Ontario Review Board
Re: Jordan J. Langelier
ORB File No: 7787
Hearing held on: Thursday, January 30, 2025
Place of hearing: St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Weinstein
Members: Dr. R. Buckingham Dr. L.O. Lightfoot Mr. K. McKenna Ms. B. Little
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Jordan J. Langelier Counsel: Mr. F. Gehl
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Mr. S. O’Brien
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. J. McKenzie
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated February 26, 2025)
Introduction:
On September 30, 2020, Mr. Jordan Langelier was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, on a charge of second-degree murder, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”).
Mr. Langelier is subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”), dated November 30, 2023, which orders that he be detained at the Forensic Psychiatry Program of St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton - West 5th Campus, Hamilton (“St. Joseph's”).
On January 30, 2025, the Board convened a hearing at St. Joseph's to conduct the annual review of the current Disposition.
Mr. Langelier was present at the hearing, and was represented by his counsel, Mr. Gehl.
A Hospital Report, dated January 23, 2025 (the "Hospital Report"), was entered as Exhibit 1.
Mr. Gehl tendered a letter of apology on behalf of his client, which he requested to be marked as Exhibit 2. On the understanding that this document is to be used only for the purposes of this hearing, and not to be forwarded to any other parties, it was so marked. All counsel agreed to add a term to the existing Disposition, that Mr. Langelier is to refrain from contact with the family of the victim.
The issue at this hearing is whether Mr. Langelier is a significant threat to public safety, as defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code. If so, the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances must be determined, bearing in mind the factors enunciated in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
For the reasons set out below and based on the expert evidence and opinions before it, the Board concluded that Mr. Langelier continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board ordered the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances is the continuation of the existing Detention Order, with the added term that Mr. Langelier is to refrain from contact with the family of the victim.
Current Psychiatric Diagnoses:
- Substance Induced Psychosis Disorder, in full remission.
Cannabis Use Disorder
Stimulant Use Disorder, in sustained remission, in a controlled environment
Borderline Personality Disorder, with antisocial, histrionic and narcissistic traits
Index Offences:
- The circumstances giving rise to the Index Offences are extracted from last year's Board Reasons, as follows:
“The following is quoted from the Guelph Police Service, Officer Report, Revised Crown Brief Synopsis, dated February 13, 2020 for the charge of 2nd Degree Murder:
On January 15th, 2020, the victim was working as a Security Guard at the Guelph Via Rail Transit Station located at 79 Carden Street. At approximately 8:30 pm, the accused was standing outside of the main door to the train station. The victim walked passed the accused and into the station. After the victim passed by the accused, the accused began to throw punches through the air.
Ten minutes later at 8:40 pm, the victim walked outside to the southwest corner of the building where he appears to be smoking a cigarette. The accused exits the station through the main doors and walks around the building to where the victim is standing. The accused and victim stand face to face and appear to have a brief conversation for approximately ten seconds. The victim reaches into his pocket and then appears to be offering something to the victim (believed to be a cigarette). As the victim was reaching out, the accused strikes the victim in the head with a punch from his right hand knocking the victim unconscious and causing him to fall backwards on the pavement.
The accused then got on top of the victim and struck him in the head with 17-20 more punches. The accused stood up and struck the victim with 8-10 more punches to the head.
The accused then picked up a bag of cigarettes that belonged to the victim. After picking up the cigarettes, the accused begins to stomp on and kick the victim in the head multiple times. The accused leaves the victim's location but continually returns to stomp on his head, chest and legs. At one point, the accused ran and jumped up into the air coming down with both feet on top of the victim's chest, as he laid motionless on the ground. The accused reached into the pockets of the victim and threw items from his pockets onto the ground.
Police were contacted at 8:47 pm and located the accused a short distance away from the victim. The accused had blood on his hands and his shoes. He was arrested at 8:51 pm and transported back to the police station.
The victim was treated at the scene but was absent of vital signs. He was transported to the Guelph General Hospital where he was pronounced as deceased. The preliminary cause of death was determined to be blunt impact head and face trauma.”
Course Since Last Disposition:
- Mr. Langelier’s course since his last Disposition is set out in detail in the Hospital Report. The following extracted paragraphs are relevant to this hearing:
“Mr. Langelier was an inpatient on Orchard 3 after being transferred from Harbour North 3 on October.
Since his transfer to the unit, Mr. Langelier has demonstrated difficulty with rule adherence, specifically with limitations around his gaming system and the submission of daily urine drug screens.
Mr. Langelier started the 2024 year by relapsing into cannabis use. He relapsed a handful of times since then. Since his relapse, his privileges have been relatively limited. Mr. Langelier does not understand his treatment team’s concern about his cannabis use, often dismissing and downplaying the risk of using cannabis.
Mr. Langelier had achieved Level 3 indirect privileges in August 2024.
Unfortunately, the L3 privileges were short lived as Mr. Langelier used cannabis on or around December 13, 2024.”
Position of the Parties:
Counsels for the hospital, the Attorney General and Mr. Langelier advised that all parties agreed that Mr. Langelier continues to present a significant threat to public safety and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Detention Order. They also agreed to an additional condition: that he have no contact with the family of the victim of the Index Offence.
Counsel for the hospital and the Attorney General took the position that there should be no change to the current Disposition, except as agreed above.
Counsel for Mr. Langelier advised that his client was seeking two changes to the current Disposition:
(a) Paragraph 2(g) should be amended to remove the word “supervised,” so that it reads: “to live in the City of Hamilton, in accommodation approved by the person in charge.”
(b) Paragraph 4(a) should be amended to allow Mr. Langelier to use cannabis, so it reads: “abstain absolutely from the use of alcohol, or the non-medical use of drugs or any other intoxicant.”
Evidence at the Hearing:
- The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence from Dr. Alatishe and Mr. Langelier.
Testimony of Dr. Alatishe
- Dr. Alatishe co-authored the Hospital Report and testified as follows:
a) He has been Mr. Langelier’s attending psychiatrist since October 31, 2024.
b) He has read the Hospital Report and adopts its contents.
c) Mr. Langelier is only exercising privilege levels 2, 3 and 4, accompanied with staff only, for therapeutic programming.
d) On January 22, 2025, Mr. Langelier’s urine drug sample returned positive for cannabis. There were additional positive samples on January 23, 24 and 25. All of Mr. Langelier’s samples have returned negative for cannabis use since that date.
e) Mr. Langelier largely stays in his room, playing video games.
f) Mr. Langelier initially had some trouble adjusting to the new unit, despite there having been no changes to his care plan from Harbour North 3. The primary issue centered around the use of his video gaming system. Mr. Langelier’s care plan required him to stop using his X-box at 11:00 p.m. every day, so that it would not interfere with his sleep. To Mr. Langelier’s credit, he is now willing to provide urine samples and to follow the procedures regarding his X-box.
g) Mr. Langelier understands that he must engage in programming to have full access to his privileges, and he is agreeable to do so. He has agreed to engage with substance relapse prevention groups and DBT. The main concern is Mr. Langelier’s continued use of cannabis, as it was when he resided on Harbour North 3.
h) When Mr. Langelier transferred to this unit, he was granted privileges for hospital and grounds, indirectly supervised. Shortly after these privileges were granted, around December 13, 2024, Mr. Langelier tested positive for cannabis. As set out in the Hospital Report, Mr. Langelier went approximately 10 days between positive results for cannabis in his urine drug screens. Remaining abstinent from substances is an integral part of Mr. Langelier’s risk profile, as his main diagnosis is substance induced psychosis. He has also been diagnosed with a cannabis use disorder.
i) Mr. Langelier was using substances at the time of the Index Offence. Any time Mr. Langelier reaches level 3 privileges, which are indirectly supervised privileges on hospital and grounds, he uses cannabis, and his privileges are put on hold.
j) Mr. Langelier has not had any formal, occupational assessment to determine the appropriate type of accommodation for him. If the Disposition did not contain the requirement that he be placed in supervised accommodation, it would likely be harder for Mr. Langelier to accept being transferred to such a residence.
k) For the reasons mentioned earlier, it would definitely not be a good idea to remove the requirement that Mr. Langelier abstain from the use of cannabis.
l) Mr. Langelier has clearly demonstrated that he does not wish to adhere to the provision in his Disposition that he not use cannabis.
m) If Mr. Langelier were permitted to use cannabis, he would increase its use exponentially, causing him to become a significant threat to public safety.
n) The following passage from the Hospital Report accurately summarizes why the hospital feels Mr. Langelier continues to represent a significant threat to public safety:
“The following are the risk factors contributing to Mr., Langelier’s risk to others;
Significant history of polysubstance use, primarily stimulants and cannabis
History of medication and treatment non-adherence
History of violence and offending behaviours
Personality disorder – borderline, antisocial, narcissistic features
Rule non-adherence – historical and active
Affective instability
Poor stress tolerance
Poor insight regarding associated risk with cannabis use
Lack of personal supports”
o) It is premature to even consider discharging Mr. Langelier into the community; he has not even been able to use his level 4 privileges, which are to enter the community, indirectly supervised.
p) His attention was then brought to the following paragraph on page 67 of the Hospital Report:
“Concerning future aspirations, within the next 10 years he hopes to be out of the forensic system, in school, saving money, and pursuing entrepreneurial opportunities and hobbies. He also expressed a desire to fall in love, have a family, and feel less depressed. Although his goals are prosocial, he does not appear to fully grasp the required steps and resources needed achieve the same. To his credit, he is not interested in engaging in behaviours that will get him in trouble but believes that staying abstinent from crystal methamphetamine is the only factor that contributed to the index offence and as such, it should be the only factor that he needs to be mindful of going forward in order to achieve success.” (our emphasis added)
Mr. Langelier believes that his use of crystal methamphetamine is his only risk factor because the treatment team has not seen any decompensation in his mental state, despite his repeated cannabis use. The treatment team disagrees with Mr. Langelier’s assessment. When Mr. Langelier was admitted to CAMH in 2016 and 2017, he presented with psychotic symptoms, including paranoia. His discharge diagnosis at that time was cannabis induced psychosis.
q) In 2016 and 2017, Mr. Langelier reported that he was using cannabis, and he acknowledged that it increased his persecutory ideation and that it negatively affected his mental status. Mr. Langelier also recognized the negative impact that cannabis has on his mental state in 2021. It now appears that Mr. Langelier no longer believes that cannabis has any impact on his mental status. His position is that he has the right to use cannabis, and he will continue to do so, regardless of what is in his Disposition.
r) The Index Offence was extremely serious, and the use of any substances, whether crystal methamphetamine or cannabis, would increase his risk to public safety.
s) Mr. Langelier has not been able to demonstrate that he can control his urges for cannabis, nor to abstain from it.
- In response to questions from counsel for the Attorney General, Dr. Alatishe testified:
a) In addition to Mr. Langelier’s primary diagnosis of substance induced psychosis disorder, he also has borderline personality disorder, as well as antisocial and narcissistic traits, which impact, and complicate, his presentation and treatment.
b) Mr. Langelier’s borderline personality disorder, and antisocial and personality traits are likely the driving force for why his continued cannabis use and are responsible for his lack of progress in the forensic system. These characterological traits lead to non-adherence to rules, as well as impulsive behaviours.
c) Personality disorders are, by their very nature, very difficult to treat, but dialectical behavioural therapy (DBT) would help to improve Mr. Langelier’s coping skills.
d) Mr. Langelier, to his credit, has done some DBT work in the past, and he is willing to engage in it, going forward.
e) Mr. Langelier does much better in a group setting than 1:1, as he tends to shut down when he is challenged.
f) In the past, Mr. Langelier has had insight into the risk that cannabis represents to his mental stability and its impact on his risk to public safety. He cannot fully articulate why he no longer feels that cannabis poses these risks.
g) Mr. Langelier does not claim he is using cannabis for its therapeutic benefits; he merely feels that he has the right to use it and that it does not pose a risk for others.
- In response to questions from counsel for Mr. Langelier, Dr. Alatishe testified:
a) All of Mr. Langelier’s positive drug screens this year were for cannabis, and no other intoxicants.
b) The treatment team has not seen Mr. Langelier engage in any assaultive behaviour or make threats when they have found cannabis in his urine drug screens.
c) If Mr. Langelier were permitted to use cannabis, the frequency of his use would significantly impact his mental stability and cause him to experience another substance-induced psychotic state.
d) It is true that Mr. Langelier’s in hospital cannabis use has not negatively impacted Mr. Langelier’s mental state significantly, nor led him to commit violence, while in the hospital. However, if he were able to increase the frequency of his cannabis use and the amount he consumed, it is fairly likely that his mental state would deteriorate and that he would engage in violent behaviour. There is also concern that cannabis would have a demotivational effect on Mr. Langelier. Should he be allowed to use cannabis, it would decrease his drive to engage in further therapeutic programming, which he needs.
e) The paramount reasons Mr. Langelier should not use cannabis are the negative effect it would have on his mental stability and the increase in the risk he would pose to others.
- In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Alatishe testified:
a) Mr. Langelier’s personality features are the main causes for his disregard of hospital rules and the prohibition of cannabis consumption in his Disposition.
b) Mr. Langelier does participate, and is engaged, in his DBT programming.
c) While Mr. Langelier’s engagement in DBT has not stopped him from his rule-breaking and using cannabis, the team has not seen any significant aggression since he started the therapy.
d) While psychological testing does suggest that Mr. Langelier continues to struggle with anxiety and depressive symptoms, he does not believe it meets the criteria to be classified as a depressive disorder.
e) Mr. Langelier’s anxiety, depression and borderline personality disorder all cause him to experience a very unpleasant internal state and to become emotionally dysregulated. This dysregulation could be a driver for his cannabis use. Although he does not articulate these feelings, or use them to justify taking cannabis, they could be operating on a more subconscious level.
f) Supervised community living should remain in Mr. Langelier’s Disposition. Removing the word “supervised” from the description of accommodation required by the person in charge would likely have a negative therapeutic impact. A supervised setting would be required initially, especially because of Mr. Langelier’s diagnoses of substance use disorder and borderline personality disorder and the fact that he is not on any antipsychotic medication.
g) If the hospital felt, at the time of discharge, that Mr. Langelier no longer needed supervised accommodation, they would call an early hearing to have the word “supervised” removed from his Disposition.
h) It is true that the treatment team has not seen a deterioration in Mr. Langelier’s mental state when he tests positive for cannabis. However, his stability is due to their oversight and to the limited frequency, and amount, of his consumption.
i) Mr. Langelier has a clear history of suffering a deterioration in his mental state due to cannabis use, which caused him to become a significant threat to public safety. He has not demonstrated that he can consume cannabis as much as he would like without it affecting his mental stability.
This concluded the evidence of Dr. Alatishe.
Testimony of Mr. Langelier
He believes that he can live independently and does not need supervised accommodation.
He does not believe he has been accurately diagnosed and feels that he suffers from depression.
He believes marijuana helps him with his depression.
When he was homeless and living on the streets, he never felt suicidal, but since he has been in hospital, he does. He cuts crosses on his arm now, which he did not do when he was living in the community.
He recognizes that crystal methamphetamine is not good for his mental state.
He denied using marijuana at the time of the Index Offence.
He has been using marijuana quite regularly since he has been at St. Joseph's, and he has not engaged in any violent behaviour.
This completed the evidence of Mr. Langelier.
Analysis and Conclusions:
Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence, as well as submissions from the parties, the Board agrees with the joint submission: Mr. Langelier remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.
In Winko, the Supreme Court outlined that, in coming to the conclusion on the issue of significant risk, a Review Board should closely examine a range of evidence, including: the circumstances of the original offence; the past and expected course of the accused’s treatment; the present state of the NCR accused’s medical condition; the NCR accused’s own plans for the future; the support existing for the NCR accused in the community; and most importantly, the recommendations provided by experts who examined the NCR accused. In coming to our conclusion in this matter, the Board relies on the uncontroverted expert evidence of Dr. Alatishe, in addition to the documentary evidence before us.
In particular, the Board relies on the following paragraphs extracted from the Hospital Report, which sets out why Mr. Langelier remains a significant threat to public safety as well why a Conditional Discharge Disposition is not appropriate at this time:
“In terms of risk management, Mr. Langelier’s potential for violence/offending over the next 12 months was considered should he have access to the community versus remain in hospital. If he were to have access to the community several concerns arise, one being him accessing, utilizing, and abiding by the conditions laid out by professional services and plans. At this time there is no concrete plans in place for him to have an increased likelihood of effectively reintegrating into the community, and even if plans were in place, there is concern that he would follow through with the same. He has a very limited social network, as he does not currently have strong familial or other interpersonal relationships. This raises concerns about where he would live and the level of personal support he would have in the community. In this same vein, the inevitable additional stressors (e.g., finances, housing, forming interpersonal connections) in the community could foreseeably be arduous due to his difficulties with emotion regulation and lack of effective coping skills. This could put him at risk of using historical ineffective coping skills, including using Cannabis and engaging in self-harm. It is true that Mr. Langelier may continue to have difficulties with treatment and supervision response and coping with stress while residing in hospital. However, this setting would provide a buffer for the potential consequences of these risks. Indeed, in hospital he would have consistent access to and supervision by a clinical team, a reliable, safe, and supportive living environment, in which he could further develop insight and integral skills (e.g., coping).
Considering all factors on the HCR-20V3, Mr. Langelier violence/offending risk over the next twelve months is considered to be Low to Moderate range while under the strict supervision of the ORB’s Detention Disposition. A decrease in formal oversight, such as under the Conditional or Absolute Discharge, would increase the projected risk to the Moderate-High to High range for re-offending in the weeks-to-months post-community access, as it is highly likely that absent the support currently provided to him, Mr. Langelier would struggle to manage day to day stressors. To manage the same, he would most certainly consume cannabis, which would further impact his emotional stability and already vulnerable cognitive status. In this state, he would be at an increased risk to consume substances such as crystal methamphetamine, which would lead to psychiatric decompensation to the extent that his risk to re-offend violently would become acute.
Concerning future risk scenarios, it is possible that due to Mr. Langelier’s lack of rule adherence, particularly his use of substances despite this being contrary to the conditions of his disposition, he could be at risk of experiencing a relapse in psychotic symptoms. This is of concern as his substance-induced psychosis was related to the commission of the index offence, which was very serious in nature, both because it was violent, and the victim was a stranger. If his psychotic symptoms re-emerged it is possible that he may re-offend in a violent manner and could target individuals close to him (e.g., family members); though, due to the victim of the index offence being a stranger, his potential victim pool is quite large.
It is the clinical team’s unanimous opinion that Mr. Langelier continues to meet the threshold of significant threat to the safety of the public as defined by Winko. Mr. Langelier has not reached the ceiling of his current disposition and in fact has made very little progress in terms of privilege advancement due to rule violations and relapsing into substance use. Mr. Langelier continues to require the intensive supervision and monitoring only afforded by a Detention Order. When Mr. Langelier is ready to be discharged into the community it will be critical for the hospital to be able to return him to hospital expeditiously and to be able to approve his accommodation to effectively manage his risk to the safety of the public. Without the oversight of the forensic system Mr. Langelier will undoubtedly use substances and disengage from treatment. This would likely result in a deterioration of his mental state and re-emergence of psychotic symptomatology, which would be a significant risk to the safety of the general public. Therefore, we are recommending a continuation of the current Detention Order.”
The Board has no trouble concluding that the requirement for Mr. Langelier to abstain from cannabis must remain in his current Disposition. Unlike Davis (Re) 2022 ONCA 716, we have a tremendous amount of evidence before us that links Mr. Langelier’s cannabis use to his risk to public safety. The doctor’s uncontroverted evidence before us, as supported by the Hospital Report, is that Mr. Langelier has a substance-induced psychosis disorder, in remission, as well as a cannabis use disorder. Should he use cannabis, he would increase his quantity and frequency, which would have a direct impact on his psychosis disorder, causing him to act in a manner similar to that of the Index Offence. It should be noticed that the Index Offence was extremely serious. Mr. Langelier has never shown that he can control his urges for cannabis, and he continues to use it despite knowing that it is prohibited in his Disposition.
The next issue before the Board is whether the word “supervised” should be deleted from his Disposition. The doctor’s evidence, which we accept, is that the word should be included in his Disposition. The hospital feels that he should be initially transferred to supervised accommodation and that removing the word would have a negative therapeutic impact. The doctor further advised that the treatment team would call for an early hearing, once Mr. Langelier is ready to be discharged to live in the community, if the occupational therapist report indicated that he could live in non-supervised, approved accommodation.
Based on the evidence before us, it is quite clear that Mr. Langelier needs to be carefully monitored for his use of substances, and anything less than supervised accommodation would put public safety at risk. It should also be noted that Mr. Langelier has not even enjoyed level 4 indirectly supervised privileges for a sustained period, which is a precondition to any consideration of discharge. Accordingly, at this stage of his progress, it is highly unlikely that Mr. Langelier would be ready to be discharged into the community within the next reporting year.
In consideration of all the evidence, submissions of the parties and taking into consideration the criteria set forth in s. 672.54, the paramount consideration being the safety of the public, in addition to the mental condition of Mr. Langelier, his reintegration into society and his other needs, the necessary and appropriate Disposition is to continue with a Detention Order.
DATED this 26^th^ day of February, 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Mr. J. Weinstein Alternate Chairperson
__________________
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board