Re M. (L.), 2025 CanLII 126061

Ontario Review Board

Re: M. (L.)

ORB File No: 2946

Hearing held on: Tuesday, October 28, 2025

Place of Hearing: Providence Care Hospital

Pursuant to: Sections 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. G. Beasley

Members: Dr. S. Hucker Dr. W. Loza Ms. M.L. Bridger Ms. R. MacIntyre

Parties Appearing:

Accused: M. (L.) Counsel: Mr. M. Rodé

Person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. T. Tom

Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. G. Skerkowski

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated November 18, 2025)

Introduction

1. M. (L.) was found not criminally responsible on May 17^th, 1999 on charges of sexual interference, breach of undertaking and breach of probation.

2. M. (L.) is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated September 3^rd, 2023, directing that he be detained at the Secure Forensic Unit of Providence Care Hospital, Kingston, Ontario hospital but with the privilege of living in 24-hour supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge.

3. On Tuesday, October 28^th, 2025, the Ontario Review Board convened at the Providence Care Hospital to conduct M. (L.)’s annual hearing pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. A hospital report dated October 5^th, 2025 was entered as Exhibit No. 1.

4. Ms. Tom appeared for the hospital, Mr. Skerkowski appeared for the Attorney-General and Mr. Rodé appeared for M. (L.).

Preliminary Matters:

5. The Alternate Chair asked the parties if they were seeking an order under s.672.81(1.1) for a two-year extension until M. (L.)’s next review hearing. All parties agreed to this. His last hearing was held two years ago.

Position of the Parties:

6. At the outset of the hearing the parties were canvassed as to their recommendation to the Board. In fact, the parties were making a joint recommendation. All parties accept that at the present time M. (L.) remains a significant threat to public safety, and if the Board so finds, the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a continuation of a Detention Order with the exact terms set out in last year’s Disposition.

7. Ms. Tom pointed out that at page 55 they were asking for a continued detention order. Mr. Skerkowski, on behalf of the Attorney-General, agreed with the hospital’s position.

8. As to the issue of significant threat, all parties conceded that significant threat remained.

Index Offence:

9. The circumstances giving rise to the charges on the index offences is set out in last year’s Reasons for Disposition as follows:

“On May 17, 1999, Mr. M. (L.), a young offender, was found NCR on charges of Sexual Interference Breach of Undertaking, and Breach of Probation. In April 1999, M. (L.) was charged with Sexual Assault, Indecent Act, and Breach of probation following an allegation that he abused a 7-year-old neighbour. While biking in a field M. (L.) pushed the boy to the ground, grabbed, and rubbed him in the area of his genitals. He then began lifting his pelvis into the boy but was seen by someone who interrupted the assault. M. (L.) was arrested again in May of 1999 for violation of conditions on his bail. He was found Not Criminally responsible for these acts.”

Background

10. The hospital report of October 5^th, 2025 was marked as Exhibit 1 and should be referred to for details regarding M. (L.)’s background. M. (L.) was born on June 8, 1981. He had a troubled youth and a mother who was a long-term active alcoholic and an aggressive explosive father who was likely both physically and mentally abusive with his son. M. (L.) suffered from intellectual and behavioural difficulties perhaps due to an adverse reaction to the whooping cough vaccine. There is reference to “unprovoked destructive behaviour associated with biting and hitting” with his behaviour worse at home. When he was 14 years of age, he attacked a six-year-old boy causing significant injuries. This behaviour was facilitated by M. (L.)’s father.

11. M. (L.) became involved with the Children’s Aid Society when he was only two. The CAS was concerned that he was not receiving adequate medical care. He and his sister were apprehended and spent some time under CAS care before being returned to the parents.

12. M. (L.) has reported that he was sexually abused by a man he named (but who was not charged) on a number of occasions. He reports being sexually attracted to both males and females with particular urges for sex with children as young as five or six.

13. Assessments over the years have confirmed the diagnosis of intellectual disability. A Dr. Motayne indicated the presence of a personality change due to (possibly congenital) frontal lobe dysfunction, which tends to produce behavioural disinhibition.

14. There appears to have been a few sexual assaults to young children prior to the index offences but the details of that history are not crystal clear. He does have a conviction for sexual assault for a 1997 assault on a four-year-old boy. These took place when M. (L.) was a young offender.

15. After a few years at the Syl Apps Youth Centre in Oakville, M. (L.) was transferred to Providence Care Hospital in November 2005. He had been able to live in the community with the support of Pathways for Independence, for many years residing at the Crofton House Group Home. In June of 2011 he moved to another Pathway home on Lake Street in Picton. Over the years his parents maintained regular contact with him. His father died in January 2013 and his mother moved away from Picton.

16. A number of readmissions have taken place over the years due to incidents or aggressive behaviour. Since February 2016, he has been readmitted four or five times to hospital. A restriction of liberties hearing took place on May 2^nd, 2018. Following M. (L.)’s admission to the hospital between March 5 and March 29, 2018 he had physically assaulted one of the casual staff at the Lake Street Home by striking him over the head with a hard object.

Current Diagnoses

17. M. (L.)’s diagnoses are Bisexual Pedophilia, Developmental Disability, and Frontal Lobe Dysfunction.

• Moderate Intellectual Disability
• Pedophilic Disorder - Bisexual Type
• Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder with Fronto­Temporal Lobe Dysfunction

Evidence

18. The hospital’s evidence was presented through its report and through the oral testimony of Dr. Andrew Bickle. This evidence is summarized below. He has been the accused’s Doctor one year. He advised that M. (L.) lives at Pathways. Dr. Bickle sees M. (L.) once a month but has now decreased it to once every two months because M. (L.) has a psychiatrist in the community.

19. Ms. Tom asked Dr. Bickle if he was adopting the contents of the hospital report which he did. When asked to elaborate about significant risk to the safety of the public, Dr. Bickle indicated that there was a long history of aggression. The nature of the index offence was quite serious but did say that there has been some improvement by way of him, for example, not reacting to another patient being aggressive. He needs structure to reduce the risk of aggression.

20. Back in October 2024 he was in a new home. He needed readmission briefly and then was discharged back to Pathways. He goes to a dance once a month.

21. In response to questions from counsel for the Attorney-General, Dr. Bickle was asked why M. (L.) moved to the new home in January, 2024, and Dr. Bickle answered that he did not know.

22. Counsel for M. (L.) had no questions for Dr. Bickle.

23. In response to questions from the Alternate Chair, Dr. Bickle was asked about approved persons. The mother had been an approved person but it did not work and at this time there is no approved person. When he goes out it is always in the company of staff.

24. No further evidence was presented.

Submissions of the Parties

25. At the conclusion of the hearing counsel for the hospital, counsel for the Attorney General and Mr. Rodé, on behalf of M. (L.), all confirmed their initial joint position of significant threat and a continuing Detention order.

Analysis and Conclusion

26. The panel retired to deliberate. Our primary responsibility is to consider the safety of the public. We noted that M. (L.)’s staff-patient ratio is high. As indicated, he is always accompanied by staff when he goes outside so there is very little risk to the public. He does have ongoing contact with his family that is important to him but they are not willing to be approved persons. A detention order is the least intrusive disposition available. There is funding tied to the disposition. He gets extra passport funding for comforts. He has settled into his home quite well.

27. The Board had no difficulty in agreeing with the position that M. (L.) continues to pose a significant risk. Moreover, it was unanimously agreed that his present living arrangement, under a Detention Order with privileges, is working out very well, is the least onerous and least restrictive arrangement available to the Board.

28. In arriving at its decision, the Board has taken into account s. 672.54 and 672.5401 of the Criminal Code which requires it to consider the safety of the public being the paramount consideration, the mental status of M. (L.), his reintegration into the community and his other needs.

DATED this 18th day of November 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

Ms. M.L. Bridger Legal Member ___________________

Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board