Re: Crystal Lavergne, 2025 CanLII 126069

Re: Crystal Lavergne

ORB File No: 7643

Hearing held on: Tuesday, October 07, 2025

Place of hearing: North Bay Regional Health Centre – North Bay Site

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

Before: Alternate Chairperson: Ms. M. Labrosse Members: Dr. W. Johnston Dr. G. Nexhipi Hon. E. Kruzick Ms. D. Smith

Parties Appearing: Accused: Crystal Lavergne Agent for Counsel: Mr. W. Stickland The Person in charge of Hospital: Representative: Ms. J. Doyon Counsel: Mr. P. Trenker via Zoom Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. M. Mazurski

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated December 2, 2025)

Introduction

1. On November 5, 2019, Crystal Lavergne was found not criminally responsible on account of a mental disorder (“NCR”) on charges of arson - damage to property and arson - reckless disregard for human life (x2), all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada.

2. Ms. Lavergne is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated October 31, 2024, detaining her at the Forensic Program of North Bay Regional Health Centre – North Bay Site, herein after referred to as the hospital, on terms and conditions up to and including permission to live in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge within the catchment area of North Bay.

3. On Tuesday, October 7, 2025, the Ontario Review Board (“ORB”) convened a hearing at the hospital to conduct the annual review of Ms. Lavergne’s disposition, pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Ms. Lavergne attended the hearing, represented by Mr. W. Stickland, acting as agent for her counsel, Mr. Chad Bracken. Counsel for the hospital, Mr. Trenker, appeared virtually for the hearing.

4. At the outset of the hearing Mr. Stickland requested an appointment of counsel for the hearing which order was granted by the Board pursuant to s. 672.5(8)(b).

5. The issues for this hearing are whether Ms. Lavergne continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and if so to determine the necessary and appropriate disposition and having regard to the factors enunciated in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

6. At the commencement of the hearing the parties were canvassed as to their preliminary positions for the hearing and presented the Board with a joint submission of all the parties that Ms. Lavergne continues to meet the threshold of significant threat to the safety of the public and that a detention order on the same terms and conditions continues to be necessary and appropriate in the circumstances. The hospital requested only one minor change to the community living provision, namely, to change the wording catchment of North Bay to catchment area of the North Bay Regional Health Centre.

7. For the reasons set out below the Board finds that Ms. Lavergne continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the detention order on the same terms and conditions with the slight wording change as recommended and agreed to by the parties, is the necessary and appropriate and least onerous and least restrictive disposition at this time.

Index Offences

8. The circumstances of the index offences are taken from last year’s Reasons for Disposition as follows:

“On November 26, 2018, Ms. Lavergne caused damage by fire to the front door of a residence in Sudbury, Ontario. The front door was the only entrance and exit to the apartment. An occupant smelled smoke, opened the front door, and engaged in a verbal confrontation with the accused, who then fled on foot. Fire services were able to extinguish the fire, which had caused some burn and smoke damage to the door.

A second fire was discovered a short time later at a building that contained five occupied apartments. The fire had been ignited with paper that, when salvaged, contained information identifying the accused. Ms. Lavergne admitted to having set both fires.”

Background History

9. Ms. Lavergne’s personal, legal, and psychiatric history is set out in detail in the hospital reports. Briefly summarized, Ms. Lavergne was born in Chelmsford, Ontario and is currently 44 years of age. She dropped out of high school in grade nine but later earned her remaining high school credits and received her diploma while living with her parents in Sturgeon Falls. Her only significant employment was as a telemarketer for about one year which ended with her first hospitalization around 2001. She is single with no dependents and is supported by ODSP.

10. Ms. Lavergne began using marijuana and alcohol in her early adolescence under her father’s influence. Her substance use included cannabis, alcohol, ephedrine, MDMA, crystal methamphetamine and cocaine. In her twenties she developed a significant crack cocaine habit with a daily cost of $40 to $200.

Legal History

11. Ms. Lavergne has the following criminal history:

Conviction Date	Offence	Sentence/Status
August 15, 2012 Sudbury, ON	(1) Theft Under $5000, s.334(b) CC (2) Theft Under $5000, s.334(b) CC	(1) Suspended sentence and probation 12 months (2) Suspended sentence and probation 12 months
May 22, 2013 Sudbury, ON	(1) Theft Under $5000, s.334(b) CC (2) Theft Under $5000, s.334(b) CC	(1) Suspended sentence and probation 15 months (2) Suspended sentence and probation 15 months
January 29, 2014 Sudbury, ON	(1) Theft Under $5000, s.334(b) CC (2) Fail to Comply with probation, s.733.1(1) CC	(1-2) 1 day pre-sentence custody
May 16, 2019 Toronto, ON	(1) Assault with a Weapon, s. 267 of the CC (2) Assault Cause Bodily Harm s. 267(b) of the CC (3) Possession of Weapon s.	(2) Conditional discharge

Psychiatric History

12. Ms. Lavergne’s first psychiatric admission was in 2001. She was subsequently followed by the Outpatient Mental Health Program at Health Sciences North in Sudbury from 2001 to 2019. During that time, she was admitted to hospital for psychiatric care approximately thirteen times, six of which occurred between July 2018 and the commission of the index offences in November 2018.

13. Ms. Lavergne’s current diagnosis is schizoaffective disorder (bipolar type), stimulant use disorder – in sustained remission in a controlled environment, and cannabis use disorder - in early remission, in a controlled environment.

Evidence at the Hearing

14. The Hospital’s evidence was presented through its report and through the oral testimony of Dr. S. Le who has been Mr. Lavergne’s attending psychiatrist since on or about July 2024.

15. As is set out in the hospital report, Dr. Le recounted that after last year’s hearing, Ms. Lavergne experienced some difficulties with medication and compliance with medication. Ms. Lavergne was still getting to know the treatment team and was experiencing some elements of paranoia in respect to her treatment. Dr. Le confirmed that this is no longer an issue. Ms. Lavergne’s insight into the need for medication has been steadily improving.

16. Ms. Lavergne also has insight into the fact that transition to the community must be done carefully. The right type of accommodation needs to be secured for her to be safe and stable once she leaves the hospital.

17. According to Dr. Le, Ms. Lavergne’s overall improvement in the past year has been significant. She is noted to be alert, pleasant and cooperative with the treatment team and is currently residing at Osprey Lodge, with a view to preparing her for discharge to the community.

18. Dr. Le noted that at the time of the writing of the hospital report, Ms. Lavergne was starting to use her indirectly supervised community passes and these have been going very well. She enjoys going out of the hospital on outings and has been using those privileges very appropriately.

19. With respect to discharge, the hospital is in the process of trying to secure appropriate accommodation for Ms. Lavergne. Ms. Lavergne visited 501 Morris and Maplewood residences, both of which are located in proximity to the hospital and tend to be the first residences that the hospital will consider. Ms. Lavergne expressed concerns about being the only woman at 501 Morris and Dr. Le acknowledges this as a valid concern. With respect to Maplewood, beds do not come available very often for that residence. Ms. Lavergne has indicated her willingness to remain in hospital until the right place is found for her. They will keep looking and this may require them to look outside of the immediate vicinity of the hospital.

20. In response to questions posed to her by counsel for the Attorney General, Ms. Mazurski, Dr. Le explained that the notation at page 43 of the Hospital Report stating that upon testing Ms. Lavergne’s urine, no traces of quetiapine metabolites were found is not of great significance. This is a medication that Ms. Lavergne is taking to assist her with sleep and which Ms. Lavergne stated that she continues to take.

21. Dr. Le was asked about an incident last fall where Ms. Lavergne threatened to trigger a “code white” in order to be transferred back to Deer Lodge. Dr. Le explained that Ms. Lavergne was experiencing frustrations on her current unit, particularly with the unit lead. When Ms. Lavergne perceives certain injustices, she can occasionally act out in order to try to accomplish her objectives. Dr. Le confirmed that there had been no such behaviours lately.

22. Similarly, Ms. Lavergne has had issues with respect to the use of a nicotine vaporizer which is allowed on a forensic unit but not on non-forensic units in the hospital. Ms. Lavergne is frustrated that she is not able to use other devices and Dr. Le acknowledged that she understands Ms. Lavergne’s frustration with this hospital policy.

23. Ms. Lavergne is currently on the Osprey Lodge unit of the hospital to which she was transferred because she was doing so well. She is getting ready for community transition and there have been no significant incidents noted since her arrival on Osprey Lodge.

24. Dr. Le acknowledged that over the course of the past year there have been two positive tests for cannabis which led to a reduction in privileges. Ms. Lavergne denied using cannabis but understood that it was detected in her system and may have resulted from something she ingested when out in the community.

25. Dr. Le acknowledged that stressful situations tend to trigger paranoia in Ms. Lavergne. Last year’s ORB hearing impacted the therapeutic relationship between Ms. Lavergne and Dr. Le as Ms. Lavergne had difficulty hearing negative things about her at that hearing. Dr. Le believes that the therapeutic rapport has since been restored and that overall, she and Ms. Lavergne work well together. Dr. Le has told Ms. Lavergne that she is prepared to continue working with her once she is discharged in the community and Ms. Lavergne appeared to respond well to that.

26. In response to questions posed to her by members of the panel, Dr. Le acknowledged that DBT can be helpful for Ms. Lavergne and that she believes that this is already happening within the therapeutic endeavours that Ms. Lavergne is involved in both with in group programming and individual work with the occupational therapist, Cynthia. According to Dr. Le, Cynthia incorporates DBT in all aspects of her training with patients, including the work that Ms. Lavergne is doing as a volunteer at the Snack Shack. Dr. Le also confirmed that Ms. Lavergne is also currently participating in a CBT for Psychosis program.

27. Dr. Le could not identify any other specific residence options that are being considered for Ms. Lavergne at this time. These will need to be identified over the coming few months. Dr. Le does not believe that Ms. Lavergne would be ready for discharge today as she still needs to go through the transition process to the community. She is currently accessing indirectly supervised community privileges. The hospital needs to identify a facility for her to be discharged to and start a gradual transition.

28. No other evidence was presented.

29. The Hospital Risk Assessment is found at page 51 of the Hospital Report and reads as follows:

The treatment team met on August 26, 2025, to finalize recommendations for Ms. Lavergne's hearing before the Ontario Review Board, scheduled for October 7, 2025. Although she has not been a management concern, Ms. Lavergne is experiencing heightened anxiety, paranoid thoughts, and challenges with self-confidence and trust.

Ms. Lavergne has struggled with adhering to her prescribed treatment at the onset of this reporting period. Recent clinical history shows periods of medication adherence and positive engagement in activities, but significant symptoms of major mental illness remain. The risk factors indicate a high likelihood of adverse outcomes, including potential violent recidivism.

Ms. Lavergne has a history of violent reoffending risks, including prior violence, antisocial behaviour, and substance use issues. Her inconsistent engagement with treatment and breaches of legal orders highlight the need for structured support and risk management.

The team is focused on building trust with Ms. Lavergne, emphasizing support and reassurance to establish a strong foundation. They opine that if left to her own devices, she may relapse into substance use, cease medication adherence, and disengage from mental health support, increasing risks to herself and others.

The team concludes that a Detention Order is necessary for her safety and adequate support, deeming conditional discharge premature. They propose amending the community disposition to include NBRHC's catchment area for better opportunities. The treatment team unanimously supports maintaining the Detention Order as stipulated in her prior disposition for the upcoming year; however, they recommend amending the community privileges to include the catchment area of the NBRHC, thereby expanding the geographical area she can currently access.

Final Submissions

27. At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties all maintained the joint submission.

Analysis and Conclusion

28. Having considered all of the evidence presented at the hearing, and the joint submission of the parties, the Board finds that Ms. Lavergne continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public as set out in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code of Canada and as further defined in Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 SCR 625.

29. According to R. v. Winko, a significant threat to the safety of the public means a real risk of physical or psychological harm to members of the public that is serious in the sense of going beyond the merely trivial or annoying. The conduct giving rise to the harm must be criminal in nature. Further, it is noted that evidence to determine whether an individual is a significant threat to the safety of the public can include the past and expected course of the NCR accused’s treatment, if any, the present state of the NCR’s accused’s medical condition, the NCR accused’s own plan for the future, the support services existing for the NCR accused in the community, as well as other items.

30. Our finding that Ms. Lavergne continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public is based on her history of major mental illness, compounded by long-standing substances abuse issues, which have contributed to the decompensation of her mental condition and led her to offend criminally. Ms. Lavergne has a history of non-compliance with treatment and follow-up with mental health care professionals and has lacked insight into the need to engage in treatment.

31. We are persuaded that without a Board disposition, Ms. Lavergne would likely engage in further substance use, cease taking mediation and discontinue follow-up, which would lead her to engage in behaviours resembling those at the time of the index offences.

32. Ms. Lavergne deserves praise for the positive year that she has had. Despite some residual symptoms initially in the reporting period, she has demonstrated good engagement in treatment. She appears to better trust her treatment team and the rehabilitation program that has been set out for her. She is demonstrating better insight and engagement and has started accessing indirectly supervised community privileges appropriately. Ms. Lavergne has been on a self-medication regime since May 30, 2025.

33. Ms. Lavergne is being prepared for discharge to the community and appears to appreciate that this must be well planned, including finding suitable accommodation for her, to ensure that the transition is well executed and successful.

34. The hospital has requested a small change to the community living provision to ensure that all available options for housing can be explored in order to find the right fit.

35. Having considered the four factors set out at 672.54 of the Criminal Code, mainly the protection of the public which is the paramount consideration, the mental condition of the accused, her reintegration into society and her other needs, the Board finds that the detention order, with the aforementioned slight change, is the necessary and appropriate least onerous and least restrictive disposition in all of the circumstances.

DATED this 2nd day of December 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

Ms. Michèle Labrosse Alternate Chairperson

Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Boards