Re Chariton Lazarus, 2025 CanLII 13643

Re: Chariton Lazarus

(DOB: 17.09.99)

ORB File No: 8702

Hearing held on: Thursday January 30, 2025

Place of Hearing: North Bay Regional Health Centre

Pursuant to: Sections 672.47(1), 672.48(1) of the Criminal Code

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. R. Bigelow

Members: Dr. R. Kunjukrishnan Dr. G. Kerry Mr. E. Siebenmorgen Mr. A. Bouvier

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Chariton Lazarus Counsel: Mr. W. Stickland

The Person in Charge Counsel: Mr. P. Trenker

Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. M. Mazurski

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION (Dated February 18, 2025)

Introduction

1. On December 12, 2024, Chariton Lazarus was found unfit to stand trial on charges of criminal harassment (x2), assault, mischief, fail to comply with undertaking (x2) and fail to comply with probation (x7) all contrary to the Criminal Code. The court did not make a disposition and referred the matter to the Ontario Review Board (the Board) to do so.

2. On January 30, 2025, the Board convened Mr. Lazarus’ initial hearing to make a disposition pursuant to section 672.47(1) and 672.48(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Lazarus was present at the hearing and represented by counsel, Mr. Stickland. The issues to be determined at the hearing were whether Mr. Lazarus continued to be unfit to stand trial and, if so, to determine whether the prerequisites for a recommendation for a stay of proceedings pursuant to section 672.851(1) of the Criminal Code had been met and, if not, to determine the necessary and appropriate disposition which is also the least onerous and least restrictive taking into account the factors set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

Initial Positions of the Parties

3. At the commencement of the hearing the parties were requested to provide their initial without prejudice positions with respect to the issues before the Board. The counsel for the Hospital advised that the position of the Hospital was that Mr. Lazarus continued to be unfit to stand trial, represented a significant risk to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition was a detention order with privileges up to and including residence in the community in approved accommodation.

4. Counsel for the Attorney General supported the Hospital recommendations on all points

5. Counsel for Mr. Lazarus indicated that he would not be raising an issue with respect to a finding that his client continues to be unfit, that he constitutes a significant threat nor that the necessary and appropriate disposition was a detention order. However, he wished to reserve his position with respect to some of the terms of the order being recommended by the Hospital pending hearing the evidence.

Evidence at the hearing

6. The evidence at the hearing consisted of the record before the court at the fitness hearing, the warrant of committal, a criminal record, the synopses of the various offences charged, an Initial Hospital Report dated January 21, 2025, and the oral evidence of Dr. Le, Mr. Lazarus’ treating psychiatrist.

Findings:

7. For the Reasons that follow, the Board finds that Mr. Lazarus continues to be unfit to stand trial, that the prerequisites for a recommendation for a stay have not been met and that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a detention order with the terms as recommended by the hospital and the additional term prohibiting Mr. Lazarus from having contact with children under the age of 16 unless in the company of an adult.

Index Offences:

8. The circumstances surrounding the index offences as summarized in the Hospital Report are as follows:

Crown Brief Synopsis 24-007044

“Narrative:

CHARGE COUNT #1 – Criminal Harassment contrary to S.264(1)CC CHARGE COUNT #2 – Criminal Harassment contrary to S.264(1)CC

On April 8th, 2024 at approximately 4:08pm, the accused Chariton LAZARUS attended 85 Kirby Avenue in the City of Timmins in the Northeast Region. LAZARUS was in possession of many photographs of CRAWFORD and PORTELANCE, which included their home address and phone number. PORTELANCE contacted the police to report LAZARUS and attended the police station to provide a video statement.

The video statement revealed that approximately five years ago Carly-Dawn PORTELANCE and Aleah CRAWFORD met Chariton LAZARUS at a family barbeque. After the barbeque PORTELANCE and CRAWFORD made no attempts to remain in contact with LAZARUS.

Approximately one and a half years ago, LAZARUS began to frequently attend PORTELANCE’s place of work. PORTELANCE explained to LAZARUS that he needed to stop attending her workplace but LAZARUS continued to attend. LAZARUS would follow PORTELANCE and CRAWFORD throughout the city of Timmins. LAZARUS would locate them at stores and events and would follow them around. LAZARUS repeatedly accessed PORELANCES’s name and address on the photographs ad he would leave them at various locations throughout the City. PORTELANCE had strangers contacting her and advising her of the photographs that were left. LAZARUS has continuously attempted to contact PORTELANCE and CRAWFORD by phone and by Facebook messenger. PORTELANCE would block LAZARUS on Facebook but he would continuously create new accounts to contact her. When community events tool place in the City, LAZARUS would increase his calls to PORTELANCE to try to make contact her. LAZARUS has repeatedly referred to eight-year-old Aleah CRAWFORD as his girlfriend.

Both victims are fearful for their safety as the result of the accused behavior.

On April 8th, 2-24 at approximately 4:35pm Chariton LAZARUS was located walking on First Avenue and Mountjoy Street South. LAZARUS was placed under arrest for criminal harassment. He was provided with his rights to counsel and caution to which he understood and requested to speak with duty council. LAZARUS was transported to the Timmins Police Service where he spoke with duty counsel in private.

LAZARUS was later released on an Undertaking to attend the May 21st, 2024 court date in Timmins.”

Crown Brief Synopsis 24-007495

“Narrative

Count 1: Fail to comply with condition of Undertaking contrary to section 145(4)(a) of the CC

Synopsis for Count #1

On April 8th, 2024, the accused Chariton LAZARUS was placed under arrest for 2 counts of Criminal Harassment – repeatedly follow, repeated communication with, watch and beset, threatening conduct contrary to S. 264(1) of the Criminal Code. The accused was released on an Undertaking with conditions not to be within 100 meters of where Aleah CRAWFORD is known to be or frequent. The accused signed the order indicating that he understood the conditions. The location where the offence took place was at 85 KIRBY Ave, in the City of Timmins, North East region. This is where Aleah CRAWFORD’s aunt resides and where she frequents.

On the 14th of April 2024 at 5:07pm, the Timmins Police Service received a call from Bella GALLANT. Bella GALLANT is Aleah CRAWFORD’s aunt and often has her over for visitations. GALLANT advised that she came home and the storm door to her residence had been opened and her gate to the yard was also open. She then observed the accused Chariton LAZARUS standing at the corner of Birch Street South and Kirby Ave, watching the residence. The complainant resided at 85 Kirby Ave, in the City of Timmins, which is 80 meters from the intersection LAZARUS was observed. GALLANT provided a statement to police regarding the breach of conditions.

A CPIC query was conducted and confirmed that LAZARUS’s Undertaking conditions were still in effect. The accused therefore breached the conditions of the aforementioned Undertaking. Police attended his place of residence at 147 Sterling Ave East, unit 7, in the City of Timmins, North East region. At 5:57pm, the accused was given his rights to council and cautioned and was served an Appearance Notice, returnable to court on the 14th of May 2024. Police spoke with the accused’s guardian, Nathan LAZARUS, explaining the documentation.”

Crown Brief Synopsis 24-014230

“Narrative

COUNT 1 – Failure to comply with undertaking, contrary to S. 145(4) CC.

COURT SYNOPSIS COUNT 1

On April 8th, 2024, the accused , Chariton, LAZARUS was arrested and charged with two counts of Criminal Harassment, contrary to S.264(1) CC. LAZARUS was subsequently released on an undertaking by police. One of the conditions of that undertaking was: You must not communicate, directly or indirectly, with Cary PORTELANCE, Aleah CRAWFORD, Aiden CRAWFORD and Hudson CRAWFORD.

On Wednesday, July 10th, 2024 at approximately 1:05pm, the accused, Chariton LAZARUS was at the Timmins Public Library 100th Anniversary event at the Hollinger Park located at 565 Algonquin Boulevard East in the City of Timmins, Ontario, north East Region. Two of the children listed in the undertaking, Aleah CRAWFORD and Hudson CRAWFORD, were also at the event. LAZARUS approached the children and handed Hudson CRAWFORD some bubbles and other items. When PORTELANCE arrived on scene, LAZARUS fled the area.

On Thursday, July 11th, 2024 at approximately 1:35pm, police spotted LAZARUS walking outside of the Senator Hotel at 14 Mountjoy Street South, Timmins, ON. LAZARUS was placed under arrest at approximately 1:37pm. LAZARUS was cautioned and provide his rights to council. LAZARUS was subsequently released on an appearance notice and remote case form.”

Crown Brief Synopsis 24-014431

“Narrative

Charge Count #1 – Assault with a weapon contrary to S.267(a) Criminal Code of Canada Charge Count #2 – Breach of Probation order contrary to S.733.1 Criminal Code of Canada

SYNOPSIS #1

On July 13th, 2024 at approximately 1:30pm, the accused, Chariton LAZARUS attended the Timmins Square Mall, located at 1500 Riverside Drive in the City of Timmins, ON in the Northeast Region. The accused had previously been advised by the victim, Dupinder SINGH that he is no longer allowed to attend 1500 Riverside Drive at any time. When the victim recognized the accused and directed him to leave, the accused ignored the victim and continued to walk through the mall.

On the victim’s second attempt to have the accused leave, the accused exited the mall. Shortly after, the victim located and approached the accused at Mark’s Work Warehouse and upon directing the accused to leave once more, the accused brandished a bladed object and pointed it in the direction of the victim and began behaving more aggressively towards the victim. The accused remained on the property and was located by police.

At 3:24pm, Police located the accused at the Timmins Square Mall entrance and placed the accused under arrest, advising him of his rights to Counsel and Caution. He was subsequently transported back to the Timmins Police Station and later released on an undertaking with a court date of August 27 2024 at 1:30 p.m.

SYNOPSIS #2

On April 22nd, 2024 the accused, Chariton LAZARUS appeared before Justice M. ROCHELEAU in the Ontario Court of Justice regarding multiple offenses. The accused was released and verbally signed the probation order. One of the accused conditions was to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

On July 13th, 2024 the accused did not abide by the condition to keep the peace and be of good behaviour when he was failing to leave after being directed to and also brandished a weapon.

Background Information Regarding the Accused:

9. Mr. Lazarus is a 25-year-old indigenous male who grew up in Attawapiskat, a remote indigenous community located on James Bay in Northern Ontario. His biological father left the family when Mr. Lazarus was two years of age. When he was four years of age his mother established a relationship with Clarence Okimaw who has acted as a father figure to him since then. Although there is no history of mental illness in his family, his two full biological siblings also struggle with developmental delays.

10. Mr. Lazarus was noted to have learning disabilities at an early age and needed special education classes. He also displayed challenging behaviours, and it was believed that many of his behaviours stemmed from his limited communication skills. Both English and Cree were spoken in his home, and he understands and can speak both, although his communication skills are limited, and he often uses gestures to communicate, particularly with strangers. He was unable to complete high school.

11. Mr. Lazarus’ family relocated to Kingston approximately six years ago in order for his mother to receive necessary medical treatment. After living in Kingston for two years his family noted that he had begun taking pictures of children and calling them “his children”. His parents were no longer prepared to allow him to remain at their residence and he moved to Timmins to reside with his maternal aunt. However, she passed away about 1 ½ years ago and although he remained in Timmins, he was unable to find a long-term living arrangement.

Current Diagnosis

12. Mr. Lazarus’ current diagnosis is intellectual disability.

Legal History:

13. Mr. Lazarus has prior convictions for failing to comply with an undertaking, fail to comply with a probation order, theft under and mischief. In addition, in 2018 and 2019 Mr. Lazarus was charged by the Nishnawabe Aski Police with numerous charges which were withdrawn on November 18, 2020, due to mental health diversion. Included in those charges were four counts of criminal harassment and two counts of assault. The Hospital Report refers to outstanding charges of fail to comply with probation from October and November 2024. The status of those charges is not known.

Evidence of Dr. Le

14. Dr. Le stated that Mr. Lazarus had been at the Hospital since November 2024 and since that time she has regularly reviewed his fitness. Despite attempts to educate him he continues to be unable to answer basic questions with respect to his charges and the court process. He also has no understanding of why he is in hospital and regularly expects that he is going to be allowed to return home. In her opinion he continues to be unfit and that it is likely that he is permanently unfit due to his profound intellectual disability.

15. Dr. Le noted that it is difficult to communicate with Mr. Lazarus but that it appears that he is able to understand more than he can speak in both English and Cree. Cree speaking staff at the hospital note that his ability to communicate in Cree is no better than his ability to communicate in English. She also noted that Mr. Lazarus continues to be hyper focused on the complainant children in the criminal harassment charges and his desire to return to Timmins.

16. In response to questions from counsel for Mr. Lazarus, Dr. Le confirmed that Mr. Lazarus has been found incapable to make treatment decisions and that his parents are his substitute decision makers. She was asked why the hospital was recommending a prohibition from the use of intoxicating substances when Mr. Lazarus had no history of use of such substances. Dr. Le stated that Mr. Lazarus had a significant issue with respect to impulsivity and that it is well-known that the use of intoxicating substances disinhibits and would very likely exacerbate his impulsivity resulting in an increase in concerning behaviour.

17. In response to questions from panel members, Dr. Le indicated that Mr. Lazarus still believes that he will be going home after the hearing. She also confirmed that there are residences for individuals with dual diagnosis in the North Bay area and that a referral for an assessment has been made. The Hospital has also commenced the process to apply for Passport Funding.

18. In response to further questions from panel members, Dr. Le stated that there had as of yet been no sexual behaviour assessment done. She also advised that she anticipated a negative reaction to a Board decision which did not allow for his immediate return to Timmins. She indicated that his reaction would likely be similar to that of a five-year-old having a tantrum.

19. Dr. Le was also asked her opinion with respect to whether a prohibition from having contact with children under the age of 16 unless in the company of an adult would be appropriate for Mr. Lazarus. She indicated that although there was no evidence of pedophilia, he remains hyper focused on children likely because he is himself mentally a child. Because of that she believed that such a prohibition would be appropriate.

Final Positions of The Parties

20. At the conclusion of the evidence, both counsel for the Hospital and counsel for the Attorney General maintained their initial position with respect to fitness, significant threat and a detention order with the terms as set out in the Hospital report. Both counsel also supported the additional prohibition from having contact with children under the age of 16 unless in the company of an adult.

21. Counsel for Mr. Lazarus took no issue with respect to with the positions of the other parties save and except that, taking into account the requirement that Board orders must be the least onerous and least restrictive, the recommendation of a prohibition from the consumption of intoxicating substances as well as the recommendation for a prohibition from contact with children under 16 unless in the presence of an adult were overreaching. He noted that Mr. Lazarus had no history of use of substances nor was there any evidence of pedophilia or physical aggression towards children.

Analysis and Conclusion, Fitness:

22. Although the issue of fitness was not contested at the hearing, the Board nevertheless makes an independent finding that Mr. Lazarus continues to be unfit to stand trial and is likely permanently unfit to stand trial due to his profound intellectual disability.

23. A psychometric assessment concluded that:

Mr. Lazarus “scored less that the first percentile in the areas of receptive vocabulary, visual motor integration and adaptive skills. Using the Welchsler Nonverbal Scale of Ability (Canadian), Chariton obtained a score classified as extremely low and corresponding to the first percentile, with consistent scores across subtests and no relative strengths or limitations noted.

24. The Criminal Code defines unfit to stand trial as follows:

Unfit to stand trial means unable on account of mental disorder to conduct a defence at any stage of the proceedings before a verdict is rendered or to instruct counsel to do so, and, in particular, unable on account of mental disorder to

(a) understand the nature or object of the proceedings,

(b) understand the possible consequences of the proceedings, or

(c) communicate with counsel;

25. The evidence before the panel establishes that Mr. Lazarus struggles to understand the basic concepts of legal proceedings, he does not understand the role of a judge or lawyers, had no understanding of the possible consequences of court proceedings and could not grasp the concept of entering a plea.

Analysis and Conclusion, Recommendation for a Stay:

26. Section 672.8541(1) sets out to prerequisites necessary in order to make a recommendation for a stay of proceedings. The Board must be satisfied that the accused is unfit to stand trial and is not likely to ever become fit and further that the accused does not pose a significant threat to the safety of the public. Although the evidence establishes that it is not likely that Mr. Lazarus will ever become fit, the panel finds that the evidence does establish that he constitutes a significant threat to the safety of the public.

27. Mr. Lazarus’ intellectual disability results in him being unable to understand negative consequences of his behaviour towards others. He remains fixated on the child complainants with respect to the index harassment charges and continually expresses a desire to return to the Timmins area and have contact with them. He also has previously displayed inappropriate behaviour such as taking pictures of children who are strangers and referring to them as “my children”. The evidence clearly establishes that absent the supervision of the Board in the Hospital, Mr. Lazarus would return to the Timmins area and continue with the behaviour resulting in the index offences. In addition, the evidence of his behaviour while living in Kingston indicates that his behaviour in relation to children s not limited to the complainants in the index charges.

Analysis and Conclusion, Necessary and Appropriate Disposition

28. The evidence amply supports the joint submission with respect to the necessary and appropriate disposition being a detention order. The hospital clearly requires the authority to approve accommodation for Mr. Lazarus in order to manage his risk. Absent that authority, he would seek to return to the Timmins area and renew contact with the child complainants of the criminal harassment counts.

29. The panel also finds that terms prohibiting him from consuming intoxicating substances and requiring him to provide urine samples are also necessary and appropriate. The evidence of Dr. Le, which the Board accepts, is that Mr. Lazarus has a significant problem with impulsivity and that consumption of intoxicating substances is a known disinhibitor which would increase impulsivity and further increase his risk. Given his intellectual disability, it is unlikely that Mr. Lazarus would understand this risk.

30. In addition, the panel finds that a term prohibiting him from being in the company of children under 16 unless in the company of an adult is also necessary and appropriate. Mr. Lazarus has expressed a hyper fixation on children and continues to wish to have contact with children as well as having a history of taking photos of children of strangers. Although there is no evidence to suggest an intention to physically harm children, the evidence strongly supports a conclusion that there is a risk of psychological harm to children being confronted by a full-grown individual with the intellectual development of a five-year-old.

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

Robert Bigelow

Alternate Chairperson

Office of the Registrar

Ontario Review Board