Re: Leroy Leyen
ORB File No: 8138
Hearing held on: Monday, January 27, 2025
Place of hearing: Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. T. Mann Dr. A. D. Jones Members: Dr. S. Wiseman Ms. K. Tomaszewski Ms. C. Plyley
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Leroy Leyen (by videoconference) Counsel: Mr. C. Dobson
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Zamprogna
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. D. Rows
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated February 27, 2025)
Introduction
On September 1, 2022, Mr. Leroy Leyen was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”), on charges of assault with a weapon (x2), mischief not exceeding $5,000, utter a threat to cause death or bodily harm, utter threat to kill, poison or injure an animal or bird, and failure to comply with probation order, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”). Mr. Leyen is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”) dated November 15, 2023, detaining him at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care, St. Joseph’s Healthcare London (“Southwest” or ”Hospital”) with privileges up to living in the community of Southwestern Ontario in accommodation approved by the person in charge; and to attend a drug and alcohol rehabilitation program anywhere in the Province of Ontario for a period not exceeding 90 days.
On January 27, 2025, the Board convened a hearing at Southwest Centre to conduct a hearing, pursuant to s. 672.81(1). Because the roads in his area had become impassable due to inclement weather, Mr. Leyen was present by videoconference. He was represented by his counsel, Mr. Christopher Dobson.
A hospital report of January 2025 (the “Hospital Report”), over the signature of Dr. Arun Prakash was entered as Exhibit 1.
Dr. Prakash raised a preliminary matter. He had seen Mr. Leyen prior to Mr. Leyen having been found NCR. None of the parties expressed any concerns about a conflict and none of the parties had any objection to Dr. Prakash continuing as a witness for the hospital.
The issue at this hearing is whether Mr. Leyen 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.
The parties provided the Board with their initial positions at the outset of the hearing. Ms. Zamprogna advised that the Hospital’s position is that Mr. Leyen continues to present a significant threat to the public, and that the appropriate and necessary disposition is a Detention Disposition. The Hospital recommendations were contained at pages 42-43 of the Hospital Report, being essentially a renewal of last year’s Disposition with changes to subparagraph 2(f) to permit two week passes in the Province of Ontario rather than in Southwestern Ontario. Mr. Rows for the Attorney General joined in the Hospital submissions and recommendations. Mr. Dobson conceded that for the purposes of this hearing Mr. Leyen continues to present a significant threat to the safety of the public but wished to explore the possibility of a conditional discharge rather than a detention disposition.
For the reasons set out below and based on the expert evidence and opinions before it, the Board concluded that Mr. Leyen presents a significant threat to the safety of the public, and that the necessary and appropriate disposition in the circumstances is a continuation of the detention order with one change: passes for up to two weeks in the Province of Ontario with an approved person.
Current Psychiatric Diagnoses:
- Bipolar Disorder – Type 1 Substance Use Disorder
Index Offences
- The circumstances giving rise to the Index Offences are found in the Hospital Report pages 3-5, as follows:
"Assault with a Weapon Contrary to S. 267(A) CCC
On the 14th of February 2022 between 8:00 and 9:00 A.M. at 89742 Fordwich Line in the Township of Howick, the accused Leroy LEYEN attended Wilene LEYEN's house and threatened to kill her and burn her body and put it inside a small box, then Leroy LEYEN proceeded to break a metal spoon and used the metal shank of the spoon and took a stabbing motion with the shank and stopped just as he hit the victim’s skin on the left side of her neck under her ear. Wilene LEYEN was very frightened and proceeded to back away from Leroy LEYEN in an attempt to escape. Subsequently Leroy LEYEN was charged with Assault with a weapon contrary to section 267 (A) of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Assault with a Weapon Contrary to S. 267 (A) CCC
On the 14th of February 2022 between 9:00 and 9:30 A.M. at 89742 Fordwich Line in the Township of Howick, the accused Leroy LEYEN attended Wilene LEYEN's house and threatened to kill her and burn her body and put it inside a small box, then Leroy LEYEN proceeded to pick up a black meat hack saw. The accused then proceeded to threaten to cut up the victim with it. Wilene LEYEN became very frightened and proceeded to escape and run to her car and drive off to her son's residence for safety. Subsequently Leroy LEYEN was charged with Assault with a weapon contrary to section 267 (A) of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Mischief Contrary to S. 430(4) CCC
On the 13th of February 2022 between 9:00 A.M. at 89742 Fordwich Line in the Township of Howick, the accused Leroy LEYEN attended Wilene LEYEN's house. Wilene LEYEN locked the door, which caused Leroy LEYEN to become angry and proceed to hit the door aggressively. The victim did not wish for the accused to break the window to the door and proceeded to unlock the door. The accused was very angry and proceeded toward Wilene LEYEN in an aggressive manner causing her to fear for her life and back up toward the glass wall and then proceed to crawl away from him in an attempt to flee. Leroy LEYEN became mad and to grab the kitchen table and flip it, causing it to land on the chair and damage it. Leroy LEYEN has no colour of right to the table and subsequently Leroy LEYEN was charged with Mischief contrary to section 430(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Uttering Threats - Injure Animal Contrary to S. 264.1(1)(C) CCC
Between the 8th and the 9th of February 2022 before 12:00 P.M. at 89742 Fordwich Line in the Township of Howick, Wilene LEYEN was walking her dog on the property when Leroy LEYEN proceeded to threaten to shoot Wilene LEYEN's German Sheppard dog.
Fail to Comply with Probation Order Contrary to S. 733.1(1) CCC
On the 14th of February 2022 between 8:00 and 9:00 A.M. at 89742 Fordwich Line in the Township of Howick, the accused Leroy LEYEN attended Wilene LEYEN's house and threatened to kill her and burn her body and put it inside a small box, then Leroy LEYEN proceeded to break a metal spoon and used the metal shank of the spoon and took a stabbing motion with the shank and stopped just as he hit the victim’s skin on the left side of her neck under her ear. Wilene LEYEN was very frightened and proceeded to back away from Leroy LEYEN in an attempt to escape. Consequently Leroy LEYEN failed to comply with the condition of keep the peace and be of good behaviour. Subsequently Leroy LEYEN was charged with Fail to Comply With Probation Order contrary to section 733.1(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Uttering Threats - Cause death or Bodily Harm-Spousal Contrary to S. 264.1(1)(a) CCC On the 14th of February 2022 Leroy LEYEN was arrested and charge the above charges. Leyen was transported to the Huron Detachment located at 325 Albert Street in Clinton and placed into cell #4. While in police custody Leyen utter a threat to cause death to his wife Wilene LEYEN. Leroy Leyen uttered "I'm going to kill Wilene when I get home". Leyen continued to utter that he would kill his wife upon his release. The threats were witnessed by Dave Walker who was working in the capacity of an OPP guard."
Background:
According to Mr. Leyen’s CPIC, dated August 30, 2022, he has a criminal record of eight previous convictions, starting in 1986, with the most recent one being in 2021. These include charges for possession of narcotics, failure to comply, utter threats, assault, and dangerous operation of a conveyance. The Hospital Report also contained a reference to firearms offences.
Full details of Mr. Leyen’s psychiatric history are set out in the Hospital Report. In brief, Mr. Leyen had three psychiatric admissions in quick succession at the London Psychiatric Hospital, in 1994 and 1995. Several of these required involuntary admission under the Mental Health Act (“MHA”). He also received treatment while being incarcerated, from August to September 2021, at the Monteith Correctional Complex.
Mr. Leyen has an extensive substance abuse history involving alcohol, cannabis, cocaine, and opioids. He had previously been referred to a residential substance abuse treatment program in 1995 but left without complying with the program. His substance use was associated with numerous social and occupational problems, including violent behaviours, criminal charges, relationship difficulties and property destruction.
Initially, Mr. Leyen was impulsive, argumentative, and aggressive in hospital. In 2022, he required locked seclusion between June 1 and 4, on June 18 and 19 and for several hours on June 24. On June 1, 2022, staff found a rope tied in Mr. Leyen’s room, created from his bed sheets.
Lithium therapy was initiated on June 24, 2022. His response to the medication was significant, and within days staff observed changes in his behaviour. Mr. Leyen’s mood stabilized, and he became cooperative. The symptoms of overt mania disappeared. There was no further evidence of psychosis. Staff noted that Mr. Leyen was polite, and he was engaged in conversation.
Given Mr. Leyen’s history of head injuries and the results of cognitive testing which revealed some difficulties in executive functioning, he underwent an MRI on June 17, 2022. The MRI images were reviewed by Dr. Mokhber, a psychiatrist at the Southwest Centre with significant experience in neuropsychiatry. The MRI indicated a notable finding of generalized brain volume loss. In Dr. Mokhber’s opinion, the brain changes could be due to chronic hypertension, substance use or a combination of the two. It did not appear to be progressive.
Evidence at the Hearing:
The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence from Dr. Arun Prakash.
Dr. Prakash is Mr. Leyen’s attending psychiatrist and he adopted the contents of the Hospital Report.
Dr. Prakash testified that Mr. Leyen has had a good year.
Dr. Prakash became Mr. Leyen’s attending psychiatrist in June of 2024. At that time, Mr. Leyen was living with his son, but for various reasons, he moved into his own house on one of his farms in the same area on August 28, 2024.
According to Dr. Prakash, Mr. Leyen keeps his home clean and tidy and manages his own ADL’s. His wife assists with obtaining groceries.
Mr. Leyen’s test results have not indicated any alcohol consumption.
He is visited by one good friend, and by his wife. He sees his grandchildren on weekends. He is currently unable to drive and is dependent on others for transportation.
Mr. Leyen is a semi-retired farmer. He interjected to tell the Board that he “picks up dead chickens three times per week.” He goes for walks with his dog, but he lives in an isolated area and has had no access to other activities or any structured programs. Dr. Prakash expressed concern that Mr. Leyen does not have enough structure in his day to act as a protective factor against relapse into alcohol use.
Mr. Leyen continues to respond well to treatment with lithium, and his blood levels indicate that Mr. Leyen has been taking the medication as prescribed. Mr. Leyen’s mood has been largely stable. He has started taking Seroquel at night, which helps Mr. Leyen to sleep.
Mr. Leyen is determined to abstain from alcohol. To his credit, he does not appear to have used alcohol while living in the community. His wife, the victim of the index offence, visits him and assists with providing him with groceries.
Despite these protective factors, Dr. Prakash is concerned that Mr. Leyen remains vulnerable to relapse into alcohol and cannabis use. He lives in an isolated area with few structured activities. He has historically dealt with his mental disorder and environmental triggers with alcohol and cannabis use. He has talked about cravings for alcohol and cannabis. While he has attended rehabilitation programs in the past, he was a passive participant. He needs a longer period of stability before he is ready for a conditional discharge.
Mr. Leyen’s insight into his illness has improved, but he does not yet have complete insight into the nature of his illness and any early warning signs. In the past, the outreach team relied on the family to report any symptoms but their ability to do so fluctuated.
Dr. Prakash was unclear whether Mr. Leyen’s lack of insight flows from cognitive issues including memory problems, or from his personality since Mr. Leyen wishes to depend on himself with no external supports. Mr. Leyen has declined medical intervention to suppress his cravings for alcohol and cannabis, preferring to rely on himself and not on medications.
Mr. Leyen decompensates very quickly. According to his family, he becomes very angry very quickly. Historically, anger has been associated with alcohol use. Alcohol was a contributing factor in the index offence. The key is Mr. Leyen’s ability to manage stress. In the past the onset of mania was quick, with abrupt violence. If Mr. Leyen relapses it is essential to bring him back to the hospital expeditiously to protect the safety of the public.
Dr. Prakash sees Mr. Leyen every two months. Other staff see him four times per month. Because Mr. Leyen has a pattern of abrupt decompensation, if Mr. Leyen relapses, he will not recognize the symptoms and will not reach out for help. The family has yet to develop insight into the early warning signs, and because of the distance from the hospital, the outreach team cannot easily monitor Mr. Leyen’s early warning signs.
Dr. Prakash would not be able to see Mr. Leyen within the time frame required to issue a Form 1 under the Mental Health Act. Mr. Leyen has a GP in another town (Wingham), but the GP does not monitor for decompensation. Mr. Leyen has no other psychiatric supports in the community.
As a result, the hospital relies on the Warrant of Committal to bring Mr. Leyen back to the hospital expeditiously if he decompensates.
In response to questions from panel members, Dr. Prakash agreed that more can be done by the outreach team to help Mr. Leyen to explore the availability of community-based mental health supports, perhaps expanding the search area to nearby towns, as well as social activities to help Mr. Leyen become less isolative and to bring more structure to his day. The focus up to this point has been on helping him maintain stability while transitioning to his home setting and learning to navigate the complexities of relationships with his family members without resorting to maladaptive coping behaviours as he did in the past when stressed or mentally unwell.
Submissions:
Ms. Zamprogna submitted that Mr. Leyen continues to present a significant threat to the public. She pointed out that when Mr. Leyen was unwell and using substances it led to the Index Offences, and that while Mr. Leyen has had a strong response to lithium there is a high rate of relapse for bipolar disorder even with treatment, especially in the presence of stressors. Mr. Leyen has not yet completed a residential treatment program, and his insight is partial and continuing to develop. He has expressed cravings and has enquired into harm reduction. He wants to manage without the assistance of medications.
While to his credit he has abstained during his transition to living in the community, more programming is needed. His insight, as well as the insight of his family needs to improve. He lives alone, close to the victim, and remote from the hospital.
Because of his rapid deterioration and abrupt violence in the past, the hospital needs to be able to bring him back quickly. Mr. Leyen is capable to make decisions related to the treatment of his mental disorder, and the Mental Health Act is not sufficiently proactive to manage the risk to the public in these circumstances.
Mr. Rows agreed with the hospital’s submissions.
Mr. Dobson indicated that Mr. Leyen did not need to be in approved accommodation because there was nowhere else, he wished to live. The conditions contained in paragraph 3 of the proposed disposition (abstain from non-medical alcohol/drugs; submit samples of breath/urine; firearm prohibition; no contact with victim of index offence without victim’s consent; reporting requirements) could appropriately be included in a conditional discharge. He does not currently need a residential rehabilitation program at this stage. While Mr. Leyen does not object to a detention disposition, he hopes for a conditional discharge.
Analysis and Conclusion:
Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence as well as the submissions from the parties, the Board finds that Mr. Leyen remains a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board makes this finding based on Dr. Prakash’s testimony and documentary evidence available at the hearing.
Mr. Leyen has an extensive criminal record, a history of violence and an extensive alcohol and substance abuse history. He also has a history of a major mental disorder, which required several involuntary psychiatric admissions, under the MHA. To his credit, he has been abstinent during the past year and has been adherent to medications, but he has only been living independently since August 2024. His insight and that of his family are still developing. His days are largely unstructured, and he is vulnerable to relapse. His stability has yet to be determined over a long enough period of time.
Mr. Leyen does not have professional supports in the community and has not had access to structured activities and additional relapse prevention programming. He and his family require additional psychoeducational programming to increase their awareness of the nature of his mental illness, and the early warning signs of a relapse.
The Board accepts the Re-Offence Scenario, as set out at page 41 in the Hospital Report:
“Absent forensic supervision and support, Mr. Leyen would experience several stressors, including returning to a living situation close to the victim of the index offence. He would likely manage his stress with substance use, as he has historically. Substance use would contribute to destabilization and the recurrence of his major mental illness symptoms, contributing to medication nonadherence. This confluence of risk factors would exacerbate his psychotic symptoms, and he would become disinhibited, impulsive, and reckless with increased aggression and behaviours similar to his index offence.”
- The Board also relies on, and accepts, the Overall Clinical Assessment of Risk as set out in the Hospital Report at pages 41-42:
“It is the opinion of the treatment team that Mr. Leyen continues to pose a risk of serious physical or psychological harm to members of the public. The hospital is of the view that a detention order is necessary and appropriate disposition to protect public safety, while facilitating his rehabilitation and safe community reintegration. The following evidence supports this opinion:
Mr. Leyen has been diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder. Although his symptoms are currently manageable with his medication regime, his illness has a high relapse rate, and he remains in the early stages of his treatment. His historical violent behaviours have been clearly associated with periods of mania;
Mr. Leyen has a significant history of substance use, which is also clearly associated with episodes of decompensated mental illness and violent behaviours. While he has been abstinent since his transition to the community, there are concerns that with increased stress, he may resort to substance use to cope;
Mr. Leyen continues to have underdeveloped insight into his index offences, warning signs of his mental illness, risk for violence, and need for future treatment and supervision, especially as they relate to substance use issues;
Mr. Leyen has no plans of his own regarding integrating professional supports into his treatment external to his existing Forensic supports; and
Mr. Leyen has a history of nonadherence with treatment and supervision. He does not see the need for Outreach’s support, and he continues to downplay the importance of his medication over the long term.
In light of the Board’s finding of significant threat, it is charged with shaping a Disposition for the coming year. The panel turned its mind to whether a conditional discharge was necessary and appropriate in the circumstance, and after careful consideration, concluded it was not.
To support Mr. Leyen’s continued progress in the community, the Hospital continues to need to be able to approve his accommodation to ensure that it is safe and that it is conducive to supporting Mr. Leyen’s mental stability. While it is true that Mr. Leyen appears likely to remain in his current residential setting, the complex interpersonal dynamics between himself and members of his family remain a potential stressor. Avoiding disruption of his living arrangements is an important risk-mitigation strategy.
The provisions of the MHA would not be sufficient to manage Mr. Leyen’s risk if he required admission while living in the community on a Conditional Discharge. In the absence of a Detention Order, bringing him back to hospital, and keeping him there beyond a 72-hour observation period that a Form 1 allows, would pose a significant challenge. Mr. Leyen is deemed capable, so he would not be Box B certifiable. Moreover, the Hospital would not likely be able to keep him under a Form 1.
Mr. Leyen is living in close proximity to the victim of the Index Offences. If Mr. Leyen suffers a relapse, it will be essential for the team to be able to act quickly to remove Mr. Leyen from the area to ensure the safety of the victim.
In consideration of all the evidence, submissions of the parties and 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. Leyen, his reintegration into society and his other needs, the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Detention Disposition with the clauses described earlier in these Reasons.
In keeping promoting Mr. Leyen’s integration into the community and further liberalizing his Disposition, the Board expanded the catchment area for community passes to the Province of Ontario to allow him the opportunity to travel to property that he owns in Northern Ontario.
The Board wishes to recognize the good year Mr. Leyen had and encourages him to continue to remain abstinent, and to cooperate with the team’s efforts to expand the community supports available to him.
The Board urges the hospital to provide additional psychoeducation to Mr. Leyen and his family to recognize the early warning signs of decompensation; explore enhanced internet connectivity for Mr. Leyen to help increase his ability to connect with others for virtual mental health supports and to lessen his social isolation, particularly during the winter months when the weather is inclement; seek out professional support for Mr. Leyen in his community; connect Mr. Leyen with structured activities in his community; and to access such relapse prevention support and programming as may be available to Mr. Leyen in his community.
DATED this 27th day of February 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Ms. K. Tomaszewski Legal Member
_______________________ Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board