respect to the ROL, counsel for the Attorney General submitted that prior to the restriction of Mr. Gagnon’s privileges in January 2025 the privileges in the community were for a very short period of approximately 6 weeks so that a liberty norm could not be established. In July 2025 Mr. Gagnon’s community privileges were put into place that very day. If there was a significant restriction of Mr. Gagnon’s liberties, counsel for the Attorney General submitted that, on the facts, the restrictions were warranted to protect the safety of the public and Mr. Gagnon himself.
With respect to Mr. Gagnon’s annual hearing, on behalf of Mr. Gagnon it was submitted that in the circumstances and on the facts of this case Mr. Gagnon should be granted an Absolute Discharge. Counsel relied on the Hospital Report where, on May 27, 2025, the hospital team noted that Mr. Gagnon is demonstrating insight and is opening up about his feelings including his awareness of the impact of cannabis use on his mental health.
Counsel for Mr. Gagnon also relied on the fact that Mr. Gagnon has not suffered a major documented relapse and that, since the index offences, there is no recent evidence of violence or threat to the safety of the public. Counsel for Mr. Gagnon submitted that the only evidence of violence occurred in 2018, some seven years ago. It was submitted that it was Mr. Gagnon’s use of crystal meth which led to the index offence and that Mr. Gagnon knows he cannot use hard drugs. It was submitted that Mr. Gagnon has insight into the effect hard drugs have on his mental health and that cannabis use alone does not make him a significant threat to public safety.
Counsel for Mr. Gagnon referred to page 54 of the Hospital Report which refers to Mr. Gagnon as follows: Since his ULOA there have been no significant concerns, and he has not been a behavioral management issue.
Relying on the above submissions, it was the position of counsel for Mr. Gagnon that the condition in last year’s disposition which restricts Mr. Gagnon’s use of alcohol and cannabis should be lifted.
It was also submitted that Mr. Gagnon should be permitted travel passes to travel in Ontario and Quebec to enable visits with his father in Gatineau, Quebec.
With respect to the ROL, counsel for Mr. Gagnon submitted that in January 2025, the hospital failed to prepare a Campbell letter to the Board and that the position taken by the hospital was simply insufficient given the significant restrictions on Mr. Gagnon’s liberties on January 15, 2025, and then on July 15, 2025.
Counsel for Mr. Gagnon submitted that on January 15, 2025, and then on July 15, 2025, continuing to the date of this hearing, that Mr. Gagnon’s privileges were significantly curtailed from the norm he enjoyed from mid-November 2024 to mid-January 2025. It was submitted that the reduction was drastic so that he went from being able to be in the community three times a week to zero with only limited supervised hospital and grounds privileges. The restrictions denied him the ability to pursue employment. Counsel for Mr. Gagnon argues that the restrictions on Mr. Gagnon’s liberties were not necessary as there was no threat to the safety of the public and that the restrictions were onerous and restrictive of his liberties.
Analysis
(1) Annual Review
Significant Threat
The panel accepts the evidence as set out in the Hospital Reports and in the viva voce evidence of Dr. Le and unanimously concludes that Mr. Gagnon continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public.
Mr. Gagnon has a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Cannabis use was a factor at the time of the violent index offences and continues to be a significant risk factor for Mr. Gagnon’s mental health. In coming to our conclusion, we accept the evidence that, while Mr. Gagnon’s insight may have improved, his insight is, and remains, limited. Mr. Gagnon does not accept the serious effect that cannabis has on his mental health. His consumption of cannabis in January of this reporting year resulted in his decompensation where he put himself and the public at risk.
The Board relies on the following risk summary as set out in the Addendum to Hospital Report, at p. 4:
The hospital report to the ORB dated July 31, 2025, depicts how cannabis has negatively affected various aspects of Mr. Gagnon’s life, including his education, finances, and self-care abilities. He was hospitalized multiple times for related concerns, with his first mental health treatment occurring at age 18. Severe mental health issues he experienced, including delusions and hallucinations, were exacerbated by chronic cannabis use from 2012 to 2013. Between 2014 and 2016, while under a community treatment order with the Assertive Community Treatment Team (ACTT), he showed limited engagement, believing medications were harmful, and continued to prioritize cannabis use. He was evicted from his home and disengaged with the ACTT. In 2017, his family raised concerns about his mental health, but he did not adhere to treatment. In 2018, he faced legal issues, resulting in a Not Criminally Responsible verdict due to a mental disorder.
Since arriving at the North Bay Regional Health Centre in September 2021, Mr. Gagnon wavered in his desire to abstain from substances, at times he acknowledges cannabis’s adverse effects on his cognitive abilities and long-term goals and that his past hospitalizations might have been due to his cannabis use. However, he still struggles with its use and continues to believe that it helps relieve stress. He would like to continue to use cannabis despite his history. Mr. Gagnon has also acknowledged micro dosing cannabis in an attempt to conceal his use. Ultimately, his understanding of cannabis remains unchanged despite treatment.
- Mindful of ‘the significant threat’ as analyzed and defined in Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), 1999 2 S.C.R. 625, the panel accepts the position as set out in the Hospital Reports and Dr. Le’s expert evidence that Mr. Gagnon poses a significant threat to the safety of the public.
Disposition
Having found that Mr. Gagnon continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public, the panel must consider the necessary and appropriate disposition taking into consideration the criteria set out in s.672.54 of the Criminal Code, which includes the need to protect the public from dangerous persons, the mental condition of Mr. Gagnon and his integration into society and the other needs.
On the evidence as set out under the heading ‘Assessment of Risk’ in the Hospital Report of July 31, 2025, we accept the expert opinion of Dr. Le that Mr. Gagnon necessitates the extensive support and structured monitored environment that is provided to him by the hospital’s Forensic program under a Detention Disposition.
In the circumstances of this case, a Detention Disposition is necessary. The evidence of Dr. Le supports that provisions of the Mental Health Act would not suffice to bringing Mr. Gagnon back into the hospital soon enough to protect the safety of the public.
The Board carefully considered the submission of Mr. Gagnon’s counsel for an Absolute Discharge. Given the panel’s finding of significant threat and the expert evidence that Mr. Gagnon necessitates the extensive support and the structure and monitoring of the hospital, an Absolute Discharge would not suffice to protect public safety. The evidence supports Mr. Gagnon’s need for a high level of supervision.
Similarly, the panel considered and concluded that a Conditional Discharge Disposition would not be appropriate given Mr. Gagnon’s complex psychopathology and his needs, which the hospital could only safely facilitate through a Detention Disposition.
The evidence supports that Mr. Gagnon used and admitted to using cannabis while in the hospital. The Board relies on the evidence that Mr. Gagnon is susceptible to use cannabis and that his mental health and his psychosis are impacted significantly by the use of it.
The Board agrees with the recommendations of the hospital, and accepts the evidence of Dr. Le, that focused monitoring, and oversight is necessary to break the cycle of relapses for Mr. Gagnon. Although the Board was urged to grant an Absolute Discharge by Mr. Gagnon's counsel, based on the evidence, there is no air of reality to such a disposition being made at this time. Mr. Gagnon appears to have benefited from his time in hospital. However, as noted by his recent and past history, he has not demonstrated an ability to function independently on indirectly supervised passes in the community.
Mr. Gagnon requires the ongoing full-time/24-hour support of the hospital, and in the opinion of the Board, must have the oversight of NBRHC so that a Conditional Discharge would not suffice.
The index offences and Mr. Gagnon’s history of cannabis use disorder and diagnosis of schizophrenia leads the Board to unanimously conclude that a Detention Order is necessary and appropriate.
The panel considered the submission of counsel for Mr. Gagnon that the condition in last year’s disposition which restricts Mr. Gagnon’s use of alcohol and cannabis be lifted. We accept the evidence that the abstinence condition is justified and necessary. The evidence supports that for Mr. Gagnon cannabis use is a known risk factor for relapse or worsening of psychosis. We accept the evidence that removing this clause would compromise the hospital’s ability to manage the risk and ensure that Mr. Gagnon’s reintegration proceeds safely.
The Board considered the submission that Mr. Gagnon be permitted travel passes to Ontario and Quebec to enable him to visit his father in Gatineau, Quebec. There is no evidence that Mr. Gagnon’s father plays a supportive role for Mr. Gagnon. The panel finds that there is no evidence to support the travel pass provision at this time.
(2) ROL
The evidence supports that on January 15, 2025, and July 15, 2025, the hospital restricted Mr. Gagnon’s liberty. The Board then considered whether, in the circumstances of this case, the hospital should have notified the Board with a Campbell letter. The Board finds that, on the facts of this case, the increase in the restriction of Mr. Gagnon’s liberty did not amount to a significant restriction which required the hospital to provide notice under s. 672.56(2)(b) of the Criminal Code.
On January 15, 2025, while on indirectly supervised community privileges, Mr. Gagnon did not return to the hospital. While in the community he used cannabis and was returned to the hospital by the police in a psychotic and frost-bitten state.
Dr. Le testified that on January 15, 2025, Mr. Gagnon had only been exercising indirectly supervised community privileges for approximately 6 weeks, or, at the most 8 weeks. The Board finds that this did not constitute a liberty norm that was sufficiently established.
On July 14, 2025, the very day his community privileges were reinstated, Mr. Gagnon used cannabis while he was in the community. He again lost the privileges of being in the community on his own.
Mr. Gagnon’s restrictions which occurred on January 15, 2025, and July 15, 2025, were between the Board’s annual reviews. On the evidence as set out above, the Board finds that the hospital’s restriction of Mr. Gagnon’s privileges on January 15 and July 15, 2025, were reasonable and the least onerous and least restrictive intervention available. The restrictions and changes that occurred in Mr. Gagnon’s liberties were justified in the hospital’s day-to-day management of his needs and were not significant in the circumstances.
On the evidence of Dr. Le, Mr. Gagnon’s risk to public safety could only be safeguarded by a change in Mr. Gagnon’s privileges. The Board finds that the hospital took steps to protect public safety and in response to Mr. Gagnon’s needs. We refer to the Court of Appeal decision in Campbell, were, at para. 56 Fairburn J.A. states as follows:
In between Board reviews, the hospital takes over. As a practical matter the hospital must be granted sufficient latitude to deal with the predictability unpredictable nature of mental illness, the daily fluctuations that occur comma and the response is required in the multifaceted institutional setting where NCR patients often reside. As noted in Tulikorpi, at para. 69, there is a day-to-day fine-tuning that must take place to keep patients and staff safe, and to deliver care. Each NCR accused is unique, and each brings his or her clinical strengths and challenges. Needs will constantly vary, and the hospital will have to be at the ready to respond. It is essential that hospitals be provided with sufficient flexibility to respond to patient needs…
Last year’s Reasons for Disposition set out that, as a result of Mr. Gagnon’s continued breaches of his disposition, his privileges were limited. This reporting year his privileges and progress toward a discharge from the hospital were again frustrated and linked to his substance use and his inability to respect privilege levels.
During this reporting year, in November 2024, Mr. Gagnon was making good positive progress with his privilege levels. For approximately two months Mr. Gagnon managed his privileges in the community by remaining substance free. The evidence supports that in December 2024 the hospital team was considering his transition into community by transitional living at Maplewood house. The evidence is that the hospital team wanted to see how he would do in the community.
Mr. Gagnon’s ULOA in January 2025 changed everything. Unfortunately, Mr. Gagnon was the author of his own misfortune. In the circumstances, his liberties required restriction. As a result of the ULOA Mr. Gagnon posed a risk to the safety of public and himself, a risk that required management by the hospital.
The evidence supports that, as part of his treatment program, from January onward Mr. Gagnon’s privileges were increasingly stepped up to supervised in the community in a group and with an approved person, including overnight visits to Sturgeon Falls. By July 14, 2025, Mr. Gagnon had the following privileges:
- Supervised hospital and grounds in a group;
- Supervised hospital and grounds with an approved person;
- Supervised community in a group;
- Supervised community with approved person, including a standing memo for visits in Sturgeon Falls overnight;
- Indirectly supervised hospital and grounds –to and from groups;
- 2x30 minutes of indirectly supervised hospital and grounds privileges.
On July 14,2025, the very day his community privileges were reinstated, Mr. Gagnon used cannabis while he was in the community. He again lost that privilege but retained the privileges to work in the hospital Snack Shack and to attend therapeutic groups. His privileges were gradually increased. On July 29, 2025, he was granted supervised hospital and grounds privileges in a 4:1 group setting or with this approved person. On September 10, 2025, Mr. Gagnon received supervised privileges in the community with his approved person and on September 12, 2025, 4:1 supervised in the community.
The restrictions to Mr. Gagnon’s liberties in the circumstances of this case were part of his treatment program and constituted the day-to-day fine-tuning that must take place to keep patients and staff safe, to deliver care and to protect the safety of the public. In the circumstances, the panel finds Mr. Gagnon’s liberties required restriction and that these were justified and the least onerous and least restrictive.
DATED this 13th day of November 2025 at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Emile Kruzick Legal Member
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board